God, you really are a scumbag. I try to bury the hatchet and you stab me in the back with it.
I bet you’re delusional enough to think of yourself as a good, empathetic person, too, while you’re busy twisting the knife.
So you agree with me. That’s all I was saying, in different words. That’s what DT was selectively quoting in bad faith (which she admits).
If you start a thread on your other questions, I’ll consider contributing.
When I saw 83 new posts in this thread, I wondered, Babale or Demontree? Why not both, I guess.
What? No, not at all. I do not agree that billionaires living in fear of being murdered is a good thing, because I don’t agree that it would result in the fantastical outcome you describe. Any more than I’d agree with the statement, “it would be good if billionaires lived in fear for their lives that made them give me free ice cream”. That would be a good outcome, but it’s completely, fantastically, delusionally disconnected from the conditions that are meant to bring it about.
And I stand by what I said above: it’s a very extreme position. If you’re convinced that DemonTree is a troll because she correctly pointed that out, that’s honestly delusional.
This is my position - It would 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.
That’s it. That’s my position (rephrased) from the original post that DT dishonestly, selectively quoted.
Is that an extreme position? You already said you agree with it, unless I’m majorly missing something.
That’s quite a paraphrase from:
Here you say you want a shooting that already happened to lead a CEO to manage a company better. In the original you actively want the CEOs to be afraid so they will embrace progressive policies in general, and say society “needs” to see them a certain way to produce this result. And let’s not forget the illustrative guillotines.
Babee?
Phrased this way, you’re taking it as a given that the assassination already happened, and you’re hoping to make the most of a bad situation. At least, that would be a generous reading.
I don’t see a way to read this prior post in the same way; and I’m leaving in the part where you specify you’re talking about billionaires, so hopefully you don’t accuse me of bad faith quote snipping.
That’s not “I hope the best can come out of this bad event”, that’s “these people need to be afraid until they change”. And YES, that’s an extreme position.
Maybe it’s what you meant, but it’s much milder than any way I can reasonably read the prior post. So I don’t buy that DemonTree is bad faith because she read it the same way I do.
You aren’t sure what you’re missing? What about the whole part of my post that came after:
I don’t agree with your statement any more than I agree with “It would be good if billionaires feared for their lives and it made them give me free ice cream”. If I could only answer in one word, I guess I’d have to say that yes, it would be a good thing. But in reality, the outcome of billionaires fearing for their lives would not be that they give me free ice cream. So in reality, I would not agree with the statement.
Nor do I agree with the prior assumption that seems inherent to the whole argument, that currently billionaires are simply ignoring all of society’s rules.
I don’t believe he really thinks I’m a troll. If he’s still attacking me because of one post from 4 years ago that I already apologised for, he’s the one with the problem.
I’m using harsher words, but it’s the exact same sentiment - it would be good for society if those wealthy people in charge of institutions causing so much suffering recognized, based on history both long past and recent, that their actions that exploit and cause mass suffering increase the chances of retaliatory violence occurring personally against them. And thus, it would be good if they accepted that if they behaved with more compassion, they would reduce this risk.
You really disagree? Just the above, not anything else. That’s all my posts quoted said. Nothing beyond that (okay, maybe “enemies of decency” is a baby step beyond that, but just barely, and it’s still very true and not at all extreme - not all billionaires, but the ones using bigotry to manipulate and control).
What, specifically, do you think billionaires and CEOs could change? And why wouldn’t the actual result of this fear be that they get better security instead? (And in the case of CEOs, are put off taking the job in the first place.)
I really think you’re overestimating how much power the average CEO has. If they started losing money, the board would simply replace them.
(And @iiandyiiii, in case it wasn’t obvious, this was also intended to be jokey:
)
Again - what are they afraid of?
If they’re afraid of social or financial ruin, or of legal consequences, then that’s great.
If they’re afraid of being murdered, then that’s disastrously bad; society is falling apart, and we are all probably suffering worse than they are.
As phrased in the original quote, they’re explicitly afraid of being murdered. No, I’m never going to agree that this is a good thing, or not extreme.
I just can’t really believe that anyone aside from those particular billionaires (and other sociopaths) doesn’t see the specific group that is “billionaires who use bigotry to manipulate and control” as very, very bad people; and that it would be a good thing for society if those very, very bad people had the realization that causing mass suffering could result in danger to themselves, and thus reducing that suffering would reduce that danger.
I’m having trouble taking anyone seriously who says they disagree with that sentiment.
The chances of murder are a real thing. I’m not causing it, I’m not encouraging it, and I’m not making it up. I’m just pointing it out.
Murder is bad.
It would be good if the wealthy recognized that if they exploit more people, and cause more suffering, their chances of being murdered goes up; and if they reduce suffering and exploit fewer people, their chances of being murdered go down.
Whatever you’re saying, I just don’t believe you truly disagree with that.
Just because bad people are having bad stuff happen to them doesn’t mean that society is better off.
If fucking Hitler was afraid but not because the Allies were coming but because of a zombie apocalypse, that wouldn’t be a good thing if it meant that everyone else on the planet had to go through a zombie apocalypse too.
If society has fallen apart to the point that billionaires everywhere fear the guillotine, then we are fucked. Much worse than off than today.
I’m having trouble understanding where the disconnect is.
Brace yourself - if Hitler had realized that implementing the Holocaust and trying to conquer Europe raised the chance of him being killed (or pushed to kill himself), that would have been a good thing.
Extreme, right?
I’ll continue - if the Qatari billionaires who funded Hamas believed that funding Hamas increased the chances they would be killed by an IDF special forces team, that would be good!
If Putin believed that starting a war with Ukraine would increase the chances of a coup killing him, or Ukrainian forces killing him, that would be good!
Anyone else have some similarly extreme opinions?
What billionaires who use bigotry to manipulate and control? There presumably are some individuals doing this, but there’s no evidence that it’s a general problem. Was the United Healthcare CEO using bigotry to manipulate and control? No, he was running an insurance company that routinely fought claims in order to increase profits.
If you want people to have better healthcare, the effective and moral way to achieve that is through government legislation, not by assassinating CEOs, or making them fear assassination.
That’s what normal, non-extreme people support.
If abusers of women or children believed that abusing women or children increased their chances of being abused themselves, that would be good!
I’m sorry, I can’t help being so extreme!
HAHA @Miller! I love the thread title!