3 ms·

I can probably add a few more to this list: "Income inequality is not an actual problem" "The affordable care act was bad for America" "It would be beneficia

by pg_bot 9y ago

I can probably add a few more to this list: "Income inequality is not an actual problem" "The affordable care act was bad for America" "It would be beneficial if we got rid of all government guaranteed loans for university tuition" "People should be allowed to own automatic weapons"

junkscience2017 9y ago
and more: "wikimedia has plenty of money" "Mozilla is institutionally focused on supporting left wing views exclusively" "all of the rich people who speak out against guns have bodyguards who carry guns. they basically don't want poor people owning guns" "fwd.us is against Trump's wall but Mark Zuckerberg wanted to buy a city block in Palo Alto to keep the masses out"
- dulse 9y ago
  On your last one, there is also a funny story about his Hawaiian resort: https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/19/14327854/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-hawaii-kauai-property-lawsuits https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/19/14327854/mark-zuckerberg-...
nsxwolf 9y ago
I think you can say those things. You won’t get many takers but they aren’t as radioactive as LGBT issues, race issues, gender issues. Nobody’s going to call your boss and demand you be fired for saying those things.
dulse 9y ago
Interesting. What's your thinking for #1, #2, and #4? (I'm asking genuinely). Another I'll add from my list: "The social costs and spillover of disruption are not fairly priced today, representing a market failure; it's a problem akin to pollution in pre-regulation 19th century manufacturing." The election of Trump and enthusiasm to "build a wall" to protect manufacturing jobs reflects a real pain felt by a large number (maybe the majority) of Americans who are scared about their future job prospects and inability to provide for their families; many tech companies today are making their problems worse. These externalities are being foisted on society and these workers, who are not involved in the disrupting technology itself, and the companies have no obligation to pay for this cost. An assumption that disruption will "work itself out in the long run" isn't acceptable (nor is it necessarily true). I think it's like environmental pollution in the 70's, before we had the EPA to penalize the behavior. It's also accelerating, and could reach a tipping point that would put serious risks on our political system and social fabric.

by pg_bot 9y ago

junkscience2017 9y ago

and more: "wikimedia has plenty of money" "Mozilla is institutionally focused on supporting left wing views exclusively" "all of the rich people who speak out against guns have bodyguards who carry guns. they basically don't want poor people owning guns" "fwd.us is against Trump's wall but Mark Zuckerberg wanted to buy a city block in Palo Alto to keep the masses out"

dulse 9y ago
On your last one, there is also a funny story about his Hawaiian resort: https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/19/14327854/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-hawaii-kauai-property-lawsuits https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/19/14327854/mark-zuckerberg-...

nsxwolf 9y ago

I think you can say those things. You won’t get many takers but they aren’t as radioactive as LGBT issues, race issues, gender issues. Nobody’s going to call your boss and demand you be fired for saying those things.

dulse 9y ago

Interesting. What's your thinking for #1, #2, and #4? (I'm asking genuinely). Another I'll add from my list: "The social costs and spillover of disruption are not fairly priced today, representing a market failure; it's a problem akin to pollution in pre-regulation 19th century manufacturing." The election of Trump and enthusiasm to "build a wall" to protect manufacturing jobs reflects a real pain felt by a large number (maybe the majority) of Americans who are scared about their future job prospects and inability to provide for their families; many tech companies today are making their problems worse. These externalities are being foisted on society and these workers, who are not involved in the disrupting technology itself, and the companies have no obligation to pay for this cost. An assumption that disruption will "work itself out in the long run" isn't acceptable (nor is it necessarily true). I think it's like environmental pollution in the 70's, before we had the EPA to penalize the behavior. It's also accelerating, and could reach a tipping point that would put serious risks on our political system and social fabric.