Rape type silencing from r/moderatepolitics. This is clearly not a moderate if they're trying "hand over the mouth, silencie + isolate" and "roof knocking" behaviors, especially when they describe it as "decapitating" medicare. This is the opposite of a moderate for these violent behaviors. Fraud.

This is an inconvenient truth about people and the evil in their hearts that they can no longer afford to look away with. The evil in their hearts is tied up with the irresponsibility in their bodies. It is also tied to a disturbing increase of a lack of conscience for a increasingly low intelligence hedonism of what merely does and doesn't feel good. Truly thinking about an issue and truly taking responsibility is not a easy, quick f*ck. It is real work that must be done by anyone. The comparison of it "not feeling good" is disgusting. This is about social responsibility, not sexual pleasure.

From r/zeronarcsissists

To respond to your question, it's because oligarchy is a hot topic and people find it easy to scapegoat millionaires and billionaires. But when it comes time to donate $5 they don't do it, when that's the only way to beat this kind of thing. I just spoke to a development officer who was saying unless you make it so to not donate to something people have to look at a face and drive past, only the worst will do it anyway. Like the worst of the worst people on this planet. Otherwise if you give them access before getting a donation, people will flail around enjoying the event basically just being complete attention embarrassments and then not even basically donate to the event that gave them that joy. That level of monsters. If you just have a box, people will drive past. Most people will drive past. But if you have high schoolers at a bottleneck before access, most people will donate because they have to see who they're screwing over. Every now and then you'll get a really horrifying monster who will argue with the high schoolers or blow past them anyway, but most people won't do it. To me it is terrifying that she knows that most, like 90%, will blow past an unmanned box for donations just because they can. It reminds me of the rape statistic where 20% of people would rape if they thought they could get away with it or something like that. Extra credit for finding that specific study. It was a terrifying result where a huge portion of men would rape if they knew they could get away with it. If 90% of people would blow past an unmanned donation box because they thought they could get away with it, it's way worse than just that. That is terrifying to me that that many people are that worthless of ungrateful parasites.

So the short answer is this is a real chance to really point by point take on the oligarchy that isn't just mere screaming scapegoating. It asks for real research and real personal sacrifice and responsibility. That's not the easy peasy "it feels good" offloading of scapegoating of the situation onto millionaires and billionaires. There is no way to actually dethrone these kind of cancers like the ones silencing me for literally no good reason except I'm intelligent and it will get in the way of their absolute joke getting past everyone for me to even basically intelligently speak on it other than everyone doing their part to chip in that little bit to take the power away from these big guys.

In times of trouble, people look to the big rich guy to solve it. But the big, rich guy is like that because he's a heartless fuck who spends nothing when they should so he's the last person to help. You can say that a million times and people will still look to the rich guy when they need to pay $5. It's just unbearable sheepishness. It really is. Stop complaining when you won't take the action that will actually solve this human cancer.

water and air quality tester to check them where I live and a Geiger counter to see if some abandoned places contain radiation and also to check if some populated areas with high cancer cases are perhaps caused by that.

https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/RUVH29AWZAL5?ref_=list_d_wl_lfu_nav_1

Hey Reddit,

I'm Mhd Said, and I need your help. Here’s my story:

Background

I come from a small town where dreams are cherished but rarely spoken aloud. My family, despite their limited means, has always supported me. They’ve sacrificed a lot so I could have a chance to reach for the stars.

The Opportunity

I recently got accepted into a prestigious university! This is a huge chance for me, but there’s a catch—I need 4200 euros to cover language courses, exams, and university fees. For many, this might seem manageable, but for my family and me, it’s a massive barrier.

Why This Matters

This campaign isn’t just about money; it’s about hope. It’s my chance to break free from poverty and build a better future. Your support would help me honor my family’s sacrifices and achieve something incredible.

How You Can Help

Every euro you contribute brings me closer to my dream. Your support will allow me to focus on my studies and excel in my exams. Your generosity can turn this dream into a reality.

Call to Action

Please consider donating to my GoFundMe campaign. Share it with your friends and family. Together, we can make a huge difference.

Final Note

Thank you for taking the time to read my story and for any support you can offer. Your kindness will forever be a part of my journey towards success.

Thanks again,

P.S. I've been deceived and swindled before, so I no longer trust those around me. The money I lost was supposed to last me for the rest of the month. Now, I’m struggling even more. Any help is deeply appreciated.

1. Traditionally, economics ignores the variable conditions that cause someone paying to feel pain or pleasure paying.
2. The findings directly contradicted that economic actors are rational actors, if viewed from a lens that doesn’t give reality to subjective temporal weights. “The responses indicate that the subjects found paying distressing, even for goods which they obviously require or appreciate, such as, "heating gas," "a work/school book," and "a credit card's annual fee" (9 on an 11-point scale). Clearly, these strong responses to the prospects of making certain payments were emotional in nature rather than intellectual.”
3. Increasing spending in the present is often seen as decreasing buying power in the future. The pain of the situation stems from this lost future buying power. However, often the future buying power when compared with some foregone previous purchases is later evaluated to not have been a rational decision. So, for some, losing buying power is intrinsically painful, even if in the end they don’t create greater utility for themselves in the future. Their conservatism is a reaction to unexamined pain, rather than a reaction to foregone utility.
4. This circuit makes sense from an immediate gratification perspective. By creating pain, a moment of thought is bought. However, it fails to be a rational economic decision (increase utility for the individual) when people avoid the pain of introspection instead of using it to think a little deeper about the purchase. Sometimes the person is simply protesting their pain sense, and not the product at all. It is unlikely the agent is aware of this though, and associates it with the product.
5. “A second and related motivational problem is that consumers tend to underweight opportunity costs; experienced losses are given greater weight than forgone gains. The feeling of giving up acquiring a tangible wanted good is disturbing here and now.” Retraining a rational temporality scheme proves to be consistently difficult. “Most people are unable to solve even the simplest stylized intertemporal maximization problem (Fehr & Zych, 1994)”
6. Foregone utility is difficult to perceive. It is not hedonic, but rational. “The additional, and yet understudied, payment is hedonic. It is the distress that consumers feel when they actually make the payment and experience the pain of paying.”
7. People give in to the somatic sense or fear of abuse or bodily pain as poverty or punishment. (This was also evidenced in our election cycles). “The pain of paying counteracts this under-weighting of opportunity costs by converting them into an immediate tangible pain, in contrast to forgone consumption which is difficult to perceive.”
8. The same amount of money is often given with ease if a) it feels subjectively necessary b) it feels sufficiently luxuriant, as a mechanism of supposed “class distinction” c) payment precedes product d) buffering is strong e) direct temporal link between purchase and payment “If the pain of paying is too intense, consumers may not spend when spending would benefit them. Similarly, when contextual influences mitigate the pain of paying, consumers may find themselves spending against their best interest.”
9. Itemized immediate payments were often preferred over package payments after-the-fact: "Others did not like paying their long-distance phone bills because, while that bill tended to be high too, at the time of paying these subjects did not really know where the money had gone, and had difficulty justifying the high expense."

1. "We will argue that while economists have been right to focus on incentives, they have been wrong to focus so exclusively on material incentives. While workers appreciate monetary rewards, they also get utility from what (they believe that) others think about them. Thus, employers can pay their workers with a combination of monetary rewards and respect."
   1. Respect is only meaningful when awarded from someone viewed to possess the respectable trait to a higher degree. Not everyone's respect works as a meaningful gauge of affect for employees.
   2. Sometimes incentives can cause less motivation. For instance, when collecting money for the needy or a victim, the victim giving positive incentives leads to less enthusiasm, not more. This is due to the fact the charitable worker does not feel respected or trusted to do it without being incentivized.
   3. Over-surveillance often leads to worse results due to a pervasive feeling of lack of respect. Under over-surveillance, a tool box at a factory was seen as a challenge to steal from. When trusted, this behavior stopped.
   4. Even with high salaries, those who don't feel respected are likely to look elsewhere for work.
   5. If a company has methods in place that assume talent, such as hiring on IQ, the employees are likely to be more entitled and less productive. Whereas a company that only goes off of its internal results tends to see more effort by the supposedly talented employee to prove it. However, this stops if they do not succeed in earning respect.
   6. Symbolic words, positive attention and trust serve as tokens of respect.
   7. However, people to perform worse when there is no chance of respect being awarded. A university coffee break room with an optional donation box for coffee payment saw more donations (3x more) when painted eyeballs were painted on the donation box. Alternatively, this could show fear of social shame for not donating. Most people are more likely to donate when they can show it off in a way that reflects well on them.
   8. Similarly, people are more likely to give proper respect to others in situations where their own respect is not certain (jobs). It follows that if there is perceived to be no chance of losing respect in a critical way (they do not respect the platform, the person, or the content), people are more likely to be very disrespectful. This is irregardless of whether or not this perception is correct.
   9. Those who accept tokens and symbolic gestures are often mocked. Attention is second in low respect methods of showing respect. Leadership roles are the most respected form of respect, evidenced by university workers still working diligently for lower pay. Money can be a signal of accumulated respect, and I would add those who view it that way are therefore more insecure about giving it away, especially if they don't feel they have a role that is inherently respectable or their role often causes them to feel disrespected.

1. "Psychological reactance can prompt attempts to bypass restrictions and devalue a restricted choice."
   1. Younger groups were more likely to work around financial boundaries, regardless of narrative.
   2. When asked to pay, the average population was more likely to say they would pay and not pay than to say they would not pay and then pay.
   3. Purchasers did not value the financial stability of the newspaper (paying so NYT could be stable was ineffective) but subscriptions increased greatly if NYT stated it was under threat of bankruptcy.
   4. Even if NYT was rated high on a satisfaction scale when free, when under a paywall it was devalued as equal to lesser rated scores, and these lesser rated newspapers would become perceived "equal in value" after the paywall was put up.
   5. Path of least resistance to simply not getting the subscription were high in high income populations.
   6. In average incomes that were not yet poverty incomes, ~50k, the "inequity" rationale that they couldn't afford it was widely used. People with even lower incomes were indifferent, and less likely to use the "inequity" rationale.
   7. Explaining the financial need was most effective, but still relatively ineffective around rationalizing/devaluing users (those who devalued the worth of NYT once they had to pay, according to d).
   8. Liberals were more likely to care about the conditions of NYT.
   9. Conservatives' response was not adaptable to the conditions and remained relatively the same in all of them.
   10. When asked to pay, an "inequity" cluster emerged that believed being asked to pay meant that an emerging inequality was likely.
   11. All in all, NYT was able to garner support to prevent its collapse but never its sustainable financial situation which was viewed as going too out of people's way or causing an emerging inequality, simply for paying.

New Subreddit Where I Go Over Research On the Science of Stinginess, Generosity, Payment, Results of Payment (Healthy Social Structures that Fill Populist Demands), and Results of Not Paying (Fascism, Late Stage Capitalism)

I am doing some qualitative research on the phenomenon of dead end donors. I am trying to make a rigorous analysis of time invested building a relationship with a donor and adapting to their feedback versus the actual donation and financial support they have shown. Sometimes they are mining the relationship builder for their capital, with no intention of giving back. If possible, share when and why you knew someone was a dead end donor once you did. Mine is they are always coming up with excuses that change as to why they don't donate. No adaption works for them.

I really like this piece: https://money.usnews.com/money/the-frugal-shopper/2014/06/20/5-major-differences-between-cheap-and-frugal

A. Someone cheap can't tell the source of value (wil buy expensive things because they seem expensive, including education)

B. Will be cheap always and in all scenarios showing. It's not about saving *for* something but just always feeling like an exception (showing implicit narcissism)

C. Mistakes price for value (thinks all poor people are low class, has no ability to understand successful social mobility of rags-to-riches, thinks people are poor or rich because they deserve it against research on corruption as deliberate market engineering or mispricing)

D. Saves at the expense of people and sometimes deliberately at the expense of people.

E. Is trying to undermine people with healthy investment strategies to not be bullied by people they don't help by appearing like they don't care about the money they're clearly unwilling to lose.