What makes a good rebel?

[Animeman73]

We all have those times in our lives where we just want to rebele against the system, go out of our way, and be the person who walks to the beat of their own drum.

God knows in this era of ridiculous PCness we could use some good rebels. Forgive me if I sound a trifle egotistical, but I like to think of myself as a rebel because I don't think like others do. And i don't conform with any one way of thinking.

But enough about me. i want to hear from you? What do you think makes a good rebel?

And as always keep the language family friendly.

[The_Geek]

I may possibly be classified as a rebel if defined by my ways of thinking. I was raised with certain things in mind, mainly integrity. Where I have grown up has had an affect on my views of the world. I am able to hold debates on philosophical topics with people who have been through Theory of Knowledge, and win. I hold an incredible amount of useless knowledge in my memory.
In truth though, I don't really think that there's such a definite force that one can rebel against, now or ever. There's such a conformity in nonconformity; it's amusing and sad at the same time. In the end I just wish that everyone could be chill with the entirety of the rest of the world, no matter how one is classified.

[makichan]

In my opinion, being a rebel constitutes taking action against a social norm (and I don't just mean verbally). Many of us have thoughts that would constitute as being socially deviant but how many of us actually act on them? And if so, did they originate within us or were we somehow influenced by something or someone? I don't believe that thinking a certain way makes anyone a rebel until they are distinguished by society as such (and certainly not by us telling others that we are rebels or nonconformists). I would argue that in order to be a true rebel society needs to distinguish you as being somewhat of a social deviant because you challenge the way society maintains and/or functions.
Most of us are conformists to some degree (and certainly those of us that try to "keep the language family friendly"). I don't think of myself as a rebel because I have yet to distinguish myself as one. Besides, most if not all of my opinions are based on preconceived notions.


Edit: Being socially deviant isn't necessarily a bad thing btw.

[~boogiepop~]

I kill the poor and give to the rich.

[Malaria]

A good rebel is someone who acts effectively/affectively to create change according to a well thought-out principle that runs counter to established dogma. Rebels don't have to rebel against everything, and they don't have to entirely unique. There's nothing wrong with being associated with a sub- or counterculture. Additionally, a good rebel is not a Nazi punk. They're just stupid.

Abstract enough for everyone? xP

Also, I'd like to point out that being PC is one of those things that is often cited as something we should be rebelling against, but the actual point of PC language is to keep members of non-privileged classes from feeling crap for being non-privileged. Being PC is a way to keep from being the millionth person to indiscriminately insult or irritate a person you don't have any problem with. Altering language alters perception, ideally in such a way that it allows people to be full human beings instead of narrow stereotypes or assumptions.

[Classy Viking]

All the rebel I need.

[Malaria]

A rebel is the next oppressor.

ha, this. Thank you, dynastic cycles.

[Rathany]

To me a good rebel is someone who is subversive and makes people think. 

[kylite]

The few, the proud, the yojimbo.

The greatest group of rebels in k-con history

[MiriaRose]

God knows in this era of ridiculous PCness we could use some good rebels.

Yes, because how dare we attack people based off of ridiculous things and how dare we discriminate? Ridiculous PCness? Yes, god forbid we not insult people in non-privileged groups!

Do you really want me to break out the links?

[Animeman73]

Okay MiriaRose, lass, that was about as far off of what i was talking about as it gets.

Discrimation is one thing, I'm legally blind so I've experienced discrimation and racism firsthand from all races. PC has to do with being forced into a set of totalitarian rules similiar to what they had in Russia around the time of Stalin.  There's no doubt that discrimation shouldn't be tolerated, and yes everybody should play by the same set of rules and have to pay their fair share.

Like I said I'm a rebel because I have a set of beliefs different from a lot of folks. Not everyone's going to agree with mt. And I promise I'll not try and change your opinions lass.

Back on subject a good rebel does something that takes everyone from out of proverbial left field.

[MiriaRose]

What are these horrible communist rules you're talking about, then? Please provide examples. I don't see them, so it'd be nice if you could explain to me.

Also, do you read Nietzsche by any chance? Just curious.

[Animeman73]

'Thus spoke Zaustra'

Those who fight the monsters should see to it that they do not become one. For when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gaszes into you.

The Stalinisrt rules you're talking about.

1. The idea that wealth should be redistributed by force.
2. Mandates Tat a person who is not bnecessarily the best qualified for the job MUST be hired rather than people being hired based on ability.
3. The whole class warfare thing, Now granted there are some rich people out there who could do with a lesson or two in humility. But what about those 'rich people'  who earbned EVERY last cent? Don't they deserve the right to indulge a little bit?
4. The idea that i HAVE to share my paycheck or my stuff with someone else who hasn't lifted a finger to do a day of work in their lives. Chaity is one thing but charity helps give people a chance to get some skills so they can take care of themselves by earning their own paycheck.

I'd go on but there's not enough space.

[reppy]

No such thing as an honest billionaire. "If you have too much, then you must have taken from those who have too little.". (Okay, that's not verbatim.)

[reppy]

'Thus spoke Zaustra'

Those who fight the monsters should see to it that they do not become one. For when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gaszes into you.

The Stalinisrt rules you're talking about.

1. The idea that wealth should be redistributed by force.
2. Mandates Tat a person who is not bnecessarily the best qualified for the job MUST be hired rather than people being hired based on ability.
3. The whole class warfare thing, Now granted there are some rich people out there who could do with a lesson or two in humility. But what about those 'rich people'  who earbned EVERY last cent? Don't they deserve the right to indulge a little bit?
4. The idea that i HAVE to share my paycheck or my stuff with someone else who hasn't lifted a finger to do a day of work in their lives. Chaity is one thing but charity helps give people a chance to get some skills so they can take care of themselves by earning their own paycheck.

I'd go on but there's not enough space.

1. The greater your wealth, the greater you have benefited from the protections the government and its people provide. I don't know too many million and billionaires going off to fight wars. Business owners also benefit disproportionately from things like public transportation (so their employees and customers can get to their business), roads (to transport goods), and of course the Internet which was funded with tax payer dollars.

2. A0 great deal of America's wealth can be attributed to a massive unpaid work force, aka slaves.

3. See my previous post.

4. I have personally benefited from government programs to help people in need. Do some people abuse this? Sure. But I'd be more upset with corporate welfare that goes to the line the pockets of fat cats. I'm much less concerned with money going to keep people off the streets and children fed.

Hope my post doesn't come off as argumentative. Just sharing my perspectives on these points.

[Venusgate]

I kill the poor and give to the rich.

You work for the government?!   (zing!)

Okay, animeman, i'd like to have a few things clarified. PC (or "politically correct") is not Stalinism. It's not even Stalin-Lite. By all accounts, it's pacifism or maybe even polite-ism. If there's anything that doesn't need rebelling against, it's polite-ism.

Correct me if i'm wrong: I think what you're thinking of is current imposed tension when speaking about serious things (race, religion, politics). The "No religion or politics at the dinner table" stance.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at, but I don't see the need of rebellion there.


But, back to the original question: A rebel is one who fights against the status quo. A good rebel is one who firmly believes in a particular way of thought unorthodox to the currently widely accepted school, and has the strength  to stand against the subjugation of his ideals, as well as the courage to sacrifice comfort to do so.

[MiriaRose]

'Thus spoke Zaustra'

Those who fight the monsters should see to it that they do not become one. For when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gaszes into you.

The Stalinisrt rules you're talking about.

1. The idea that wealth should be redistributed by force.
2. Mandates Tat a person who is not bnecessarily the best qualified for the job MUST be hired rather than people being hired based on ability.
3. The whole class warfare thing, Now granted there are some rich people out there who could do with a lesson or two in humility. But what about those 'rich people'  who earbned EVERY last cent? Don't they deserve the right to indulge a little bit?
4. The idea that i HAVE to share my paycheck or my stuff with someone else who hasn't lifted a finger to do a day of work in their lives. Chaity is one thing but charity helps give people a chance to get some skills so they can take care of themselves by earning their own paycheck.

I'd go on but there's not enough space.

1. The idea that wealth should not be distributed was one of the causes of the Great Depression. I've written that research paper twice, I can go on and on about it. A great deal of wealth in the hands of very few people hurts the economy.
2. I'm confused by what you mean. Are you complaining about affirmative action? If so, there's evidence that white males are actually more commonly hired.
3. Oh, fun, "class warfare." They have enough money already to indulge. You don't need to be a multi-millionaire to be happy or to live comfortably.
4. Ever been on welfare? Most of the people on the system aren't on it to abuse it. I'd rather some poor children have somewhere to sleep at night than the Walton family have more money than they know how to spend.

At least then it's going somewhere that can help people.

In addition, that isn't Stalinism. Do you know how long unemployment help, Social Security, income tax, etc. has been around for? It isn't anything new.

Also, Venusgate, your definition of a good rebel can fit some really nasty people.

[Malaria]

Animeman: Stalinist Communism and Political Correctness are two entirely different concerns. One is an economic and regulatory stance, the other is a social creed. You can have both at once, but we didn't. Nothing in Stalin-era USSR said you couldn't discriminate against peoples on the basis of their ethnicity, origin, religious beliefs, class or employment. In fact, under Stalin, you could do all of those things! And then send them to work camps with little to no evidence. :I
PC asks you to mind what you say because there's a good chance you're rubbing salt in a generations-old wound.

Miria: I don't think we're looking for a morally-good rebel, but rather a philosophically-good rebel.

[MiriaRose]

I wouldn't say we're looking for a morally good rebel as morals differ for everyone.

Also, thank you for pointing out the difference between PCness and Stalinism.

[@random]

What makes a good rebel? Good PR. Otherwise, they're anything from a "troublemaker" to a "traitor."

Being on the winning side helps, too. Which oddly enough, makes them no longer a "rebel." 

[MiriaRose]

What makes a good rebel? Good PR. Otherwise, they're anything from a "troublemaker" to a "traitor."

Being on the winning side helps, too. Which oddly enough, makes them no longer a "rebel." 

Kind of like "Your terrorists are our freedom fighters?"

[reppy]

I actually think political correctness distracts from much bigger issues.  Is it really a big deal every time Rush Limbaugh says something offensive?  And then news organizations waste valuable air time reporting on it when they could be reporting about real things that impact lives.

Political correctness has become a way to attack your opponent and distract the people from who's really screwing them over.  Some of my favorite figures are far from politically correct; in fact, they abhor political correctness.  Yet they care deeply about social issues and the well-being of American citizens.

Also, some good rebels in my opinion:

Martin Luther King, Jr.
Jesus
Gandhi
The Founding Fathers

[TurboSaiyanJason]

According to the Empire, a good Rebel is a dead Rebel.

But since I'm for the Alliance, Leia is a good Rebel. In both ways actually since she's a princess with attitude who fights when she needs to, and leads the Rebel Alliance. (takes after her mother, Padme)

[DancingTofu]

Animeman, what you're describing is a capitalist, not a rebel.

[makichan]

I can't think of any billionaire that has earned every cent without stepping on others to obtain it and I personally don't see what's wrong in redistributing wealth if it betters our world. It's a huge investment to help others, because excessive wealth is unnecessary. The "pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps" notion is illogical and doesn't apply to most people in our society because it's not an equal playing field. Also, while there might be people that take advantage of the system, who's to say that wealthy bureaucrats don't do the same only to much greater (as in worser) degrees?
I think we could stand to use a few policies that look out for others in less privileged groups in the U.S. and other countries that are taken over and managed by corporate greed.
By the way, what the hell does this have to do with being a rebel? Capitalism isn't a form of rebellion, especially here. XD

[Venusgate]

I can't think of any billionaire that has earned every cent without stepping on others to obtain it and I personally don't see what's wrong in redistributing wealth if it betters our world. It's a huge investment to help others, because excessive wealth is unnecessary. The "pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps" notion is illogical and doesn't apply to most people in our society because it's not an equal playing field. Also, while there might be people that take advantage of the system, who's to say that that wealthy bureaucrats don't do the same only to much greater (as in worser) degrees?
I think we could stand to use a few policies that look out for others in less privileged groups in the U.S. and other countries that are taken over and managed by corporate greed.
By the way, what the hell does this have to do with being a rebel? Capitalism isn't a form of rebellion, especially here. XD

If may go down this road with you, the other concept of Capitalism is that money is the reward for hard work. Knowing that when you finally get that carrot, the people who have been watching you struggle for it are going to demand half; fewer people will want to chase that carrot. Fewer carrot chasers means fewer doctors, lawyers, entrepreneurs and other high paying professions that demand high risk or high educational investment. That is the argument against redistribution of wealth.

[makichan]

I can't think of any billionaire that has earned every cent without stepping on others to obtain it and I personally don't see what's wrong in redistributing wealth if it betters our world. It's a huge investment to help others, because excessive wealth is unnecessary. The "pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps" notion is illogical and doesn't apply to most people in our society because it's not an equal playing field. Also, while there might be people that take advantage of the system, who's to say that that wealthy bureaucrats don't do the same only to much greater (as in worser) degrees?
I think we could stand to use a few policies that look out for others in less privileged groups in the U.S. and other countries that are taken over and managed by corporate greed.
By the way, what the hell does this have to do with being a rebel? Capitalism isn't a form of rebellion, especially here. XD

If may go down this road with you, the other concept of Capitalism is that money is the reward for hard work. Knowing that when you finally get that carrot, the people who have been watching you struggle for it are going to demand half; fewer people will want to chase that carrot. Fewer carrot chasers means fewer doctors, lawyers, entrepreneurs and other high paying professions that demand high risk or high educational investment. That is the argument against redistribution of wealth.

But what do you mean by hard work? I know of a lot of instances both here in the United States and in the Global South where people work much harder than those that truly profit from it because they are being exploited for the work that they put in. Is that morally okay?
Most of the people at the top of the food chain didn't struggle for it individually but inherited it through family ties or relations. I think that the more opportunity given to others, the more doctors, lawyers, and entrepreneurs we'll have. The problem is that our country doesn't seem to want to invest much in education but in the preservation of wealth and status.

And so we're clear, I'm totally not trying to get on anyone's case. I love discussing these issues with others... even if it's in the wrong thread lol.

[reppy]

I've never heard of a lawyer or doctor leaving their profession because of income taxes. Maybe they're out there, I've just never seen it.

[DancingTofu]

If people aren't self-motivated (rather than motivated by money/benefits) then they probably wouldn't make very good healthcare or legal professionals in the first place.

The basis of my ambition is the notion that I can give back to society.  If the opportunity weren't out there for me to give my wealth and knowledge to those less capable and less fortunate than me, I wouldn't be pursuing a PhD; I'd settle for a diploma and get a job I can support myself on.  But I don't want to settle for that.  I want a job where I can support a family, send my kids to any college in the world without them having to stress about financial aid, student debt, and trying to balance a job and school, and I want to be able to pay taxes to support the wellness of my country and its people, and I want to take the remainder of my income and contribute it to helping make Portland a cleaner, happier, chiller place.

All ambition stems from desire, but all desire need not stem from gluttony (the act of consumption beyond need).

[Venusgate]

She said...

And then I was like...

But what do you mean by hard work? I know of a lot of instances both here in the United States and in the Global South where people work much harder than those that truly profit from it because they are being exploited for the work that they put in. Is that morally okay?
Most of the people at the top of the food chain didn't struggle for it individually but inherited it through family ties or relations. I think that the more opportunity given to others, the more doctors, lawyers, and entrepreneurs we'll have. The problem is that our country doesn't seem to want to invest much in education but in the preservation of wealth and status.

And so we're clear, I'm totally not trying to get on anyone's case. I love discussing these issues with others... even if it's in the wrong thread lol.

That's sort of the catch, is that there's not really a legitimate way to tell between hard working and inherited, corrupt, or 'lucky' wealth. While the later three might seem immoral, what is just as wrong is shot-gunning the whole income bracket, hoping you hit as few deserving people as possible.

I've never heard of a lawyer or doctor leaving their profession because of income taxes. Maybe they're out there, I've just never seen it.

The fact that we don't have those much higher taxes yet aside, the people who have already invested their time and money into those professions sure aren't going to give them up now, unless it's lucrative enough to fall back into the middle class. What I'm saying is someone might not be willing to enter into those schools and training knowing that they won't make at least four times as much as people who don't go to college at all.

Taking off the devil's advocate cap for a second, my opinion is that there should be a flat % income tax straight up the line. No reason to argue; everyone gives their fair share. If we give tax cuts, it goes down across the board. If we have a deficit, it goes up across the board.

Also, a $10k cap on charity write-off.

[@random]

DancingTofu: You don't even need to assume that someone is motivated by wanting to make the world a better place - the "people won't bother to make money because of taxes" argument is somewhat hard to swallow to begin with. Can anyone honestly see someone calling their broker and telling them "Charles, stop making money for me RIGHT NOW! After the gains from BP, I hit the top tax bracket and I'll only be able to keep $650 thousand for every million instead of $670 thousand for every million like I could yesterday!"

Link: the actual tax rates in question for 2010. There's a lot less difference than the demagogues try to imply - maximum is 35%, and to get below 25% you have to have an income under $35k. Not to mention that, as can be implied from Venusgate's points, it's somewhat naïve to assume people in the top income brackets actually pay anything close to the maximum tax rate after "deductions" are calculated.

Something I've wondered for years is... why is it supposedly immoral for the government to give $10,000 to someone below the poverty line, but moral to give several million dollars to someone making $20 million a year? To my mind, the biggest difference between a "welfare check" and a "tax break" is who you have to go to to get one - public servants in the former case, Congress in the latter.

[reppy]

I've never heard of a lawyer or doctor leaving their profession because of income taxes. Maybe they're out there, I've just never seen it.

The fact that we don't have those much higher taxes yet aside, the people who have already invested their time and money into those professions sure aren't going to give them up now, unless it's lucrative enough to fall back into the middle class. What I'm saying is someone might not be willing to enter into those schools and training knowing that they won't make at least four times as much as people who don't go to college at all.

Taking off the devil's advocate cap for a second, my opinion is that there should be a flat % income tax straight up the line. No reason to argue; everyone gives their fair share. If we give tax cuts, it goes down across the board. If we have a deficit, it goes up across the board.

Also, a $10k cap on charity write-off.

The upper income tax bracket used to be 90%, I think, under Jimmy Carter.  And under Reagan, it was 80%.  Yet no one is calling Reagan a commie or a socialist or saying he destroyed incentive necessary for capitalism. ^^

Also, no one is actually paying an effective rate of 80% or 60% or whatever.  Warren Buffet (billionaire) put out a $1 million dollar challenge.

The often “out of the box” Buffet, one of the richest men in the world, offered $1 million to any one in the audience who could prove that he paid a tax rate which was higher than those that work for him. Buffett claimed that last year, he made $46 million and was taxed at 17.7%. Those that work for him pay an average tax rate of 32.9% – with the highest rate being 39.7 percent.

A flat tax sounds nice in theory but I don't think it would work well in practice.  It would require either that people that are already paying 15% pay more or we make massive cutbacks.

[MiriaRose]

She said...

And then I was like...

But what do you mean by hard work? I know of a lot of instances both here in the United States and in the Global South where people work much harder than those that truly profit from it because they are being exploited for the work that they put in. Is that morally okay?
Most of the people at the top of the food chain didn't struggle for it individually but inherited it through family ties or relations. I think that the more opportunity given to others, the more doctors, lawyers, and entrepreneurs we'll have. The problem is that our country doesn't seem to want to invest much in education but in the preservation of wealth and status.

And so we're clear, I'm totally not trying to get on anyone's case. I love discussing these issues with others... even if it's in the wrong thread lol.

That's sort of the catch, is that there's not really a legitimate way to tell between hard working and inherited, corrupt, or 'lucky' wealth. While the later three might seem immoral, what is just as wrong is shot-gunning the whole income bracket, hoping you hit as few deserving people as possible.

Out of curiosity, why do they deserve that much money? Plenty of people work just as hard, but for whatever reason, they don't have it. Who does and doesn't deserve it, in your mind?

Also, as for corruption, I'd say you can tell it when you see it. Russia, for example.

[Venusgate]

The upper income tax bracket used to be 90%, I think, under Jimmy Carter.  And under Reagan, it was 80%.  Yet no one is calling Reagan a commie or a socialist or saying he destroyed incentive necessary for capitalism. ^^

A flat tax sounds nice in theory but I don't think it would work well in practice.  It would require either that people that are already paying 15% pay more or we make massive cutbacks.

Those numbers, even for marginal, are about 20% too high, but that's besides the point.

And far be it from me to say taxes shouldn't be weird to finish paying off a world war.

Also far be it from me to defend my flat tax idea when the real reason I'm putting up a fight to begin with is to challenge the notion the man is Capitalism. And just because someone's rich also means they are evil scrooges that should pay their due, whatever we decide their due is.

Out of curiosity, why do they deserve that much money? Plenty of people work just as hard, but for whatever reason, they don't have it. Who does and doesn't deserve it, in your mind?

Also, as for corruption, I'd say you can tell it when you see it. Russia, for example.

If we could trust any one person to be judge, jury and tax collector, then by all means, i'd be for it. Like I said, though, there's no legitimate way to prove corruption on that scale. There's no 'corrupt' option on the tax forms.

And to automatically assume that (large bank account) = (ill gotten gains) is irresponsible.

Who does and doesn't deserve it, in your mind?

EDIT: Almost sidestepped this one. In my mind, the reason why farmer John can work just as hard as doctor Jim and make 10% of Jim's income is Jim had to struggle through at least 8 years of education and has the constant stress of making life and death decisions/actions. Or CEO Jim invested his entire life's savings to startup Jim airlines and the payoff of that risk and his current management is $$$.

Occupational income, however, is a result of natural economics, not government regulation.

[MiriaRose]

Out of curiosity, why do they deserve that much money? Plenty of people work just as hard, but for whatever reason, they don't have it. Who does and doesn't deserve it, in your mind?

Also, as for corruption, I'd say you can tell it when you see it. Russia, for example.

If we could trust any one person to be judge, jury and tax collector, then by all means, i'd be for it. Like I said, though, there's no legitimate way to prove corruption on that scale. There's no 'corrupt' option on the tax forms.

And to automatically assume that (large bank account) = (ill gotten gains) is irresponsible.

True. But even people who got it legitimately, do they need that much money?

Who does and doesn't deserve it, in your mind?

EDIT: Almost sidestepped this one. In my mind, the reason why farmer John can work just as hard as doctor Jim and make 10% of Jim's income is Jim had to struggle through at least 8 years of education and has the constant stress of making life and death decisions/actions. Or CEO Jim invested his entire life's savings to startup Jim airlines and the payoff of that risk and his current management is $$$.

Occupational income, however, is a result of natural economics, not government regulation.

What if John has a master's degree and he's still below the poverty line despite working hard? I didn't mean just farmers.

[reppy]

Where does Mr. CEO get his employees from?  Does he hire exclusively students that attended private colleges?  Did any of those people ever go to public schools?  How does he get his freight shipped from Place A to Place B?  Does it ever travel on roads?  Do any of his employees rely on the government because his company doesn't pay them enough to adequately feed and provide health care for themselves and/or their children?

He's using our education system, our roads, our social safety net to make himself rich.  Hm, I think he should have to pay more taxes because of that. ^^

[DancingTofu]

Nothing about the economy's really fair.  Nor does education and hard work guarantee financial stability.  Nearly everyone in my immediate family went to college.  About 3/4 of my immediate family went to an ivy-league college at least for grad school.  About half of them have Master's Degrees.  Only ONE person in my extended family is in the upper tax-bracket; my great aunt who went to law school.  It's not because she worked harder than everyone else; she just chose to go for a much more lucrative degree.  Just like my sister who's getting a degree in Engineering is going to make probably twice as much as I will with a PhD in Mathematics.  Some people pursue their passion, some people pursue an income, but nobody just gives up based on the fact that they're only going to make three times as much money as the average american family rather than four times as much.

Teachers basically disprove any counterargument.  Teaching is one of the most demanding jobs in the world, and requires a LOT of education.  But there's really no financial reward there.  People teach because they know the world needs teachers.  Take a look at any legal clinic or medical clinic.  The people that work there don't work there for the money or because it's easy.  They work there to make a difference for people who lack the means to pay for doctors' and lawyers' six-digit incomes.

[Cyprus]

"What makes a good rebel?"

[soundninja12]

HEY LOOK WHO IT IS
xD
Just thought I would pop in and tell you that my nickname is Rebel~
(AND CHECK OUT CHRIS BEING AWESOME <3)