This is Ridiculous...

**Different** · 15th June 2022, 2:48 PM

No voting today. Just examine these pyramid charts and feel free to tell us how you think financial wealth should be divided amongst the people in the US because this shit is ridiculous with the way things are, now. The ass clowns up at the top (such as the Rothschilds) have all the damn wealth, and they own all the banks.

But, do you see the rich trying to help us out and find a way to cut taxes and gas prices?... Hell no! Also, here's an old video from 2012 that I thought was interesting. Whether you agree with it or not, it's always interesting to hear your input on this stuff. If you studied finance or sociology like I did, then you know what I'm talking about.

If you have a better chart, don't be afraid to share it with me because I'm always open to someone's interpretation of something interesting.

Six Areas of Financial Planning

**ThePizzaEater1000** · 15th June 2022, 7:13 PM

what if we did a little trolling?

**Different** · 15th June 2022, 8:07 PM

(15th June 2022, 7:13 PM)ThePizzaEater1000 Wrote: what if we did a little trolling?

What are you talking about??

**Master Raiden** · 15th June 2022, 8:45 PM

@Different
Two questions:

1. What do you normally do during evenings and weekends?
2. How do you think wealth should be distributed?

**Different**

(15th June 2022, 8:45 PM)Master Raiden Wrote: @Different
Two questions:

1. What do you normally do during evenings and weekends?
2. How do you think wealth should be distributed?

1. I'm in a home studio, creating music and working on school projects for sound design and mixing. Sometimes, I'll go to the mall and chill, just to get out of the house. I'm in school full time, unemployed. Graduation is around the corner for me.

2. For one, I think they should fix the lower class level and give those who are unemployed, jobs. Second, wealth should be somewhat distributed equally amongst the population. This way, no one is suffering, period. There will still be some rich people on top, but at least you wouldn't have to worry about a lower class, where people are homeless and unemployed.

The rich are far too greedy to even eliminate the lower class folks. They have millions and billions of dollars that they can use to help those that are down on their luck.

**Master Raiden** · 24th June 2022, 7:35 AM

I have quite a controversial opinion on this topic and many people might hate me for what I'm about to say. Then again, most people are outside the top 20% who control most of the wealth.

I've collapsed my comments into the sections below:

Note

TL DR

Wealth Inequality

Wealth Inequality
To me, wealth is a measure of how much value you have brought to society. The more you give, the more you get. Simple. Given that, unless people donated money to rich, they would have had to do something to make their money.

So I don't believe there is any way wealth "should" be divided. Naturally, more money will go to those who do more and things will be as they "should" be.
If you want an equal wealth distribution, here are two possibilities:
• You pay people less the more they do (Thereby penalizing the larger contributors. This sounds very unfair to me)
• Everyone contributes the same amount to society (This will probably never happen)

The first option, unfortunately, is what a lot of people want. They say "tax the rich" to strip the most successful people of what they have earned in hopes it will benefit themselves. Higher income earners do pay more tax anyway, so it's not like this isn't happening.

The second option is probably the fairest way of achieving an even wealth distribution. But of course, those who aren't able to keep up with others will hate this idea.

If wealth became evenly distributed right now, it wouldn't remain that way for very long. The reason why the rich keep getting richer while the poor keep getting poorer is because the rich know how to grow their wealth more effectively. So, even if everyone had exactly the same amount of money, things will eventually return to how it used to be with the skewed distribution of wealth. So the way I see it, distributing wealth equally will do nothing more than provide temporary relief for those who are unable to grow it, and that won't solve anything.

Inequality in Other Areas

While most people think of money when the word 'wealth' is mentioned, you can be wealthy in other areas in your life. I often hear people expressing their unhappiness at the skewed distribution of money, but never hear them showing the same dissatisfaction about other things. So there appears to be some inconsistency in how they apply their views, and that makes part of me think that many of them don't actually believe in wealth equality and are only speaking about it because they're "losing" against other people in the never-ending struggle for financial abundance.

So let's use tennis Grand Slam titles as a form of wealth. Do you believe that Grand Slam titles should be evenly distributed?
If you follow tennis, you probably know that Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic are extremely dominant in the sport. Each of them has far more Grand Slam titles than any other active tennis player at the moment. As of writing this, these three players have won a combined total of 62 Grand Slams, equivalent to winning every Grand Slam for 15.5 years, but do you think this is unfair? I certainly have never heard of anyone asking the them to stop competing so that someone else can win. If anything, there is a lot of support for the them to set a record that will probably stand for decades to come. Why don't people adopt the same attitude towards rich people?

Instead of people encouraging Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos to become the first trillionaires, some people propose ideas where an individual's net worth is capped at $999 million, saying that "no one needs a billion dollars". What if I said "no one should be allowed to win more than 4 Grand Slams"? That sounds quite ridiculous, doesn't it?

Instead of asking to limit what the top three are able to achieve, tennis fans cheer on promising young stars to challenge them and potentially win a Grand Slam for themselves. So instead of trying to take money from the rich, people should encourage average people to strive for their own financial success. Moving the lower people up is a better and fairer way of achieving wealth equality than tearing down those at the top.

Getting into the Top 1 Percent

I don't like what the guy in the video says about how a CEO earns 380 times more than the average employee, but suggests that he doesn't work 380 times harder. It really seems like he's trying to make wealthy business owners seem like bad guys who cheat their way to riches. What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that it's not how hard you work, it's how much you produce. A lot of rich people earn far more than the average person while working less, but simply getting to the point where you can do that is a huge challenge in itself.

When people look at the wealthy, they see nothing but success. All the effort, sacrifices, risks and losses involved go completely unnoticed, as if building a business that earns you $1 million a year, plus millions more to employ a team of workers is easy.

The failure rate for new businesses is incredibly high About half of them fail within the first 5 years, so you have to be exceptional to avoid becoming part of that statistic. How exceptional do you have to be to be an average employee? The word 'average' should make it obvious. Self-made millionaires Grant Cardone and Gary Vaynerchuk suggest that entrepreneurs should work 12-18 hours a day, 7 days a week on their start-up if they're serious about making it work. Keep in mind that businesses are rarely profitable at the beginning, so most entrepreneurs aren't making a single cent from their efforts yet. Then they finally get to the point where they're making enough money to hire someone who has the guts to tell them they're getting paid too much. Now that's ridiculous.

In Cardone's book The Millionaire Booklet: How to Get Super Rich, he mentions that he gave up doing all the fun things in life for 26 years while pursuing his financial goals. Do you think you could manage working 7 days a week for 20+ years with only 1 or 2 vacations in between? I can say with 100% certainty that I wouldn't be able to.

So tell me why there should be wealth equality when there's clearly an inequality in the amount of work that people do. It's quite bold of average people working 9-5 to say that people who work 90 hour weeks with no guarantee of income should help them with their finances.

The more I think about this, the more I believe the 1% actually deserve what they have. And if you still don't, I encourage you to watch Cardone in Undercover Billionaire: Season 2 where he's given the seemingly impossible task of turning $100 into $1 million in 90 days. Spoiler alert, he smashes that target. How many people could do that? 1%? 0.1%? Maybe that's why the rest of the population don't have a tower of cash that stretches 10 times higher than the video frame.

It's obvious that the 1% are where they are because they're willing and able to do what the other 99% can't, and that doesn't seem like an issue to me.

The Rich Are Greedy

Final Comments

If you have read everything above, I hope it has been valuable to you. However, I am not an expert in this and some things I have said may not be feasible in real life, I dunno. These are just my thoughts.
I understand that this is a sensitive topic, so I apologize if I caused offense to you; it was not intended.

I hope this brings about a constructive discussion that we can all learn something from. Smile

**Different**

(24th June 2022, 7:35 AM)Master Raiden Wrote: I have quite a controversial opinion on this topic and many people might hate me for what I'm about to say. Then again, most people are outside the top 20% who control most of the wealth.

I've collapsed my comments into the sections below:

Note
Before I begin, I want to make it clear that I come from a below average family, and I am below average myself, so nothing I'm saying here is in my own defense. I have, however, read a few books and engaged in online content about personal finance and wealth building over the last few years in an effort to move myself up.

TL DR
Wealth Inequality
• Wealth is a measure of how much value you have brought to society.
• People who have a lot of money will therefore have to do a lot to earn what they have.
• So there is an inequality of how much people are contributing to society.
• Wealth will never be equal because some people are better at growing their wealth than others.
• The Top 1% have a huge amount of wealth because they are able and willing to do what the 99% can't.
• To achieve a more even wealth distribution, people need to contribute a similar amount.
• It's better for poorer people to move themselves up than to try and tear down the rich.

The Rich Are Greedy
• The rich give far more than the average person does.
• Average people can't give much because they don't have much to begin with.
• Average people ask for the rich to be taxed more, and for the government to give them handouts.
• It's people like that who are greedy.
• Being highly successful does not mean you are greedy. Otherwise elite athletes could also be labeled as such.

Wealth Inequality
Wealth Inequality
To me, wealth is a measure of how much value you have brought to society. The more you give, the more you get. Simple. Given that, unless people donated money to rich, they would have had to do something to make their money.

So I don't believe there is any way wealth "should" be divided. Naturally, more money will go to those who do more and things will be as they "should" be.
If you want an equal wealth distribution, here are two possibilities:
• You pay people less the more they do (Thereby penalizing the larger contributors. This sounds very unfair to me)
• Everyone contributes the same amount to society (This will probably never happen)

The first option, unfortunately, is what a lot of people want. They say "tax the rich" to strip the most successful people of what they have earned in hopes it will benefit themselves. Higher income earners do pay more tax anyway, so it's not like this isn't happening.

The second option is probably the fairest way of achieving an even wealth distribution. But of course, those who aren't able to keep up with others will hate this idea.

If wealth became evenly distributed right now, it wouldn't remain that way for very long. The reason why the rich keep getting richer while the poor keep getting poorer is because the rich know how to grow their wealth more effectively. So, even if everyone had exactly the same amount of money, things will eventually return to how it used to be with the skewed distribution of wealth. So the way I see it, distributing wealth equally will do nothing more than provide temporary relief for those who are unable to grow it, and that won't solve anything.

Inequality in Other Areas
While most people think of money when the word 'wealth' is mentioned, you can be wealthy in other areas in your life. I often hear people expressing their unhappiness at the skewed distribution of money, but never hear them showing the same dissatisfaction about other things. So there appears to be some inconsistency in how they apply their views, and that makes part of me think that many of them don't actually believe in wealth equality and are only speaking about it because they're "losing" against other people in the never-ending struggle for financial abundance.

So let's use tennis Grand Slam titles as a form of wealth. Do you believe that Grand Slam titles should be evenly distributed?
If you follow tennis, you probably know that Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic are extremely dominant in the sport. Each of them has far more Grand Slam titles than any other active tennis player at the moment. As of writing this, these three players have won a combined total of 62 Grand Slams, equivalent to winning every Grand Slam for 15.5 years, but do you think this is unfair? I certainly have never heard of anyone asking the them to stop competing so that someone else can win. If anything, there is a lot of support for the them to set a record that will probably stand for decades to come. Why don't people adopt the same attitude towards rich people?

Instead of people encouraging Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos to become the first trillionaires, some people propose ideas where an individual's net worth is capped at $999 million, saying that "no one needs a billion dollars". What if I said "no one should be allowed to win more than 4 Grand Slams"? That sounds quite ridiculous, doesn't it?

Instead of asking to limit what the top three are able to achieve, tennis fans cheer on promising young stars to challenge them and potentially win a Grand Slam for themselves. So instead of trying to take money from the rich, people should encourage average people to strive for their own financial success. Moving the lower people up is a better and fairer way of achieving wealth equality than tearing down those at the top.

Getting into the Top 1 Percent
I don't like what the guy in the video says about how a CEO earns 380 times more than the average employee, but suggests that he doesn't work 380 times harder. It really seems like he's trying to make wealthy business owners seem like bad guys who cheat their way to riches. What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that it's not how hard you work, it's how much you produce. A lot of rich people earn far more than the average person while working less, but simply getting to the point where you can do that is a huge challenge in itself.

When people look at the wealthy, they see nothing but success. All the effort, sacrifices, risks and losses involved go completely unnoticed, as if building a business that earns you $1 million a year, plus millions more to employ a team of workers is easy.

The failure rate for new businesses is incredibly high About half of them fail within the first 5 years, so you have to be exceptional to avoid becoming part of that statistic. How exceptional do you have to be to be an average employee? The word 'average' should make it obvious. Self-made millionaires Grant Cardone and Gary Vaynerchuk suggest that entrepreneurs should work 12-18 hours a day, 7 days a week on their start-up if they're serious about making it work. Keep in mind that businesses are rarely profitable at the beginning, so most entrepreneurs aren't making a single cent from their efforts yet. Then they finally get to the point where they're making enough money to hire someone who has the guts to tell them they're getting paid too much. Now that's ridiculous.

In Cardone's book The Millionaire Booklet: How to Get Super Rich, he mentions that he gave up doing all the fun things in life for 26 years while pursuing his financial goals. Do you think you could manage working 7 days a week for 20+ years with only 1 or 2 vacations in between? I can say with 100% certainty that I wouldn't be able to.

So tell me why there should be wealth equality when there's clearly an inequality in the amount of work that people do. It's quite bold of average people working 9-5 to say that people who work 90 hour weeks with no guarantee of income should help them with their finances.

The more I think about this, the more I believe the 1% actually deserve what they have. And if you still don't, I encourage you to watch Cardone in Undercover Billionaire: Season 2 where he's given the seemingly impossible task of turning $100 into $1 million in 90 days. Spoiler alert, he smashes that target. How many people could do that? 1%? 0.1%? Maybe that's why the rest of the population don't have a tower of cash that stretches 10 times higher than the video frame.

It's obvious that the 1% are where they are because they're willing and able to do what the other 99% can't, and that doesn't seem like an issue to me.

The Rich Are Greedy
The Rich Are Greedy
Based on what I said in Wealth Inequality, I don't believe that the rich are greedy. The fact is that they would have had to contribute more to society than most people to become rich.

Nope. But I don't see the average person trying to help out with those things either. In fact, a lot of average people can't even help themselves! They're sitting ducks who are desperate for someone else to fix things for them.

The thing is, they are so busy trying to take care of themselves that they barely have anything left to give to others. How can you donate a million dollars towards a cause you care about when you don't even have a million dollars? Rich people are able to give far more, and many have done so.

Take Team Trees, for example. Most of the top donators are deca-millionaires and billionaires who have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars each, far more than most people would ever donate in their entire lives. Switch over to the most recent donations and you see average people donating near-insignificant amounts. If it wasn't for the rich people, Team Trees wouldn't have reached their target of 20 million trees.

And it's not just that. It's the attitude that the average people have.
They say that:
• The rich should pay all the taxes
• The government should help take care of them
• Wealth should be redistributed more evenly (meaning they get money that someone else earned)

If anyone's greedy, it's people like that.
Those who think the rich are greedy for having large amounts of wealth need to realize that taking wealth away from the rich so that they can have it is even greedier. Wealth shouldn't just be distributed, it should be earned. And it seems like average people are trying to find ways to get more than they worked for.

Asking the rich to help out everyone else is like asking the smartest kid in the class to do everyone else's homework because those other people don't know the answers.
Instead of relying on the smartest kid to do your homework for you, why not take the time to learn how to do it yourself?
Instead of depending on rich people to help you out, why not find out how you can help yourself out?

A good way to not be greedy is to get as much money as you can and use it all to help other people, not to earn less. Having less money reduces your ability to help. I do agree that if all the rich people in the world gave away significant amounts of their money, far fewer people would be suffering, so let's hope that they are all generous people. However, no one has the right to tell them what to do with their money. And why would they want to help people who call them greedy and selfish?

Greed in Other Areas
Similar to wealth inequality, it seems like people also apply this viewpoint on greed quite inconsistently. There's a lot of anger and hatred directed towards rich people who don't share their money, but almost none directed towards people who have ample amounts of non-monetary things.

Going back to the tennis Grand Slams analogy, would you say that the top three tennis players, Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic are greedy for winning 20+ Grand Slams each? Would you call them greedy for not intentionally losing a match against someone who hasn't won a Grand Slam yet? Of course not. That would be ridiculous, wouldn't it?

So why are people suddenly labeled as greedy for earning a lot of money, or for not giving up opportunities to make money? They are simply very good at making money, just like how those three tennis players are very good at winning Grand Slams. Since when did being highly successful make you greedy?

Final Comments
I think it's quite unhealthy to depend on external factors for your success. Relying on a redistribution of wealth or rich people giving their money away is a terrible way to go about your life, and chances are, you'll never end up getting what you want. If you take it upon yourself to fulfill your desires, you will be the one who determines whether they happen, not someone else. And even if you believe that, one day, something will change that ends the suffering of the poor and middle-class, what if it doesn't?

I will end this with the following quote which sums up my feelings towards this topic:

"I have nothing in common with lazy people who blame others for their lack of success. Great things come from hard work and perseverance. No excuses."
- Kobe Bryant

If you have read everything above, I hope it has been valuable to you. However, I am not an expert in this and some things I have said may not be feasible in real life, I dunno. These are just my thoughts.
I understand that this is a sensitive topic, so I apologize if I caused offense to you; it was not intended.

I hope this brings about a constructive discussion that we can all learn something from.

Well said, man! 🤝 I couldn't have said it any better. One of the most valuable things you said in your post is that the average person won't even take care of themselves. This is true because a lot of people who are not helpless, try to take shortcuts and find the easy way out. Also yes, you're right. Wealth will never be distributed equally because there are those in higher places who find ways to keep growing their money at least 5 to 10x better than the average person.

I do have one question for you, though: Do you think that the 1% elite are raising gas prices, taxes, paying farmers to destroy their crops, and purposely dividing the social classes into two groups (99% poor and 1% ultra rich) to make us suffer? Or is there another explanation as to what's leading to this?

However, the one thing I disagree with you about, is that the rich are greedy. I'd say "some" rich folks are greedy. Like the higher 1% elites who live underground and control all the wealth, from what I heard. I also heard that these people are extremely evil and they try to find ways to make us suffer, financially.

**Different**

(25th June 2022, 2:33 AM)Delphinoid Wrote: You say people are "purposely dividing the social classes into two groups". The reason why the wealth distribution is so skewed is essentially because of positive feedback. This is not just present in real-life economics either; this kind of snowball effect is a fundamental property of these kinds of systems, where resources can be invested to make more resources. The more money you have, the more you can spend to make even more money. It even occurs in pretty much every single game with any kind of resource management (even games like Quake!), to the point where it's actually a real challenge to mitigate. It's not a deliberate act of malice by the 1%.

Positive feedback?? You're not making any sense what soever, here. Where are you getting this information from? Who fed your head with lies... seriously?? Also, I didn't say people are 'purposely diving the social classes into two groups', I said the 1% elites are. That's where you twisted my words and turned them into something that you wanted to. Also, your statements make the 1% seem innocent, when really they're part of the problem, too.

Then, you attempt to sit here and tell me that taxes aren't rising, but dropping after adjusting for inflation?! WOW DUDE! If that were the case, then why is it that when you go to the grocery store and purchase items, the taxes on those receipts are significantly higher than they used to be? This stuff isn't an accident, you know. It's all well thought-out by people in higher places.

If you want me to send you proof, I can message you privately, where I got my source from. But there's no need for that because you know it's blocked on this site.

It's amazing how they've deceived the people into thinking something that's the complete opposite of what's really going on. They sit there and watch the news like mindless sheep who don't even do alternative research on their own; just believe the newscasters, which is utterly idiotic. Then they've successfully trained their minds into believing that most of what the news says is true?? Hell no!

(25th June 2022, 2:33 AM)Delphinoid Wrote: No.

Definition (delusional). "Characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder."

Definition (brainwash). "Pressurize (someone) into adopting radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible means."

Then why don't you prove your claims then, smart ass. Since you know everything and won't provide any resources. I can direct your attention to a website that backs up my claims, but knowing you, it'll probably go against your beliefs. That's why I've asked you this question before, before I knew that you weren't doing any research: Where do you get your facts from? Seriously...?

Why don't you do us all a favor, make a thread, and provide SOURCES explaining how wealth should be distributed across the globe or country.

**Different**

(25th June 2022, 9:36 PM)Delphinoid Wrote: By positive feedback, I mean this: you have some process A that causes a process B, which then causes A again, ad infinitum. Again, the more money you have, the more you can make. This is positive feedback, the snowball effect, etc., whatever you want to call it. Btw, the top 1% are people: when I say people aren't doing something, I mean NO ONE, including the top 1%, are doing it. Your words are not being twisted. You're arguing in bad faith again. I'm also making no comments on the overall innocence of the 1%: see what I said to Master Raiden on this.

...And I suppose you're not? Where are your sources? Drop some links so I can see exactly where it is you're coming from.

(25th June 2022, 9:36 PM)Delphinoid Wrote: I thought you meant income tax - I suspect sales taxes have either been dropping or staying relatively constant, but I would have to check. US government websites will actually have data on both income tax rates (tax brackets) and sales tax rates over the years, going pretty far back. You can eyeball them, or if you really want to know for sure, you can do a linear regression to figure out the trend. By the way, aren't you still an undergrad? As far as looking at receipts go, you only have a tiny sample of receipts to pull from, and I can almost guarantee you don't remember the tax rate trend on receipts that you've gotten within that timeframe (especially given that there's so much variance). What you're showing here could be an example of confirmation bias. You seem to put too much trust in what you want to believe being true, rather than what can actually be shown to be true.

For the time being, I'm in undergrad. I'll be done in 4 months. On the other hand, I already did my research, so I know what I'm talking about. If you think it's confirmation bias, then prove it. Go ahead, drop some links in that'll prove me wrong.

(25th June 2022, 9:36 PM)Delphinoid Wrote: I suspect that what you're calling proof is really just a random, possibly quite charming guy on the internet who is just telling you what you want to hear, but feel free to prove me wrong. Research is not just about finding someone who agrees with you and calling it a day, though. This leads to biased results: I mentioned this in the other thread. You need to ask (and find answers to) neutral questions, and find sources that you and others can verify. For instance, search for the average annual tax rates in your state, not "why are the rich making my taxes rise". In this case it's pretty hard to get away with publishing incorrect historical data on a government website. If you really want to know for sure though, why not write down these tax rates for the next 50 years? Then you can do a linear regression and see for yourself. I think that's the only way you'll be convinced.

Nope, no random. I'm talking about the website that's covered up, here. Do you not remember the site I told you about? I can't say it on here. They've given legitimate results to their findings, plenty of times. But you're not a conspiracy theorist, so I can't have this conversation with you; it'd be a waste of time.

(25th June 2022, 9:36 PM)Delphinoid Wrote: This is like the other thread. Research is not about listening to stories or reading hypotheticals that you can't verify. That's just called reading science fiction. They could be true, just like the things you read in some science fiction stories could be found to be viable in the future, but just trusting what people say like this is in general not a smart idea (which I would hope would be something we can agree on, but for some reason you seem to think it's a very clever strategy, unless said person isn't an obscure contrarian).

So what is your suggestion then? Try it yourself to see if what they're saying is true? That may work for some things, but not what I said in the other thread. It's incredibly dangerous to try this stuff at home because it's real, and awful things really do happen. Those weren't hypotheticals or stories... those were facts that I did my research on. If only you knew about this stuff.

(25th June 2022, 9:36 PM)Delphinoid Wrote: I don't read, watch or even really trust the news - especially US news, since I don't live there. I don't visit or get information from news websites, ever. Listen to yourself. Actually look at how you're talking: do you think you're speaking from the perspective of a reasonable, rational person?

So where do you get your facts from?? You can't just pluck unverified information out of the air with no resources to back up your claims. Otherwise, you sound like a hypocrite. Drop some links. Prove me wrong.

(25th June 2022, 9:36 PM)Delphinoid Wrote: Your tactic is, and continues to be, to pressure others into believing your baseless, imaginary conjectures by acting aggressive and appealing to their emotions / insecurities. This is not being an "alpha male", or whatever you called it in that thread from ages ago. By definition, this ironically is an attempt on your part at brainwashing (which is a word I hate to use by the way, but it's one I know you understand), and it's possible that you were the recepient of it too. If you want to argue in good faith, think about what you know, and reason with people based on what you can prove beyond reasonable doubt. I'm more than happy to agree to disagree: if you want to believe in astral projection, for instance, I'm happy for you: I can't say for certain it doesn't exist (although it is overwhelmingly likely that it doesn't exist - but you can say the same about God, which I put my faith in). What I do care about is you trying to pressure others into accepting your opinions as fact when there's no proof.

Who says I'm pressuring anybody?? I"m not pressuring anybody into believing anything. My goal is to provide factual information, based on what I know. If you want me to provide sources for this stuff, I can. Also, don't bring this shit up about being an "alpha male" because I'm trying to forget about that thread. I suppose you feel pretty good about yourself, conjuring up something I said in the past, attempting to use it against me here?

Don't make the mistake of thinking I'm the same person as I was, last year. That's one of your biggest mistakes in this preposterous statement. Also, if I really told you where I got my sources from, you would dismiss it and call them ridiculous conspiracy theorists, even though they're legitimate sources that have backed up their claims.

Also, while we're at it, you keep saying you're christian but, how much of a christian are you? A lot of people who say they're christian, end up being hypocrites. I didn't want to challenge you here, but you made me do it, since you want to bring up something I said last year that I'm trying to forget about.

(25th June 2022, 9:36 PM)Delphinoid Wrote: I hope I'm getting through to you here, I really truly believe that the above paragraph in particular is something you need to understand. I don't want you to get mad or defensive, I'm not trying to "rustle your jimmies". This is coming from a place of genuine concern.

All of the claims I made in my previous reply are based on statistics published on US government websites, which you can check yourself; if you want, for sales taxes, you can even at least verify that the recent data agrees with what you've been seeing on your receipts. I can't personally verify it for you because I don't live in the US. Keep in mind that they collect and publish raw data as well, so for things like gasoline prices they won't account for inflation. As for farmers destroying their crops, this is actually up to you to prove. In fact, so is the social groups thing.

Drop the links. I'm not going to go search for them; that's your job. You're the one who needs to convince me, now, here. I figured you don't live in the US because of the times of day, you're replying to these messages online.

I'll be glad to direct you to a website that has information on the gas prices and crops. But again, knowing you, you'll probably dismiss it as misinformed, unjustified, and unethical.

(25th June 2022, 9:36 PM)Delphinoid Wrote: As for the astral projection thread, the only facts I stated were when I was talking about maths. The rest of the time I was trying to get you to understand that what you were saying was not necessarily factual, but rather an arbitrary opinion with no foundation. I specifically mentioned that I didn't say it wasn't real, because a statement like that would require me to be able to prove it wasn't real, and currently it's not something that can be proven or disproven. On topics like that, you can't do research: it's all a matter of opinion. But it's irresponsible (see: definition of brainwashing) to try to forcibly convince others that your personal, unjustified beliefs are undeniable facts (this is why I don't push Christianity on my friends, none of whom are Christians, and why they don't push their beliefs on me). The fact that you're getting so defensive when I talk about this is very telling of your position on these topics.

Who says you can't do research?? Of course you can do research... otherwise you wouldn't know what it's about or if it exists. You can't formulate opinions based on something you didn't do research on. That literally makes zero sense. Also, I wasn't getting defensive at all, period. I was only attacking the fact that you were referring to me as a delusional person who doesn't know what he's talking about.

You see, this is my problem with your preposterous statements: you keep saying that I'm forcing my so-called illegitimate, nonsensical information on the people, when really I'm just educating them on some things that they may not already know. I'm simply informing them about supernatural phenomenon that DOES EXIST. I can drop proof for that too, if you want.

But it'll be too powerful for you to understand, anyway. The reason I held back on that thread is because I knew the people couldn't handle what I was trying to inform them on. If I dive deep and give out sources, it's going to be pretty ugly. You're not going to like what you read, trust me. The truth hurts, pretty bad; Despite your feelings about what I'm saying.

This is a rabbit hole that you don't want to travel down, trust me. If you want me to give you sources that proves the existence of supernatural phenomenon, I'll be glad to. But don't say I didn't warn you. That's why I said before, this isn't for the faint of heart. This isn't something you can play with and ignore its' existence. Everybody has their fair share of demons, and so do you.

It's like the old saying goes... "be careful what you wish for because you just might get it!"

(25th June 2022, 9:36 PM)Delphinoid Wrote: If there's something specific you disagree with, tell me; be specific about what it is and give me solid reasons why you disagree. Show me why I'm wrong, convince me using reliable data that you can vouch for the validity of. Don't throw a blanket "you're wrong because I say so" statement on me. You're not doing anyone any favours by arguing in bad faith.

Same thing goes for you. You've been sitting here running your mouth this whole time and you still haven't given me any direct links to your findings. So don't sit here and try to tell me that I'm arguing in bad faith or pressuring anybody.

**Master Raiden**

Delphinoid Wrote: In my opinion this is just an awful and extremely unhealthy mindset to have. Wealth is a measure of how much money you have. Nothing more. ... the one thing we can say about wealthy people is that they are good at making money.

Good at making money = good at making other people give money to them.
So wouldn't you say that they are good at providing valuable things that people are happy to pay for?

Delphinoid Wrote: On an individual level, a CEO of a large company does only a tiny percentage of the work of the company as a whole. That's not to say they don't work hard - they obviously usually do - but if we want to be fair, we should evenly distribute our "benefit-to-society points" among everyone involved.

No, I don't think it should be evenly distributed. The reason why the employees are able to work and provide value at all is because someone came up with an idea, then did the hard yards and created the business. In other words, the business owner created the opportunity for them and their employees to provide for society, and so they should get more for that. Had the business owner not done that, no one would be providing anything for anyone.

Delphinoid Wrote: Claim. Great things come from hard work and perseverance.
Counterexample. Many PhD students are pushed almost to death (or even to death, given that suicide rates are so high for this group) for half the minimum wage.
...
A lot of academics work hard their entire life - really hard. Most aren't successful, despite their best efforts. None are rich.

That's because getting a PhD and working as an employee is not how huge wealth is built. So if your goal is to become very rich, getting a PhD isn't really the best way to go about accomplishing it. "Great things" would therefore refer to something else for those people, such as achieving a breakthrough in their field, or having a paper become internationally recognized.

Delphinoid Wrote: Hard work does not correspond in any way to greater wealth, or even to greater success.

Not sure I agree with this. While hard work alone might not always be enough for success, I'm pretty sure putting in less time and less effort reduces your chances of succeeding. At least that's what I've experienced in my life.

Delphinoid Wrote: In general, you also need to remember that many people, especially those who are financially challenged, are also educationally disadvantaged. Not everyone is born into situations that can endow them with the means to succeed or better themselves: essentially, they're doomed from the start. This doesn't just happen with those who are financially challenged, either. What if you're born into a particularly oppressive or abusive family? What if you're born with or develop some kind of mental or physical impairment? This kind of thing is another reason why success is mostly dependent on sheer luck.

This reminds me of this video. I suppose luck is quite important if you're after huge success such as becoming a multi-millionaire, but I still think hard work alone is enough for smaller goals such as increasing your annual income from something average to above $100,000. Something like that will, for a lot of people, change their lives enough so that they won't need to accuse the system of being "unfair" and rich people of being "greedy".

Delphinoid Wrote: The second is that your position seems to be an inversion of the widely-held, subconscious belief that "poor people are good, rich people are evil". You can disagree with this without putting down people who aren't rich.

This is what I tried to make clear at the end of my post. I didn't mean to put down anyone, however it annoys me that many people choose to point the finger at anyone/anything besides themselves when most of them are capable of doing more. The comments section of the Wealth Distribution video is a good example, and my post was aimed more towards people like that.

I appreciate your response. It certainly gives me more to think about.

**Different**

@Delphinoid Even though there are still some things that I disagree with you on in the last reply that you sent to me, I appreciate you pushing me to improve my threads with facts and verifiable proof. Also, even though there were times where I wanted to strangle you for some of the things that you said. But, I'm willing to grow past that and focus on something bigger.

Which is why I'm going to spend some time trying to look for studies that proves this next thread. Because like I said before, it'll make some people feel uncomfortable and frightened to death. People are going to find out why my username is "Different", pretty soon.

**Different**

(28th June 2022, 11:06 PM)Delphinoid Wrote: Sure. By the way, although it's a bit old, you might find this article interesting: https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.01984. Some of what they say is a bit weird, but the data they present is all that really matters.

Basically, a group of researchers collected all video metadata and comment data posted to Bit Chute between the 28th of June and the 3rd of December, 2019. The results of this study, I think, are why links to Bit Chute might be blocked on a lot of websites. They found that in their dataset, a minimum of 10% of comments contained hate speech; in particular, the amount of hate speech on Bit Chute is a bit over 80% of what's you see on /pol/, which is saying something.

The majority of the content that people engage with on Bit Chute is news-like content, commenting on current events, politics and conspiracy theories. In addition, in the words of the article, "Bit Chute contains terroristic, neo-Nazi recruitment and calls to violence, and this content receives engagement". I'm not sure of the degree to which this is accurate, if it's accurate at all, but it doesn't seem surprising based on the purpose the platform serves.

This kind of thing is part of what makes me immediately distrustful of the content on the platform. Not only do content creators have no obligation to provide factual information that they can back up (and indeed, I would expect most don't bother - it's my guess that most videos are just opinion pieces, which I think is what anyone would expect from any video-sharing platform, where the only goal you have as a content creator is to get views), they're publishing on a platform that indirectly encourages hate speech and violence.

As a Christian and a pacifist, this kind of content just doesn't sit right with me. Sorry for bringing this up randomly, I guess I just wanted to mention this.

Interesting article to read. But you know, there's a good reason why they cast Bit Chute as people of hate speech. Yes, it is news-like content, but they've been known to tell the truth. I'd be glad to give you an example of something that's been proven to actually happen from their site. I can understand your viewpoint on this. It's incredibly difficult to convince a person that someone is providing factual information.

Btw, I think the reason they call it hate speech and have that site blocked on a lot of websites is because they know they're telling the truth. Again, I can find something that proves this because I don't want to sound like I'm getting this from word of mouth. I've actually seen factual information that covers this.

It's accurate, btw. These people who claim Bit Chute is condoning hate speech, are known as left-wingers. They believe in things like abortion, taking our guns away, etc. I don't want to dive deep into that discussion; just thought I'd touch up a little bit about them.

I will ask you this question, though. Do you believe that Youtube censors people who "supposedly" tell the truth, or do you think they censor people for other reasons? If the video is banned on Youtube, then it's for a reason.

**Different**

(29th June 2022, 3:57 AM)Delphinoid Wrote: The reason they call it hate speech is because according to the findings of the article, a large percentage of comments left on the website contain terms that are racist, derogatory or otherwise hateful. Based on the brief time I've spent browsing the website, I would say this does accurately reflect what I've seen on it. While there are plenty of vague conspiracy theories that don't seem hateful, much of the content that actually generates viewer engagement encourages (or at the very least doesn't discourage) antisemitic, antiblack and other hateful commentary.

In other words, people say it contains hate speech because it does contain a far above-average amount of hate speech. Not only is this what you actually see when you use the website, but it's been show to be the case via raw data analysis. As a Christian, I'm sure you can agree that this is unacceptable. We stand for love, peace and tolerance; this goes against our core philosophy, right? Moreover, I think it's also unacceptable to willingly remain ignorant to this under the pretence that it's just "left-wingers" complaining.

Unfortunately, government controlled sites like google seems to do a good job of only showing you the negative side-effects of websites like Bit Chute. I've done some research myself as well, and it seems like they've successfullly filtered out anything that supports Bit Chute. At the end of the day, it's all about control. Bit Chute was originally created to allow more freedom of speech, not to encourage hate speech. The difference here is freedom.

The real reason they call it hate speech is because they speak out against the liberals who seem to control platforms like Youtube, google, popular search engines, etc. Another search engine that serves as an alternative to Youtube (but is similar to Bit Chute) is Rumble.com. They cast them as hate speech, too. But again, they only seem to go after people who speak out against the liberals' beliefs.

(29th June 2022, 3:57 AM)Delphinoid Wrote: I'm not an American, so I don't believe in the "left vs. right" discourse. The problem with American politics is that it generates an "us vs. them" mentality; the parties try to divide the population into extreme opposing groups that don't compromise. Don't let this mentality cloud your judgement. You're your own person, you have the ability to have complex, nuanced positions on issues. "Left" and "right" are not nuanced positions.

I invite you to take a look at THIS article. It'll deeply educate you on the "left vs. right" winger discourse. They actually are nuanced positions because it conveniently places you in a certain category, based on what you stand for. For example, if you're more conservative person who doesn't believe in abortion, believes in the 2nd amendment, and holds traditional views on same-sex marriage, immigration, etc... then you're labeled as a "right winger". It's just a universal term that Americans use to characterize the whole liberal vs conservative debate.

(29th June 2022, 3:57 AM)Delphinoid Wrote: You mentioned abortion, for instance. This is actually a really tough topic, and I haven't found a single American I can agree with on it (although plenty of people from outside America are quite reasonable - funny about that!). Personally, I think abortion is still murder (biologically speaking, it is). If it was specifically your choice to risk having a child when you didn't want one, I think it's your moral obligation to take responsibility for that lack of judgement. And yet, I would still lean towards allowing people to get abortions (after heavy consideration and counseling) in general, and would definitely allow it in the cases of complications / non-consensual activity. For many (especially younger) women who want abortions, going through pregnancy can be life-ruining, and you're also essentially forcing a child to live a life of suffering with parents who won't love or care for them. Many people just aren't capable of taking responsibility in a way that won't end up having lifelong negative effects on the child. Not to mention that most people who want abortions will find a way to get one anyway, which could put them in unnecessary danger. Ultimately, I think people just shouldn't risk having a child when they don't want one. This is a problem that I think needs to be addressed at the roots, but until then we should take a practical approach.

Right, I don't agree with abortion, either. A lot of the younger generation, mostly fornicate quite often and end up having kids that turned out to be an accident. That child didn't ask to be here at all. Apparently, a lot of people don't know how to use a damn condom for god's sake. Yet people continue to remain ignorant and decide to have a child, knowing that they can't afford to take care of it, financially. Why not utilize foster care? They can help provide a happy home for the child, instead of you killing it. This is also why kids who some how survive after dodging the whole abortion bullet, grow up developing deep, animosity and extreme hatred towards their parents.

(29th June 2022, 3:57 AM)Delphinoid Wrote: But if you ask most Americans about this, they'll give ridiculous answers based on which party they align with. Left-leaning people will recite nonsense like "my body, my choice", which echoes the abusive mentality that many mothers have of thinking they own their children. Meanwhile, right-leaning people are too idealistic: it's all well and good to be pro-life, but you're still generally ruining the lives of the parent(s) and the child by banning abortions! Whether they should have been more responsible in the first place (which is often, although certainly not always, the case) is irrelevant, as it's in the past by the time they're considering an abortion and cannot be changed. To me, condemning someone to a life of suffering is a sin worse than murder (and I think this is something that should be considered w.r.t. suicide as well).

Also, here's why I Respectfully disagree with this abortion decision: There's always the alternative of foster care homes and adoption that people can utilize to either avoid the child being condemned to be raised by unstable parents, or risk losing their life because two Neanderthals decided they don't want the child anymore. If my parents decided to keep me and I found out later on in life that their original plans was to give me an abortion, I'd despise them for a very long time.

On the other hand, if you're incapable of raising me, then just give me up for adoption. I didn't ask to be raised by two knuckleheads who look like they would neglect me for personal issues like addiction for example. So yeah, bro, I've always believed in finishing what you've started, somehow. The fact that the left-winged liberals would rather consider abortion over adoption is incredibly egotistical and ignorant.

(29th June 2022, 3:57 AM)Delphinoid Wrote: To answer your question: YouTube censors people who disobey their content guidelines. Content containing hate speech and certain kinds of misinformation are not allowed on YouTube. Conspiracy theories and misinformation in general is allowed on YouTube, unless it's capable of causing harm (you can find some examples here). This is also mentioned in the examples for hate speech: YouTube does not allow "conspiracy theories saying individuals or groups are evil, corrupt, or malicious based on any of the attributes noted above". Note how this is worded. If you say that an individual or group is evil, corrupt or malicious with your reasoning being that they belong to some specific ethnicity, race, religion, etc., then this is categorically hate speech, and as such is not allowed on YouTube.

It's all about mind control. They welcome anything that supports the liberals' beliefs. Also, I'd say the only conspiracy theories that's allowed on Youtube are the ones that appear false and support their beliefs. You have to study those conspiracy videos and align them with Youtubes' beliefs. If they match up, then of course they're not going to get taken down. But if they're out of alignment, then they'll get taken down in a heart beat.

Youtube has never been conservative, period. I'm not a Christian myself, but since you are, you should know that being a Christian means being more conservative (no questions asked). It's funny how Youtube gets offended when you say that certain videos are corrupt or malicious. It's usually because they're telling the truth. Anything that supports their beliefs or feeds lies, will not get taken down at all.

View the link that I sent you, above. Then watch the videos that Youtube is always recommending to people on a daily basis and determine what category they fall under. Whether it's the left-winger (liberals) or the right-winger (conservatives).

**Different**

@Delphinoid What happened to all your posts? Why have you decided to delete all your posts all of a sudden, then disable PMs; I don't understand. Did something happen or are you distancing yourself from the community?