The Third Wave

[JKmadu619]

I saw a television program about the third-wave neo-nazi movement that happened in the 1960's where a teacher turned a majority of a sophmore class into neo-nazis. Before diving into this debate, I highly recomend reading this first:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Wave

- Justin

[Sythan]

What's there to debate about? A teacher ran an experiment to show the dangers of becoming a fascist society even in a strong democratic country. I don't really see a debate, I saw a teacher going above and beyond in his job.

[JKmadu619]

Of course, but on the program some people argued his practice was immoral, and he was actually fired from his job for his "Immoral" practices. So I guess a better thing to debate and speculate on is: Was the practice immoral? Did he deserve to do fired? Do you feel if the study was carried out in modern times, would students still "fall" for the 'trick'?

- Justin

[TigerTank77]

Interesting experiment.

Horrible, awful book.

[Guile]

Agreed, it was an interesting experiment, but the book wasn't as great.

Overall I think Fascism is slandered far too much, it's actually quite an effective system of government.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Guile

Overall I think Fascism is slandered far too much, it's actually quite an effective system of government.

Depends entirely on your view of the function of government, particularly in terms of how it treats people who don't conform to its chosen ideal. That however is another topic.

It's an interesting experiment, and reminds me a lot of the Milgram experiment in terms of the impact of authoritarian figures on otherwise free-thinking individuals. I understand the ethical concerns about it, but it certainly provides an insight into our true nature. It also rather gives the lie to Sam Harris' claim that in order for good people to do bad things, you need religion - on the basis of these experiments, all you need is a suitably strong central authority and God has nothing to do with it. That is also another topic, however.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by dr2005

Depends entirely on your view of the function of government, particularly in terms of how it treats people who don't conform to its chosen ideal. That however is another topic.

It's an interesting experiment, and reminds me a lot of the Milgram experiment in terms of the impact of authoritarian figures on otherwise free-thinking individuals. I understand the ethical concerns about it, but it certainly provides an insight into our true nature. It also rather gives the lie to Sam Harris' claim that in order for good people to do bad things, you need religion - on the basis of these experiments, all you need is a suitably strong central authority and God has nothing to do with it. That is also another topic, however.

Don't you mean Steve Weinberg?

Since you brought it up though, I wouldn't say God has nothing to do with it. Certainly the quote is an exaggeration for effect, as most quote are, but the point itself still stands: "Sufficiently atrong authority makes otherwise good people do immoral things," and as far as authorities go, Almighty God is pretty damn high on the list.

As you say though, that's another topic. More generally, I would say this: never trust authority implicitly, never forego your responsibility to be skeptical, and never ever trust any feeling that tells you that you are superior to another thinking being. If you can think yourself superior to a rapist or a theif, then you can think yourself superior to a pauper or a jew. The only safe way to be a good person is to be good to everyone, not only to those who you judge to be worthy.

[~Mr. Self Destruct~]

I recall watching a spin on this; a documentry called "The Wave" whilst studying Milgram in Psychology.
Indeed, a very eye-opening social experiment.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Don't you mean Steve Weinberg?

Shit. Was reading a Sam Harris article and the name stuck - sorry. I really need to raise my game from now onwards, this is just getting sloppy.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Since you brought it up though, I wouldn't say God has nothing to do with it. Certainly the quote is an exaggeration for effect, as most quote are, but the point itself still stands: "Sufficiently atrong authority makes otherwise good people do immoral things," and as far as authorities go, Almighty God is pretty damn high on the list.

That isn't what Weinberg said, though, is it? (Especially now I've got the name right this time!) He said, and I quote, "But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Not, "But for good people to do evil things, that takes a sufficiently strong authority" - if he had said that, I would not object so much. As he does, I do.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

As you say though, that's another topic. More generally, I would say this: never trust authority implicitly, never forego your responsibility to be skeptical, and never ever trust any feeling that tells you that you are superior to another thinking being. If you can think yourself superior to a rapist or a theif, then you can think yourself superior to a pauper or a jew. The only safe way to be a good person is to be good to everyone, not only to those who you judge to be worthy.

I agree entirely. (Didn't see that one coming I imagine! )

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by dr2005

That isn't what Weinberg said, though, is it? (Especially now I've got the name right this time!) He said, and I quote, "But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Not, "But for good people to do evil things, that takes a sufficiently strong authority" - if he had said that, I would not object so much. As he does, I do.

Are you familiar with the principle of charity?

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Are you familiar with the principle of charity?

I am indeed; I apply it as a matter of principle. Unfortunately, I do not see how it can apply to his use of the word "religion" without calling into question the rationality of the choice of words, which somewhat defeats the point of the principle of charity. It is intended to prevent misconstrual of statements, not to prevent someone being hoisted by their own petard if such statements are flawed. "Religion" has a particular meaning, and one which I am confident Weinberg was fully aware of when he made that statement. The full passage, after all, was as follows:

Originally Posted by Steven Weinberg

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Source.

[Guile]

Originally Posted by dr2005

Depends entirely on your view of the function of government, particularly in terms of how it treats people who don't conform to its chosen ideal. That however is another topic.

Sorry for the late reply.

The only purpose of government is to maintain the existence of government. I think, as Nigel Hawthorne once said, while playing the role of Sir Humphrey Appleby (A member of Her Majesty's Civil Service).

"Hacker: How many people do we have in this department?
Sir Humphrey: Ummm... well, we're very small...
Hacker: Two, maybe three thousand?
Sir Humphrey: About twenty three thousand to be precise.
Hacker: TWENTY THREE THOUSAND! In the department of administrative affairs, twenty three thousand adminstrators just to administer the other administrators! We need to do a time-and-motion study, see who we can get rid of.
Sir Humphrey: Ah, well, we did one of those last year.
Hacker: And what were the results?
Sir Humphrey: It turned out that we needed another five hundred people."

[BDF]

I think a government should treat people like people, not like machines or expendable resources. In my opinion that rules out fascism. I've got no source that it's what fascism constitutes, but it's based on observation, history lessons, TV documentaries etc.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by Guile

The only purpose of government is to maintain the existence of government.

[citation needed]

[Guile]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

[citation needed]

Ayn Rand, philosopher and writer.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by Guile

Ayn Rand, philosopher and writer.

There is no god.

Source: Ayn Rand, philosopher and writer.

Sorry bub, either proclaim your atheism now or do better than claiming Ayn Rand as a fundamental authority of politics.

[Guile]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

There is no god.

Source: Ayn Rand, philosopher and writer.

Sorry bub, either proclaim your atheism now or do better than claiming Ayn Rand as a fundamental authority of politics.

She can be right about one thing, and wrong about another.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by Guile

She can be right about one thing, and wrong about another.

Okay, so she's right about god but wrong about government. Glad we got that sorted out.

Originally Posted by Guile

The only purpose of government is to maintain the existence of government.

[citation still needed]

[Guile]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Okay, so she's right about god but wrong about government. Glad we got that sorted out.



[citation still needed]

I know I walked myself into that one after I logged off of my computer

Overall though, government is run by people who have an interest in sustaining and expanding the strength of the government, the whole "for the people, by the people" concept is nonsense, it doesn't work.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by Guile

"for the people, by the people" concept is nonsense, it doesn't work.

[Guile]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

I'm not saying it's not desirable, but the system always breaks down, one group of people takes too much power and it becomes democratic only in name, or no one has any power and nothing gets done. You need a level of central authority to efficiently run a government.