7 ms·
Equality for all? And everyone fails...
- D_Alex 15y agoInteresting, but: citation needed.
- zealoushacker 15y agoThis made the rounds some time ago on the interwebs. I just thought I'd repost it on my blog, due to the disgusting things that are going on in politics right now.
- tariqk 15y agoYou mean like the Republican political party's faithful cheering on the fact that Rick Perry presided over more executions during his tenure? I think your definition of "disgusting" is different from mine.
- zealoushacker 15y agoThe Republican party's faithful cheering of Perry's executions is relatively speaking just as "disgusting" as the Democrats' cheering for raising taxes on the "rich." Both cheering sections espouse similar horrific philosophies of human life, which at their extremes are philosophies of death. So, now that we have that out of the way, are you sure that our definitions are different? ;)
- zealoushacker 15y agoAnd it does say "Anonymous" for a reason ;)
- alanhenry 15y agoAgreed. The whole "experiment" reads like more like a politically-themed chain letter--the kind you'd get from a particularly eccentric aunt who found their way onto Facebook--than an actual exercise in sociology.
- johnubis 15y agoSo its... unlikely? PROBABILISTIC FALLACY, TRY AGAIN.
- Volpe 15y agoDo you actually have a point to make, or are you just assisting people in pointing out Rhetoric? (without calling attention to your own?) I've responded above with a somewhat sensible view point. How about you contribute there?
- zealoushacker 15y agohttp://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp
- chc 15y agoThat citation appears to say it's pure propaganda, which really makes me wonder why you'd post something you know to be untrue both on your blog and on Hacker News. I could post my own fairy tale about how a teacher decided to divide grades equally among a whole class and the newfound accountability to their fellow students pushed the slackers to become hard workers and everybody not only received an A but earned it. They're both plain fantasies that exist only to pander to people who already agree with the message.
- zealoushacker 15y agoI simply posted what I had found after having posted my original article... would you rather I had taken down the article and avoided controversy? To stay open to criticism, vs to remain closed and simply pretend like nothing happened? Which one?
- johnubis 15y agoIMAGINATION NEEDED
- Volpe 15y agoIt's a strawman arguement. You can't substitute grades for money. Because there are more drivers than just 'success' in "the real world" In reality... The people who were getting "F"s would be earning no money, so they'd all starve, their families would starve... You really think they'll just think "well I won't do anything, cause I don't like how this system works". Also, you are running the test on a group of people who have been conditioned into the capitalist way of thinking, of course they find socialism unsustainable, just as socialists find capitalism unsustainable. Run an inverse capitalist experiment and tell the class "I'm only going to give these 2 guys here As and the rest of you will get C-s regardless how hard you work because their dads paid me some $$$" -- See how well the class goes then.
- zealoushacker 15y agoWhy can't I substitute grades for money? In our current educational system, grades are a measure of value, determined just as arbitrarily as USD or Euros, by just as an arbitrary an authority. You can think of grades as educational fiat currency. The people whom are getting Fs are the ones who'd be on welfare. And they'd have no incentive of getting out.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- Volpe 15y agoI explained, there are more drivers than 'success' in the real world, that are not simulated by grades. The example in the OP illustrates a 'crash' of a socialist system, by saying everyone gets Fs, if you convert that into money, you are talking about a complete crash of equity (i.e there is no money to share around). Meaning there is no welfare, meaning they all starve, with their families. You don't die, if you get a bad grade, you do die, if you don't eat. I'm saying before a complete collapse you would trigger peoples survival instincts and they would work - just to survive (similar to china from the 50s-70s). At less extreme cases people will always want to improve their living situation, and thus will strive to generate more capital (or more directly, contributing value to their community).
- bryanlarsen 15y agoOnly in America could Obama be called a socialist. In most other countries of the world, his policies and platforms would be considered slightly RIGHT of center. A socialist would have: - nationalized the banks instead of bailing them out. - cut the insurance companies out of health care instead of bringing in a health care plan very similar to the one proposed by the republicans in the 90s. - called for increased taxation on corporations to balance the deficit - immediately pulled out of Iraq & Afghanistan.
- zealoushacker 15y ago-Bailing banks out and nationalizing them are virtually equivalent. Especially given the bailout terms. -The proposed (and enacted) health plan does cut out all insurance companies, which don't comply with its terms. -Increased taxes on the "wealthy" is an indirect tax on the corporations, since it is the "wealthy" which make those corporations possible. -Why would a socialist pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, when those are good justifications for perpetuating the same policies currently in place?
- MaysonL 15y agoBailing banks out and nationalizing them are virtually equivalent. Except for the results for shareholders, bondholders, and executives, all of whom end up much better off after the bailouts.
- zealoushacker 15y agoAnd with the inclusion of the taxpayers who made the bailouts possible and who will ultimately pay the highest price. Yay for corporatism with a socialist twist.
- zealoushacker 15y agoSeeing that this got flagged down, simply means to me that the folks who flagged this comment down have no respect for reality...
- tzs 15y agoObama's socialism? 30 years ago Obama could have had shot at winning as a Republican. To call him a socialist is ridiculous.
- zealoushacker 15y agoTo be more precise, Obama's a corporatist with socialist leanings ;)
- zealoushacker 15y agoWhy did I get -2 points on this comment? How is this wrong?
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- tariqk 15y agoIf I wanted to read stupid-ass chain letters repeating the same old boring irrelevant political talking points repeated by the mainstream media I'd be reading my Facebook feed.
- ricardobeat 15y agoPointless and biased exercise. Nobody would stop working just to avoid paying for other people's welfare, and only fools argue for absolute equality.
- johnubis 15y agoWhat people should do and what they actually do, is two separate entities. Try again.
- garethsprice 15y agoYou know what's more damaging to American politics than the LURKING RED MENACE of socialism? Uncited, anonymous propaganda designed to get people frothing at the mouth and to see people with opposing viewpoints as nothing more than gullible idiots. http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp
- OpieCunningham 15y agoClinton was a centrist, far from socialist politician. Obama seeks the same top marginal tax rate as Clinton, while supporting lower taxes in many other areas, placing Obama to the right of Clinton. If this absurd analogy had any merit, we would have all failed many times over in the 8 year Clinton presidency. I'm also curious what the OP means when he calls Obama a "corporatist socialist". Considering the vast bulk of Obama's policies have been the socialization of losses and the privatization of profits, that phrase may be an apt description, though I get the impression thats not what the OP meant to say.
- johnubis 15y agoI consider any inequality in tax rates to be socialist, its in Marx's fucking ten point plan. How is that not socialist?
- tzs 15y agoEquality of rates still means people that have more pay more, so shouldn't you be arguing for equality in amount paid, not equality in rates?
- noahc 15y agoMarx wasn't a socialist. ;)
- zealoushacker 15y agoAre you kidding me??? "Karl Heinrich Marx (5 May 1818 – 14 March 1883) was a German philosopher, sociologist, economic historian, journalist, and revolutionary socialist who developed the socio-political theory of Marxism. " -Wikipedia article If you tell me that Wikipedia is not a legitimate source for the above information, shall I point you to 10 other sources that will corroborate the above?? You must have been born on another planet.
- noahc 15y agoThe point I was making is that what Marx believed is called Marxism and not socialism. They differ in a number of ways. 1.One is the Marxism is derived from the Hegelian German tradition of a dialectical view of social change. 2.Marxism argues that socialism is a possible, but not necessary step between capitalism and marxism. The more revolutionary the more likely this step should be avoided. 3. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism and notice how they use socialism and in what context. They use it in opposition of Marxism and Communism.
- angdis 15y agoWhy is it that libertarians often resort to lame "parable-like" stories to get their point across? Is there really such a dearth of real, concrete examples from which to draw? It might be forgivable if the parables were at least interesting or original. But this one has been recycled on senior citizen mailing lists for at least a couple of years now. You can find it splattered all over the Internet wherever tea partiers like to distribute their propaganda.
- zealoushacker 15y agoI am not a libertarian. I am also neither a Republican, nor a Democrat. I've already apologized for the mistake of posting something that doesn't have attribution and is baseless. Still, I appreciate your input.
- chx 15y agohttp://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp shame on you!
- tptacek 15y agoThis story is literally the archetype of a bad HN submission. I'm surprised and disappointed it lasted 13 hours. Of course I flagged it.
- zealoushacker 15y agoThanks for flagging it - I need to learn what constitutes a bad HN submission. Would you please elucidate why it's a bad submission?
- zealoushacker 15y agoNever mind, I just read: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html FYI: Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.
- tptacek 15y agoI think the "don't comment, just flag" guideline is often counterproductive. Just look what happened here: my comment got you to read the site guidelines. You wouldn't have even known I flagged the post. So, I ignore that particular guideline, and you can feel free to downmod my comment; I assure you I don't mind.
- zealoushacker 15y agoOk, to those of you whom have responded kindly to my mistake and did not act like children, thank you. I wrote this in answer to your honorable requests: http://alexnotov.com/post/10752273733/a-mistake-on-my-part-re-last-post http://alexnotov.com/post/10752273733/a-mistake-on-my-part-r...