4 ms·

> People who are wealthy and famous like him take these measures because they fear for their family's personal security. Whereas poor people are totally cavali

> People who are wealthy and famous like him take these measures because they fear for their family's personal security. Whereas poor people are totally cavalier about their security? I think this is nothing more than a guy so rich that he can afford to do things that put his own privacy ahead of the rest of the community. This is that common delusion that the super rich have. They think they are super rich because they are special, and so need protection. The truth being that they are super rich because they work as hard as the top 50% but were insanely lucky. I'm starting to really dislike the Zuck

danans 9y ago
I agree in large part with your characterization of the super wealthy being that way in no small part because of luck and privilege. That doesn't invalidate the idea that Mark Z's wealth and fame change his personal security risk profile compared to someone who is neither wealthy or famous. The injustice is that because of the societal wealth disparity, the poorer you are, the less security you can afford.
- rhizome 9y ago
  Note that Zuck isn't using his money to reduce the need for the security he's implementing.
  - abiox 9y ago
    > using his money to reduce the need for the security he's implementing how would that be accomplished? ostensibly, the money's existence is what creates that need. perhaps you mean he should give it all away?
    - rhizome 9y ago
      how would that be accomplished? I don't know, but I'm sure money helps to accomplish it.
  - danans 9y ago
    I don't know how much his money as spent by him can reduce the need, but as a society we could move toward a wealth and opportunity distribution that reduces the need.
    - rhizome 9y ago
      Excellent! Is this something e.g. part of Facebook's values and hiring standards?
- jimnotgym 9y ago
  > That doesn't invalidate the idea that Mark Z's wealth and fame change his personal security risk profile compared to someone who is neither wealthy or famous. It certainly changes his profile. I'm not sure that this makes him at a higher risk of crime or makes him need a wall around him. > The injustice is that because of the societal wealth disparity, the poorer you are, the less security you can afford. And indeed there are many poor people who have a much higher risk of crime than this Zucker, whether they have a wall or not.
abiox 9y ago
> Whereas poor people are totally cavalier about their security? i don't think that was the implication, in any respect. > They think they are super rich because they are special, and so need protection. this just seems like a sneering generalization. all throughout history wealthy people - especially those in the public eye, or otherwise with a degree of fame - are huge targets for burglary, kidnapping/ransom and other such things. this isn't to "justify" anything in particular (i don't use facebook or follow news about zuckerberg or other facebook-related people). > The truth being that they are super rich because they work as hard as the top 50% but were insanely lucky. in my view, the sort of "better breed" narrative about rich people being superior tends to be something coming out of the conservative and right-libertarian direction; there if you're not rich, it's because you deserve to not be rich.

danans 9y ago

I agree in large part with your characterization of the super wealthy being that way in no small part because of luck and privilege. That doesn't invalidate the idea that Mark Z's wealth and fame change his personal security risk profile compared to someone who is neither wealthy or famous. The injustice is that because of the societal wealth disparity, the poorer you are, the less security you can afford.

rhizome 9y ago
Note that Zuck isn't using his money to reduce the need for the security he's implementing.
- abiox 9y ago
  > using his money to reduce the need for the security he's implementing how would that be accomplished? ostensibly, the money's existence is what creates that need. perhaps you mean he should give it all away?
  - rhizome 9y ago
    how would that be accomplished? I don't know, but I'm sure money helps to accomplish it.
- danans 9y ago
  I don't know how much his money as spent by him can reduce the need, but as a society we could move toward a wealth and opportunity distribution that reduces the need.
  - rhizome 9y ago
    Excellent! Is this something e.g. part of Facebook's values and hiring standards?
jimnotgym 9y ago
> That doesn't invalidate the idea that Mark Z's wealth and fame change his personal security risk profile compared to someone who is neither wealthy or famous. It certainly changes his profile. I'm not sure that this makes him at a higher risk of crime or makes him need a wall around him. > The injustice is that because of the societal wealth disparity, the poorer you are, the less security you can afford. And indeed there are many poor people who have a much higher risk of crime than this Zucker, whether they have a wall or not.

abiox 9y ago

> Whereas poor people are totally cavalier about their security? i don't think that was the implication, in any respect. > They think they are super rich because they are special, and so need protection. this just seems like a sneering generalization. all throughout history wealthy people - especially those in the public eye, or otherwise with a degree of fame - are huge targets for burglary, kidnapping/ransom and other such things. this isn't to "justify" anything in particular (i don't use facebook or follow news about zuckerberg or other facebook-related people). > The truth being that they are super rich because they work as hard as the top 50% but were insanely lucky. in my view, the sort of "better breed" narrative about rich people being superior tends to be something coming out of the conservative and right-libertarian direction; there if you're not rich, it's because you deserve to not be rich.