Fucking hell, what exactly is wrong with reminding billionaires that if they are free to ignore the rules of civilized society then so are the rest of us?
It makes Babale sad?
What if the billionaires were also Hamas?
Amusingly (or really tragically) enough, those who fund and most enable Hamas are in fact billionaires. And, in general, they’re being ignored by the Israeli government and military.
And that’s good, 'cause we sure wouldn’t want them to fear for their lives.
I disagree with the idea that things that inspire fear in billionaires are going to lead to that outcome, rather than, say, all our class warfare and bloody revolution. Which, to be clear, are things that I would also consider bad.
You might say that billionaires have more to lose in such a scenario, and maybe you’re right; but plenty of people without much to lose will lose everything anyways, including their lives.
So you’re disagreeing with straw men rather than the actual words I’ve said. If you want to address my actual words, I’m here to listen.
Billionaires, as a whole, don’t ignore the rules of civilized society. And when they do, they should face civilized consequences - like financial ruin, reputational harm, or jail.
But maybe you’d rather see what a society where billionaires actually ignore the rules of civilized society is like; in that case, keep pushing for class warfare. Based on historical precedent, it’s not pretty.
Hardeehar! What an epic pwn! ROFLCOPTER! You’ve really convinced me that you’re operating in good faith, here.
I’m truly sorry if my incredibly mild joke hurt your feelings. I’ll remember not to make incredibly mild jokes at your expense in the Pit again. Once again, my apologies.
They regularly ignore the rules of civilized society and everyone complains that they do not face any consequences.
And I’ll remember not to mistake you for someone who’s actually trying to engage in good faith in the future.
It’s truly hilarious to accuse me of responding to strawman right before heaping up that giant pile of shitty straw.
Damnit Andy, you’re making me regret apologising to you, and it’s only been an hour!
Dude, I really thought you could take a mild joke. Sorry.
I’m having fun here. Arguing (and joking about arguing) is fun for me. I’m sorry if I hurt anyone’s feelings.
Umm, weren’t you apologizing for what you did? So what the fuck does what’s going on in this thread that you are not a party to make you think you didn’t need to apologize for what you did?
The whole Two Stooges routine isn’t working. Joking goes better when you have established a certain level of trust and good will.
And @Babale is right that billionaires who fear for their lives are likely to act worse, not better. The ones in Western countries generally do recognise that it’s “better to be a bit less wealthy and feed and care for the masses than continue to exploit and risk their doom”. Just look at African dictators if you don’t believe me.
It’s not really a matter of hurt feelings. I’m not offended; I certainly say offensive stuff at times when arguing.
It’s that, I’ve been trying, over and over, in what I think is clearly good faith, to explain to you why I take issue with that statement. And we both know it has nothing to do with “I feel sad for billionaires”. So it’s pretty disheartening to spend time and effort attempting to communicate with you, to get that crap back. (And I’ll note that you still haven’t engaged with the substance of what I said, the explanation of why I think it IS an extreme statement).
It doesn’t make me feel offended; it does make me feel like I’ve been wasting my time.
Because you’re responding to straw men. You’re making up words and statements that I haven’t said.
I’ll try again:
Yes or no: would it be a good thing if the next United CEOs took, as a lesson from the shooting, that if they managed their company in a more compassionate way, they’d be less likely to be shot?
Fuck off, troll. I wouldn’t even bother joking with the likes of you.
Because you’re skipping multiple steps in the logic chain.
If the only thing I can say is “Yes” or “No”, then sure, I guess the answer is “Yes”, because there only one outcome to weigh and it’s a good one. But in reality, there are a bunch of other factors to consider:
Was the CEO of United Health killed because of the particular way he was running his company, or was he killed because a particular mentally deranged rich kid happened to pick him to murder? Is there any real reason for a CEO to believe that the way their company is run has anything to do with their chance of getting murdered? Even if they did believe that they could take a cut to profit to lower the chance of being murdered, couldn’t they also keep the money and hire better security to achieve the same thing?
I don’t think the question you pose has very much to do with reality.
The above list was mostly rhetorical questions, examples of problems I have with getting from A to B when your question already starts at C, so to speak.
But here’s my actual question:
Do you think that it’s realistic to expect that random violence against billionaires like Luigi is likely to result in billionaires having the realization you describe?