"are you advocating then for centralized management of the economy?"

the point i was trying to make is that societies regulate the problem of individual drives clashing by establishing something common across all of the people of a society and that is what we call government

for example government outlaws sexual harassment because the common idea of  society is that sexual harassment is bad and therefore government enforces laws to curb sexual harassment

and government is able to do so because it is a centralised force between the people of a society

this nonsense you were coming up with about centralisation being about individuals is wrong

just the word itself makes this clear "CENTRAL" or in other words "SOMETHING THAT EXISTS BETWEEN TWO OR MORE INDIVIDUAL THINGS"

on the other other hand "DECENTRALISED" or in other words "BREAKING OF A STRUCTURE INTO SMALLER PARTS OR INDIVIDUALS"

again where are you getting the idea that centralisation is about indivdiduals? while decentralisation is about groups?

No, you posted BS that I was easily able to refute.  You don't privatize industry with a government taking it away from the people who started it and putting in someone who favors the government.  It's the exact opposite of the meaning of the word.  And o_O.Q posted something addressing it, as well.

And let me burst your little Socialist Utopia bubble.  Socialism has, is, and always will be a lie, whatever form it comes in.  A lie perpetrated by a soon to be dictator to fool gullible people into thinking they will be given power, wealth, and/or protection.  The people believe this one man, or small group lead by this man, will give them the Socialist Utopia they desire.  But, instead rights are always stripped from the people, usually free speech and gun rights, to quiet discontent, to stop another revolution.   The same people who helped him/them gain power are the same ones who are crushed beneath the weight of an oppressive government.  Sure, they give people a "vote," but no one is going to vote against the man in charge, for fear they and their families will be persecuted and/or killed.  And near the end, there is always a group/s that the people's plight is blamed on. In the end, the people are no better off and just filled with hatred for someone or something, all of which was accomplished on the backs of thousands/millions dead from either war within the country, persecution by the government, and/or starvation and disease.

That's the way it has always played out and the way it will always play out.

Socialism would be broken into smaller groups, instead of a huge corporation overseeing a massive chain, it would be done in a bottom-top manner.

I'm not a utopian socialist. And privatization means making state-owned corporations private, so what does that have to do with what you're saying?

They shouldn't be changed, but you're saying too that they shouldn't even be questioned? Why?

What you are describing is a Utopia.  Where everyone will just agree to disagree nicely and work out all of their problems.  And we can just be one big world with no states.  The world doesn't work that way.  Which is why the first thing Socialists do when they get power is to start crushing those who disagree with them and/or opposed them in their path to power.  And why they don't get along with people who believe in other forms of Socialism.  They all want the control of that big government and the power and wealth that comes with it.

And how do you not get this concept of privatization?  A company is not private when the government can just take it away from you because they don't like you or don't like your beliefs.  A private company is separate from the government and not controlled by it.  Sure, they may have to obey some regulations, but that is a FAR cry from the government just taking your company from you and handing it to someone that supports them.

The Grimm Tales have been altered already over times. Even the brothers Grimm published their own interpretation of older tales and then changed them into more "christian" versions when people demanded it.

"Socialism would be broken into smaller groups, instead of a huge corporation overseeing a massive chain, it would be done in a bottom-top manner."

that's not what socialism is and even if it was the very idea of an organisation being run from the bottom is silly

do you know why we don't run organisations from the bottom? because generally the people on the bottom don't have the skill set of the people at the top

that's like saying that we should let children run their families as opposed to adults

This is the best I could find for now, I tried looking for an archive of it, but this is all that came up. 

https://plus.google.com/107285504009892166200/posts/QyhiuCMhkPL

Naturally, it is not a popular subject of research considering its implications. There really needs to be a lot more research on this imo. 

This one below is somewhat related and should be working too, it suggests that men and women look at consent rather differently, and men in particular tend to interpret people's behaviors as more sexual than a woman would on average. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2744967/

"Everything I don't like should be banned!" Post-modern far left in a nutshell..

They've officially taken on the role of the uber conservatives decades ago in terms of the dominant cultural authoritarians wanting everything regulated/controlled/banned

This level of ignorance in 2017 is embarrassing, Nazis were never leftist, learn some history.

This thread is hilarious, people getting ofended cause one random person on twitter got ofended by the sexism of a tale that has always been clearly sexist. "The world is doomed! She is a nazi! Political correctness will destroy us!" XD Sometimes it seems like we live in the age of stupidity but I guess is just the efect of internet giving voice to a mindblowing number of intelectually challenged people.