It’s crazy to me that we live in a world where money and celebrity implies influence, and credentials don’t mean much on a general public stage. This man can tweet something insane and its taken as a serious discussion point.
Given that money can buy influence, it is a legitimate risk to society, I get that. But how crazy is that as a concept?
I keep meaning to watch that, but can’t find the first knives out anywhere but on the high seas… I tend not to sail much these days. Not after the last nastygrahm I got in the mail.
You don’t need to watch the first one to enjoy the second. And honestly, they’re both great fun and well worth paying a few bucks for. The movie makers clearly poured a hell of a lot of love into the craft.
(I didn’t actually like the first and didn’t bother with the second but I was just watching something else on there and thought I’d check if they had those films too)
At the end of the day people like him are allowed to have so much influence because of regulations (or lack there of). Tax them, hold them accountable legally, something.
Republicans want us to return to America of the 1950s. Fine. Let’s have the tax rate of the 1950s and Elon pays 91%. So do Zuckerberg, Bezos, Gates, etc.
Humans have evolved to be social cooperative creatures not greedy selfish hoarders, and it is only in the last few thousand years, a blip in human history, that these systems developed by, and that only reward, greed and selfishness, have been around.
Don’t let these systems and the people who benefit from them (and those who have been propagandised to believe they benefit from it but really don’t) fool you in to thinking any of this is natural.
From what I’ve been learning about human history, your first paragraph does seem to be the case. However, we didn’t have near the same numbers then as we do now. It’s the scarily, or appearance thereof, that causes the selfishness in my opinion.
It’s the scarily, or appearance thereof, that causes the selfishness in my opinion.
Assuming you mean scarcity, you’ve almost hit a big nail on the head there - capitalism deliberatelycreatesartificial scarcity, and the belief that it is inevitable (and in a way, it is, when living under a system that aims for infinite growth in a finite world with finite resources), however post-scarcity is already entirely possible today, especially with the growth of automation, if only the worlds resources were managed and distributed with society’s well being in mind, instead of profit.
Convincing those of us the greedy and selfish exploit, who are trapped in their system with no way out, that we are in fact the greedy and selfish ones (for wanting our basic needs met, not private jets and mega yachts) who are to blame for all of our, and humanity’s, ills, not them, who are literally raking in and hoarding all of the world’s resources while being the biggest contributors to its destruction, is one of capitalism’s nastiest and most effective lies, because in the world they’ve created, where greed and selfishness are not only rewarded, but necessary, it’s almost impossible to prove wrong.
But it is wrong, and completely unnatural, and a better way of life absolutely is possible, it just requires those with all the power and money to not hold all the power and money anymore, and they’d rather destroy the planet and the rest of us with it, than do that, which means it’s up to us to make that choice for them, or go down with them.
Haha, I figured autocorrect, though you’re good whatever the reason, I clearly understood what you meant.
And sorry it came out as a bit of a rant, it’s hard to help it, but I’m glad it’s making some sense to you!
From what I’ve been learning about human history, your first paragraph does seem to be the case. However, we didn’t have near the same numbers then as we do now. It’s the scarily, or appearance thereof, that causes the selfishness in my opinion.
It’s crazy to me that we live in a world where money and celebrity implies influence, and credentials don’t mean much on a general public stage. This man can tweet something insane and its taken as a serious discussion point.
Given that money can buy influence, it is a legitimate risk to society, I get that. But how crazy is that as a concept?
Ever seen the movie Glass Onion? There’s a character who is modeled partly on Musk, and it’s spot on.
I keep meaning to watch that, but can’t find the first knives out anywhere but on the high seas… I tend not to sail much these days. Not after the last nastygrahm I got in the mail.
You don’t need to watch the first one to enjoy the second. And honestly, they’re both great fun and well worth paying a few bucks for. The movie makers clearly poured a hell of a lot of love into the craft.
Always use a vpn if torrenting in a jurisdiction that cares about piracy
Here you go:
Knives Out
Glass Onion
(I didn’t actually like the first and didn’t bother with the second but I was just watching something else on there and thought I’d check if they had those films too)
No! Adding it to the watchlist, thanks!
You won’t regret it. It’s a great movie.
Of course, knowing that we have twerps like that influencing culture and politics might also leave you feeling pissed off.
It’s the sequel to Knives Out; I would expect it to be a quality production.
How crazy is it that people feel completely comfortable with it being true?
The reality is the complete opposite since they’ve proven themselves to be enemies of the well being of the general populace.
Exactly.
At the end of the day people like him are allowed to have so much influence because of regulations (or lack there of). Tax them, hold them accountable legally, something.
Republicans want us to return to America of the 1950s. Fine. Let’s have the tax rate of the 1950s and Elon pays 91%. So do Zuckerberg, Bezos, Gates, etc.
It’s as much a function of human evolution as it is of how our society functions. And hell, isn’t that dependent on human evolution too?
We evolved to survive, not to run a society. We’ve done pretty well overall despite that problem, but the wheels are coming off.
Humans have evolved to be social cooperative creatures not greedy selfish hoarders, and it is only in the last few thousand years, a blip in human history, that these systems developed by, and that only reward, greed and selfishness, have been around.
Don’t let these systems and the people who benefit from them (and those who have been propagandised to believe they benefit from it but really don’t) fool you in to thinking any of this is natural.
From what I’ve been learning about human history, your first paragraph does seem to be the case. However, we didn’t have near the same numbers then as we do now. It’s the scarily, or appearance thereof, that causes the selfishness in my opinion.
Assuming you mean scarcity, you’ve almost hit a big nail on the head there - capitalism deliberately creates artificial scarcity, and the belief that it is inevitable (and in a way, it is, when living under a system that aims for infinite growth in a finite world with finite resources), however post-scarcity is already entirely possible today, especially with the growth of automation, if only the worlds resources were managed and distributed with society’s well being in mind, instead of profit.
Convincing those of us the greedy and selfish exploit, who are trapped in their system with no way out, that we are in fact the greedy and selfish ones (for wanting our basic needs met, not private jets and mega yachts) who are to blame for all of our, and humanity’s, ills, not them, who are literally raking in and hoarding all of the world’s resources while being the biggest contributors to its destruction, is one of capitalism’s nastiest and most effective lies, because in the world they’ve created, where greed and selfishness are not only rewarded, but necessary, it’s almost impossible to prove wrong.
But it is wrong, and completely unnatural, and a better way of life absolutely is possible, it just requires those with all the power and money to not hold all the power and money anymore, and they’d rather destroy the planet and the rest of us with it, than do that, which means it’s up to us to make that choice for them, or go down with them.
Yes, you’re absolutely right. 😅 I just didn’t delve all the way into it. And yes, I did mean scarcity.
Yes, you’re absolutely right. 😅 I just didn’t delve all the way into it. And yes, I did mean scarcity.
Yes, you’re absolutely right. 😅 I just didn’t delve all the way into it. And yes, I did mean scarcity.
Haha, I figured autocorrect, though you’re good whatever the reason, I clearly understood what you meant.
And sorry it came out as a bit of a rant, it’s hard to help it, but I’m glad it’s making some sense to you!
Yes, you’re absolutely right. 😅 I just didn’t delve all the way into it. And yes, I did mean scarcity.
Yes, you’re absolutely right. 😅 I just didn’t delve all the way into it. And yes, I did mean scarcity.
Yes, you’re absolutely right. 😅 I just didn’t delve all the way into it. And yes, I did mean scarcity.
Yes, you’re absolutely right. 😅 I just didn’t delve all the way into it. And yes, I did mean scarcity.
Yes, you’re absolutely right. 😅 I just didn’t delve all the way into it. And yes, I did mean scarcity.
Yes, you’re absolutely right. 😅 I just didn’t delve all the way into it. And yes, I did mean scarcity.
From what I’ve been learning about human history, your first paragraph does seem to be the case. However, we didn’t have near the same numbers then as we do now. It’s the scarily, or appearance thereof, that causes the selfishness in my opinion.