Some Things That You Really Can't Say

I think that the "stuff you can't say" idea is more about opinions. Specifically, opinions that are so crazy and unpopular that you'd be branded a heretic for even suggesting them -- opinions that you couldn't even espouse on the craziest talk show on TV.

It's not about facts (which are provably right or wrong). So saying, "9/11 didn't happen like we were told" is questioning the facts -- really not a stuff-you-can't-say kind of statement.

Reading through the list, I didn't find any of those statements particularly controversial. I hear people say that stuff all the time, and I suspect that if you were to shout those things on a street corner in a large city, you'd probably attract at least some crowd of people who'd agree with you, or at the very least, grant you an interview.

So, let me make an attempt revise your statements and try to turn them into actual "stuff you can't say":

Old: "The ambitious greed of Wall Street keeps everyone else from true success..."

Better: "Some people will never be successful no matter how much money you invest in them. Better to just test everyone early on for intelligence and let that determine who gets to be rich."

Old: "Successful public companies are bad for society. They are always bound to delivering the greatest possible profit, and rarely held to any standards of ethical behavior..."

Better: "Why do we need personal and professional ethics anymore when we can just legislate everything? Let's eliminate accountability completely and have professional judges decide right from wrong based on a strict set of codes designed to cover all situations."

Old: "There is no solid evidence that 9/11 happened like we are told..."

Better: "9/11 really wasn't a big deal. As a nation we should accept those few thousand deaths as a rounding error when compared to the many more people die of accidents and preventable illness."

Old: "People who join the (US) military are making the world a more dangerous place..."

Better: "The world would be better if it were under the rule of a single world government. The idea of a military would disappear, as it would then be irrelevant."

Old: "Ad sponsored media's primary function is to force you to pay attention. They trend towards accomplishing this with fear and social exploitation (shiny, sexy things) because these play to your un-ignorable biological reflexes..."

Better: "Advertising that manipulates people on a subconscious level should be illegal. We should regulate the advertising industry by requiring every product description to appear in a standard format (black Helvetica text on white background). We should require government approval before any product can be sold in stores."

Old: "And most amazingly: it is okay to be wrong. To attack someone for not believing that we landed on the moon, or in the Holocaust, is actually selfish.."

Better: "From now on we should use the Wikipedia as the final say in what is considered factual and right. Anyone caught vandalizing or defacing the Wikipedia should be punished by death, as crimes against truth are more serious than crimes against man."

Most people leave their thinking to the so-called domain experts and ridicule any contrary arguments. It's Pavlovian. Mostly because the humans are pack animals / tribal and we look to the pack leader / chief. Bernays book Propaganda might be review for you but its short and it drives home the point. Relevant quote:

Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. In almost every act of our lives whether in the sphere of politics or business in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind.

One other way of looking at it is more of what Cialdini describes in "the psychology of influence". Basically, the world around us is too complex for our biological brains to really grasp, so we look for short cuts to get us through the day. One of those shortcuts is deferring to apparent authority. Same results (looking to others for answers), but a little more based on evolutionary bio / psychology as opposed to a "people as sheep" POV.

>To attack someone for not believing that we landed on the moon, or in the Holocaust, is actually selfish. If you are so concerned, the correct recourse is to present convincing evidence.

People who deny the Holocaust aren't likely to be persuaded by convincing evidence, or they wouldn't be denying it in the first place.

I think you struck out....I strenuously disagree with every single point you listed...but did it anger me? Are you kidding? You sound like such a lunatic, I couldn't help but chuckle as I read them....

Sorry to rain on your parade...