pfffftt.....blimey, and then he was gone.
i was just getting started, I thought it was quite a useful exercise in pointing out all the massive holes in the BNP's argument to those who may not see it straight off.
hey ho.......next.
NO PASARAN
Are the BNP a real threat?
- Thread starter Basik
- Start date
- Status
i was just getting started, I thought it was quite a useful exercise in pointing out all the massive holes in the BNP's argument to those who may not see it straight off.
hey ho.......next.
NO PASARAN
Zimbardo's study has many criticisms, one of the foremost being that he participated in it himself by taking on the role of a wardon. It does, however, prove something brilliant: People take on the roles that they're given, including Zimbardo, since he was so involved and so willing to turn a blind eye to what was happening.
And my personal view is that the fact the participants knew it was fake further increases the impact of the results as it proves how horrible people can be, regardless. They knew it was fake, they knew their rights as a participant, they knew they could boycott the experiment at any time, and yet they still performed acts not so dissimilar to torture. So much so that many of the 'prisoners' had to undergo therapy.
I think further testiment to the impact of the study is how it came to a close. Zimbardo himself was happy to continue, it was only when his girlfriend of the time came in and observed what was happening that it came to a halt. (This is legend, but regardless, it's still supportive)
Point being, you say that the public will not allow such racist regimes to take place, but a bit of propaganda, a bit of prejudice and some clever role allocation and it suddenly becomes a reality. I think Nazi Germany is a testament to that.
I think the main difference between this and Milgram is the proximity of the victim. Milgram performed many follow up studies to assess why people would obey even the cruellest of orders, and he found several important contributing factors, two of which being proximity and levels of cruelty (not the technical term, but correct none-the-less.)
In the Milgram study, Pp's weren't able to see their victim. I'm guessing in the study you're quoting tha they were able to see their victim.
In the Milgram Study, Pp's gave out doses of their cruelty in increasing increments. He didn't ask them to kill them straight out, he gave them a reason to do it (Answering a question wrong) and a platform for people to increase the voltage wit each incorrect answer.
Without those two factors, it is true that people are less willing to kill another human being. But the point still stands, you shouldn;t underestimate Joe Public. They're still capable of being cruel and turning a blind eye.
an (admittedly fleeting) example of how it would feel to be forcibly deported from your country, the country of your friends, family and colleagues. just because your parents are black or asian or indian or pakistani, or Nepalese Gurkhas or any of the other "non white" commonwealth nations that fought with us against fascism and racism.
this is what the BNP advocate, make no mistake.
this is what the BNP advocate, make no mistake.
It's a very good study indeed, and it does show how power corrupts and can effect even those supposed to be objective.
Does the same apply to our goverments? And can it be proven?
Applying social psychology to governement regimes will always be speculation, it'll never be proven until it's too late. But I'll never be willing to give them an outside chance at doing anything as such.
I'll admit that I don't follow politics, and know very little about the subject, but one thing that I am certain about is that the BNP are not suited to run a country. I'm personally piss scared of the possibility.
This is my hundredth post so i should try and make it a good one.
At the risk of invoking Godwins Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law), (inevitable on a thread like this really). The problem with totalitarian regimes is that they tend to sneak up on people. Remember Hitler came to power in 1933, the most outrageous stuff took place after years of build up (eg Kristallnacht 1938). So Bons argument of "give them a chance, how bad can it be" does not wash.
We need to see through the facade that the BNP have created and see their true colours. And the main political parties need to address the concerns that have led people to the BNP. They have failed miserably in this so far.
I don't pretend to know the solution, but I've seen these people on the streets and the only thing they represent is violence and division.
And jesus they're uuuuugly.
At the risk of invoking Godwins Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law), (inevitable on a thread like this really). The problem with totalitarian regimes is that they tend to sneak up on people. Remember Hitler came to power in 1933, the most outrageous stuff took place after years of build up (eg Kristallnacht 1938). So Bons argument of "give them a chance, how bad can it be" does not wash.
We need to see through the facade that the BNP have created and see their true colours. And the main political parties need to address the concerns that have led people to the BNP. They have failed miserably in this so far.
I don't pretend to know the solution, but I've seen these people on the streets and the only thing they represent is violence and division.
And jesus they're uuuuugly.
Godwins Law, brilliant
Aside from that, do you not think society has changed enough for a repeat of Hitlers rise to genocidal maniac to be seen long before it gets to such a bad possition? The media would blow anything close to that (more along the lines of deporting valid imigrants, not wiping out ethnic minorities) through the roof before anything did happen?
Maybe I have too much faith.
If things did get too sticky, at least the Monarchy I imagine still retains the power to dismantle the current elected government even if it hasn't been used in a long time.
People are people, we're a brutal bunch make no mistake. the Tutsis and the Hutus were getting on fine for a long time before Rwanda ended up in genocide. The Balkans is another example, people who were neighbours one year were killing each other in the most horrendous ways the next.Godwins Law, brilliant
Aside from that, do you not think society has changed enough for a repeat of Hitlers rise to genocidal maniac to be seen long before it gets to such a bad possition? The media would blow anything close to that (more along the lines of deporting valid imigrants, not wiping out ethnic minorities) through the roof before anything did happen?
Maybe I have too much faith.
If things did get too sticky, at least the Monarchy I imagine still retains the power to dismantle the current elected government even if it hasn't been used in a long time.
Bon, there is no middle ground, people who even entertain policies like Nick Griffin and his poisonous cohorts need to be stopped.
However, I don't seriously believe that a couple of MEP seats means Nick Griffin is going to be redesignating Butlins for other purposes.
And for what it's worth, i'm not even overly concerned about the election results. However, it has given me an opportunity to put across the argument against the BNP and to point out their disingenuous, two faced "manifesto".
However, why give them a chance? They had their chance, we (UK, USA, USSR, Poland, France, Australia, NZ, SA, Commonwealth troops and many others) kicked their arse, and we'll do it again
I don't put much faith in the media, either. The media will only make a fuss about something if they know it will sell, a shift in what's morally acceptable means a shift in what the media writes about. In the end of the day, they're still a business out to make money.Godwins Law, brilliant
Aside from that, do you not think society has changed enough for a repeat of Hitlers rise to genocidal maniac to be seen long before it gets to such a bad possition? The media would blow anything close to that (more along the lines of deporting valid imigrants, not wiping out ethnic minorities) through the roof before anything did happen?
Maybe I have too much faith.
If things did get too sticky, at least the Monarchy I imagine still retains the power to dismantle the current elected government even if it hasn't been used in a long time.
Not to mention that a lot of different newspapers are owned by the same person. Rupurt Murdoch owns over 175 newspaper titles across the globe, most of which (Funnily enough) supported the Iraq war. I mean, that's just a coincidence, right? Considering he himself supports the war, and is heavily involved with politics himself
- Status