JackCh

> "This doesn't debunk anything. The thesis was that people would unquestioningly obey "an authority figure".

It debunks precisely that. The phenomena of obeying authoritiy figures is not ideologically neutral as the popular narrative suggests. Rather people make a decision about whether or not to comply with the authority figure based on whether or not their personal ideology aligns with the goals and motivations of that authority figure. In other words, it's not unquestioning obedience. People question the circumstance, question the motivation of the authority figure, and then make a decision about whether or not they will comply.

To put a finer point on it, people who follow orders from Nazis do so because they are themselves Nazis. People who follow orders from scientists do so because they believe in science. Demonstrating that x% of the general population near [university] during [year] follow the orders of scientists does not demonstrate that x% of that same population would follow orders from Nazis. This is contrary to the popular Milgram narrative that was sold to the public.

Facilitating tax evasion is one consideration (although trust me, delivery people fall into a very low tax bracket anyway...) But another consideration is the number of employers who try to keep tips for themselves. It's hard to know which businesses do this, so it's safer to just tip with cash.

I suppose that's where the disconnect is. I only order beers or shots of whisky. One dollar per drink keeps the bartenders attentive in my experience.

They have tip jars, but there is no social expectation that you should use them. Sometimes I drop my change in them if I don't want it in my pocket.

If you buy something at a counter, there is no social expectation that you tip (bartenders are the sole exception, but just give them a dollar not a percentage.) Nor for takeout, but you should definitely tip for delivery (those guys get a raw deal anyway, their pay sucks and they're almost always putting miles on their personal vehicle. Tip them with cash when possible, to make sure they get to keep it...)

The particular Nazi the Milgram Experiments are most associated with traditionally is Adolf Eichmann. Milgram's experiments were inspired by the trial of Adolf Eichmann, which began earlier that year (1961.) During that trial Adolf Eichmann infamously pleaded that he was merely following orders. He did not say the holocaust never happened, and he did not say he was unaware of it. He said that he was following orders.

The popular narrative of the Milgram experiments is that there exists such a psychological phenomenon in humans. That most humans follow orders, even orders they find deeply distressing. That's why the Milgram experiments shocked so many people; they were being told that if placed in the same position as Eichmann, they probably would have followed those same orders.

But we now know Eichmann's defense was bullshit, and a reexamination of the Milgram experiment results backs that up. People comply with orders when they agree with the motivation behind those orders; in the case of Eichmann the motivation behind the orders that he found agreeable was the wholesale slaughter of jews. In the case of the Milgram experiments, the motivation the teachers found agreeable was the advancement of science. An Amish man doubtlessly would have refused to comply in Milgram's experiments; and somebody opposed to the ideology of the Nazis would have refused to comply with the orders Eichmann received.

Even if they didn't see through the experiments; they still believed they were helping to advance the state of science.

Milgram's Experiments are often casually tossed around as proving that people blindly follow orders, but they actually showed the opposite. Teachers complied when they believed they shared a common cause with the experimenter (advancing science.) When this common cause was taken away, compliance rates plummeted. Removed from the prestige of Yale, compliance rates dropped; when the experimenter was not appealing to the necessity of science, compliance rates dropped.

What this demonstrates contrary to popular wisdom is that Adolf Eichmann's "I was just following orders" excuse was a load of shit. When the Milgram experiment results were first made public the narrative sold to people is that any common person would have become a Nazi had they been on the receiving end of those orders, just like Eichmann pleaded. The public was sold a bogus narrative about the experiments and this bogus narrative was subsequently reinforced by claims of the experiments being replicated (they were, but like in the original the experiments weren't demonstrating what they were claimed to demonstrate; that people blindly follow orders.)

Adolf Eichmann was not merely following orders, he was a true believer. This of course was revealed in quotes that came to light later:

>"Hätten wir 10,3 Millionen Juden getötet, dann wäre ich befriedigt und würde sagen, gut, wir haben einen Feind vernichtet. … Ich war kein normaler Befehlsempfänger, dann wäre ich ein Trottel gewesen, sondern ich habe mitgedacht, ich war ein Idealist gewesen." [If we would have killed 10.3 million Jews, then I would be satisfied and would say, good, we annihilated an enemy. … I wasn't only issued orders, in this case I'd have been a moron, but I rather anticipated, I was an idealist.]

> "And yet few ever got into prison for it when it was practiced."

Unsurprising since the act was a public display of societal contempt for the legal system. Often the person to be lynched would be torn from a jail by the mob; demonstrating that the judicial system had no power when faced by the will of the mob.

> "I find this almost giddy excitement over human sacrifice to be very off-putting."

Here is the perspective of the article's author: https://mobile.twitter.com/lizzie_wade/status/10101786813340...

I found it to be... illuminating.

When it comes to software security, second chances are for accidents.

The lower chance of it happening on Patreon is important. It's the reason why youtube creators are using Patreon to provide themselves with relative stability in light of Youtube's capriciousness.

Did you miss the part where basically nobody would give their child a box full of non-magnetic BBs anyway? Even if you had no clue magnets were dangerous, if you thought they were the safety equivalent of stainless steel BBs, you wouldn't give a toddler a box of them.

> "That does not follow logically at all."

I never said it follows in a strict mathematical sense, I said it was implied, and implied that it was implied in an informal sense. And I stand by that. By saying that most people don't read warning labels you absolutely meant to suggest that that a very large portion of the population would have trouble with products which require warning labels.

You were saying they were an asshole, in both versions. Trying to be coy about it doesn't change it. I'm not sure why you bothered to be coy about it since you regularly get away with incivility on this site.

Sidestepping the issue of whether or not those two women deserved to be banned: that's just two women. As I said earlier, the shades of gray are important here. A handful of people being banned from Patreon versus a great many people getting randomly demonetized on youtube.

Whether or not you've got a political grudge against Patreon, the simple fact of the matter is that Patreon does currently provide a sense of security for creators who feel very insecure on the capricious youtube platform.

Frankly I think that's a load of shit. I've not seen or hear of patreon cracking down on anything except for fringe (in an objective sense) political content or pornography.

I'm sure creators of such content are much aggrieved, but compared to the scope of the demonetization on youtube, it amounts to approximately jack shit. How many times has Patreon kicked CodysLab or TheReportOfTheWeek off for non-political non-sexual content? I've not heard of anybody kicked off Patreon for profanity or any similarly chickenshit reasons youtube regularly demonetizes people for.

Conversely Patreon gives you a low signal:noise forum away from the din of the youtube comment section. This is something both users and creators enjoy. Many creators I'm subscribed to have reported that their patreon discussions are more fruitful and interesting because only serious people are taking part. They don't have to filter out, even visually, the rabble from the informed and passionate. Youtube can highlight member comments in some attempt to replicate this, but I think being off-site is part of the value here.

As for discoverability, you discover patreon accounts by viewing the videos of creators on youtube. Unless youtube starts banning links to Patreon (this would be evil, but I wouldn't put it past them), there isn't a discoverability problem.

If the company I buy food from decides to ghost all their customers with 30 minutes notice, I can walk a block in the opposite direction and buy food from a completely different company. And I can walk a block further and buy food from yet another company. Any of these companies vanishing into thin air would only cost me a 10 minutes of my time at most.

Saying "If you honestly mean that then you're an asshole" is just a round-about way of calling somebody an asshole while providing them with an out; it's a method of insulting people to get them to change their stance. Where I come from, it's considered rude.

> "On Android, not a lot of people are sideloading most prefer the App Store even if they also take a steep cut."

I don't think that's comparable at all. Patreon is an entrenched 1:N (one website for many creators) method for giving money to your favorite youtube creators; youtube's new system is late to the game. Youtube is late to the game here in the same way that Amazon's Appstore was late to the game on Android (which I think maps better to this scenario than generic sideloading, since both Play Store and Amazon Appstore are both 1:N app distribution methods, just as Patreon and youtube are now.)

From what I've gathered, a great deal of the money flowing through Twitch is from "whales", to whom $5 seems like a pittance because they drop 100x that a day in tips. Maybe replicating that phenomena on youtube will work.

They can and have, but it seems happen a lot less. This is an instance where the shades of gray are important.

Furthermore you have to consider the non-binary nature of being demonetized. Youtube may demonetize only 50% of your videos, leaving your channel active but severely impacting the predictability of your income. Patreon provides stability and therefore a sense of security that creators are desperately looking for. You might lose significant income seemingly at random because your neighbor turned up their radio a little bit too loud and triggered ContentID, but so far Patreon isn't taking away creators' income for chickenshit stuff like that.

No, you've completely missed the point. Whether or not "almost nobody heeds the warnings" is true or not is irrelevant because regardless of whether or not they're reading the labels their observed behavior is that most of them do not give toys like this to young kids.

You don't need to read a warning label, or even know of the special medical threat of swallowed magnets to think this 'toy' was a bad idea for a small child. Would you give a toddler a box of completely inert culinary grade stainless steel BBs to play with? Of course you wouldn't. Your kid could eat them and shit them out to his hearts content, but he still might chip a tooth trying to bite them and even if he were toothless why would you give a kid even harmless metal balls? They're just going to wind up stuck in his nose or something. Nobody gives inert glass marbles this small to young kids. It's a bad idea all around even discounting the unique threat magnets pose. Which is probably why there are very few confirmed cases of kids actually eating these magnets.

The problem here for many is a perceived disconnect between "defend our country", the actual actions of the DoD, and making MY life safer.

Just a guess, but perhaps being extremely rich and extremely powerful gives you a relatively small social circle, considering the grand scheme of humanity at almost 7.5 billion people. Consider also the allegations of Google being a de facto branch of the state department in When Google Met Wikileaks (2011).

It may be the case these people are all friends or acquaintances and enjoy the opportunity to work with each other.

> "Respectfully: wouldn't really believing that make you kind of an asshole?"

Don't you think asking such a question is not a terribly subtle way of calling somebody an asshole?

>MRI

Well that's one way to get the magnet out...

The inverse of "almost no one" is "almost everyone". When you say that "almost no one" reads warnings, you imply the set "almost everyone" is going to encounter problems.

> " My point was that most people don't understand how dangerous tiny magnets might be for toddlers."

And yet, far from "most people" giving magnets to toddlers, very few people seem to.

Anything goes, so long as they don't put you in a box? That's very permissive of you.

Will youtube penalize creators who choose to use third party merchandising companies unaffiliated with youtube? After the stunt they pulled with Blender, I wouldn't trust them not to.