28 ms·

He's still relatively young, and likely realises the near absolute power he holds over one of the largest companies in the world is not something he can get bac

by dddbbb 6y ago

He's still relatively young, and likely realises the near absolute power he holds over one of the largest companies in the world is not something he can get back once he gives it up. Also Gates, to put it in very uncharitable terms, has shown that it doesn't matter if you're seen as a hated, greedy CEO as long as you do enough philanthropy later in life.

ryantgtg 6y ago
Not sure if Gates has shown that. > According to a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll, 44 percent of Republicans believe that Bill Gates is plotting to use a mass COVID-19 vaccination campaign as a pretext to implant microchips in billions of people and monitor their movements — a widely debunked conspiracy theory with no basis in fact.[0] [0]: https://news.yahoo.com/new-yahoo-news-you-gov-poll-shows-coronavirus-conspiracy-theories-spreading-on-the-right-may-hamper-vaccine-efforts-152843610.html https://news.yahoo.com/new-yahoo-news-you-gov-poll-shows-cor...
- dagmx 6y ago
  It's depressing knowing how large swaths of people are anti science and have made it part of their political identity to boot
  - ethbr0 6y ago
    They're not anti-science: they're ignorant. If we had better basic education, presumably people would be able to understand how things work.
    - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
      Many people are willfully ignorant. Dinosaur bones are "carved from stone" so that their infallible written timeline of events remains unchallenged.
    - mistermann 6y ago
      > If we had better basic education, presumably people would be able to understand how things work. Agreed, like the fundamentals of philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, etc. Perhaps then we could rid the world of this widespread perception of clairvoyance (perception of knowing the thoughts of millions of other people, for example).
      - randcraw 6y ago
        I think what's missing from education in the US isn't more depth or breadth of facts, but the ability to think independently and critically. We need to gain better awareness that if we're responsible for making an important decision, but we can't be bothered to become informed before making that decision, bad things will happen to us (and others who rely on us) that we could have avoided if we had taken responsibility for our actions like an adult. I think a huge fraction of society are used to living like a child -- we're used to being told what to do in every part of their lives. So we never learn to accept responsibility... for a business, or an investment, or the health/welfare of others, or for their jobs and livelihoods. We reject accountability. I think most people believe they're powerless to control their lives, that they're helplessly propelled by giant forces far beyond their control, so their individual decisions and actions don't matter. Thus they don't need to know the facts or consider the consequences of their choices. The collective they belong to will make that decision for them. Their only decision is what sociopolitical gang they should join. They delegate all authority to the group's leaders to think for them after that.
        ethbr0 6y ago
        > I think what's missing from education in the US isn't more depth or breadth of facts, but the ability to think independently and critically Absolutely. I've long thought a modern version of rhetoric is perhaps the most important class to mandate in a democracy. At least one full semester of a teacher trying to lie or convince you of things using common approaches, coupled with an analytical study of what they are and how they work. > We need to gain better awareness that if we're responsible for making an important decision, but we can't be bothered to become informed before making that decision, bad things will happen to us IMHO, democracy is predicated on the ratio of informed_voters : total_voters. That ratio has never been 1, but it feels like it used to be higher. I think the next version of democracy is going to use a pre-test of objective facts (so loaded!) to weight votes.
    - heavyset_go 6y ago
      It's partisanship. Some people will say they believe even the most ridiculous of things if that means they're toeing the party line.
      - ryantgtg 6y ago
        I agree with this. And partisanship is largely the outcome of propaganda peddled by the media to sell ads. I know this is a narrow, arrogant viewpoint, but I view all hardcore partisans as victims of propaganda (with the caveat that perhaps "propaganda" is not the best word here...).
        jolux 6y ago
        This is ridiculous both-sidesism.
        ryantgtg 6y ago
        I'm not a both-sidesist. My comment has nothing to do with "both sides have good/bad people." We are currently in a situation where many on the left believe that the far right are pure evil idiots. And those on the right believe that people on the far left are... pure evil idiots. But - guess what - this isn't true.
        jolux 6y ago
        The American left isn’t currently trying to turn the country into a single party state ruled by an autocrat. I don’t care if they’re idiots or not, but the right have abandoned respect and decency for their fellow citizens. I don’t want any of them dead, I just want free and fair elections in the country I love. It’s their media sources arguing for armed vigilantes to take to the streets to defend their beliefs.
        ryantgtg 6y ago
        The right-voting populace just wants abortions to be illegal. Everything else that's going on is collateral damage. I know - well, not a lot, but a couple handfuls of - Trump supporters, and 100% of them vote for him because of his purported policies on abortion (and they all lamely defend him on his other actions). I think people underestimate how many voters are single-issue voters, and that this is THE issue. I want the things you want to - and I am very very left leaning. And I strongly disagree with your "their media" statement. I think many media outlets are contributing to a widening gap between the left and the right, because sensationalism and stupid articles sell. A single example from yesterday: I just read an NPR story that 260 out of 500,000 Sturgis attendees have come down with Covid. And they're trying to pitch that this is... a lot?
    - e_dv1 6y ago
      It's a conspiracy theory, so even education doesn't always help. Kary Mullis is one example of someone who was smart enough to win a Nobel prize for his work on PCR... but unfortunately later fell into the conspiracy theory rabbit hole for HIV, climate change, etc. I have read that anxiety issues [1], as well as a personality spectrum called "schizotypy" [2] which in itself can be linked to severe anxiety issues at the heavier end of the spectrum, [3] is linked to the ability to believe conspiracy theories [4]. My guess is that the wide spread of conspiracy theories related material (which COVID-19 has amplified to considerably) boils down to some combination of mental health and other social and/or economic anxieties, and the conspiracy theories really won't go away until some of these anxieties are addressed. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-drawn-to-conspiracy-theories-share-a-cluster-of-psychological-features/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-drawn-to-c... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizotypy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizotypy [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizotypal_personality_disorder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizotypal_personality_disord... [4] https://www.psypost.org/2017/10/study-links-facets-schizotypy-belief-conspiracy-theories-50027 https://www.psypost.org/2017/10/study-links-facets-schizotyp...
      - manjana 6y ago
        I'm not sure whether this holds much merit in reality as it is purely speculation, but I'd strongly suspect that a great deal of modern popular conspiracy theories are designed and initially propagated by PSYOP groups to influence and control certain aspects of reality for whatever intended purpose (that's kind of the essence or purpose of a PSYOP) - like for example, preventing Bill Gates' eliminating third world poverty or whatever his goals are. Some of his philanthropic work will quite possibly have a snowball effect on a certain areas that some countries won't like which would give rise to misinformation campaigns to sabotage and hinder his work.
        ItsDeathball 6y ago
        I'm not saying you're wrong, but a conspiracy theory about a conspiracy to spread conspiracy theories is extremely meta and wonderfully ironic.
    - shadowprofile77 6y ago
      I don't buy that they're simply ignorant. Yes, perhaps they are but tied into that ignorance for many, many people (that I've met anecdotally and, i'm sure in statistical terms) is a strong willfulness about their postures. In other words, despite being shown any evidence you'd like, no matter how concrete about the incorrectness of their beliefs, they'll simply disregard said information, because to accept or even consider it would imply the possible disruption of specific political/religious beliefs that a great deal of emotional identification is invested in. And lack of access to information isn't even an excuse for this in most cases: It applies frequently to people who live otherwise technologically connected lives, with easy access to a vast wealth of extraordinarily detailed knowledge about anything they don't understand in terms of evidence, theories and facts. Despite this, they just.... disregard it, and will even give MORE weight to the most absurdly unsubstantiated "alternative" ideas so long as they don't poke at that emotional investment I mentioned above. Again, this is not simple ignorance, it's something much more deliberate and to call it anti-science is not at all unfair.
      - andrekandre 6y ago
        > Again, this is not simple ignorance, it's something much more deliberate what is it? i couldnt get it from the comment... just curious
        shadowprofile77 6y ago
        I'm tempted to call it a dogma, but it strikes me as something much more visceral than that. The closest that comes to mind is a mulish rejection of reason when it strikes emotionally rooted beliefs. Calling it "Anti-science" is valid but tricky, because the anti-scientific part can be very selective: argue with certain people about the safety of vaccine science and they reject you outright no matter what evidence you offer, but explain how a cell phone works to these same people and they'll happily defer to scientific explanations.
        andrekandre 6y ago
        maybe "memes" are a useful term? seems some memes get stuck in peoples heads and blocks all reasonable discussions?
    - netsharc 6y ago
      I tried arguing with a "Bill Gates wants to kill Africans", and "there's an online furniture store peddling kidnapped teenagers to pedos" girl once, and she thinks I'm the one being brainwashed by MSM and snopes.com (and that they're controlled by the Rotschilds and Rockerfellers), and she thinks she's the one who is enlightened. If I asked for proof, she'd link to some random blog she read and trusts where some lunatic (from my point of view) is asserting some lie. And if I sent her links to MSM sites debunking things, she's claim these are the lies. I posted a link to Snopes and of course she had a link ready showing how Snopes was paid off by someone. How do you win? In the end I felt like she was just being narcissistic, I couldn't be bothered continuing the discussion, because I knew it would just piss me off...
      - andrekandre 6y ago
        why do people beleive "wacky" relegions? my guess is it provides an explanation for things, and for people who might not have some direction in their life, something like conspiracy theories provide some meaning (stop the evil conspiracy) + explanation (so thats why things are so screwed up)... thats my guess anyways....
  - golemiprague 6y ago
    I think people take some facebook tongue in cheek too literally. It is like when soccer fans chant songs about the referee mum's occupation, they don't really mean it literally but they do mean to show dissatisfaction with the referee decisions. Same thing goes for all those Q anon theories or similiar ideas, most people know they are not true literally but it just shows dissatisfaction with certain politics of the left side of the political map and the hypocrisy of it all.
  - FriendlyNormie 6y ago
    It’s depressing that no one has killed you yet.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    It's depressing knowing how many people think all polls are scientifically valid representations of the general population. It's well known that even the way a question is stated or worded can influence the outcome of a poll.
    - mistermann 6y ago
      This is an encouraging comment, if more people were actually scientific minded enough to realize this type of thing, perhaps we could get out of the ditch we've driven into.
    - jkinudsjknds 6y ago
      Can you phrase the question "Did Bill Gates cause COVID-19" in such a way that a non trivial proportion of respondents saying "yes" seems reasonable?
    - gdubs 6y ago
      Well, a single poll, sure. Many polls...
      - OvidNaso 6y ago
        Until I was about 28, myself and my whole group of friends would 95% of the time give bullshit (usually whatever was funniest) answers to anything resembling a poll. Didn't matter how 'private' or anonymous. We thought polls were bullshit, and we treated them thus. Other classmates, even more than us, filled them out as the person they wish they were. We CAN'T be unique...this happens a LOT!
    - mrfusion 6y ago
      And polls are used more often to drive opinions than to report on them.
- rossdavidh 6y ago
  I think a lot of people say they "believe" that, but really the question they are answering is, "do you like Bill Gates, or do you think him morally capable of doing this horrible thing?" Bill Gates was one of the early, big proponents of Common Core, and educational testing and reform movement which ended up becoming very unpopular on the right.
  - jolux 6y ago
    That’s a massive cop out. You either believe in conspiracy theories or you don’t. People who don’t believe in conspiracies don’t say they do as a way of expressing they don’t like the people involved.
    - rossdavidh 6y ago
      In my experience, your second statement is, factually, incorrect. Nothing personal, but I find that not to be an accurate reflection of human behavior.
      - jolux 6y ago
        Well, it fits with my experience.
- adamiscool8 6y ago
  The unnecessary dismissal of these theories as having "no basis in fact" probably contributes to their stickiness. This absolutely does have basis in, arguably misconstrued, fact: >The claim emerged after a Reddit Q&A in which Gates mentioned foreseeing the use of “digital certificates” to show who has been tested for COVID-19 or who has recovered from the disease . Most of the iterations of this claim misleadingly refer to “quantum dot dye” technology, which was founded by the Gates Foundation. Kevin McHugh, one of the lead authors of the “quantum dot dye” research paper, confirmed to Reuters this technology is not a microchip or human implantable capsule. Instead, it is similar to a tattoo, which would help provide up-to-date patient vaccine records for professionals in places lacking medical records. [0] [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-gates-fauci/false-claim-bill-gates-wants-to-microchip-people-anthony-fauci-wants-people-to-carry-vaccination-certificates-idUSKBN22H2JD https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-gates-fauci/fal...
  - samatman 6y ago
    This isn't arguably misconstrued, it's deliberately twisted by actors with an agenda. It's also an own-goal on the part of the Gates Foundation. Any adult in the US should know better than to tap into "mark of the beast" hysteria; anything which smacks of Revelation is politically a non-starter. I think the greater source of damage is squarely on WHO and CDC: they baldly lied about masks for almost two months, then turned around and made them mandatory. That was incredibly reckless and stupid: I was furious about it at the time, and the consequents have played out exactly how I envisioned at the time. Our authorities spectacularly blew their credibility, out in the open where everyone can see it. Now we need them to have that credibility back, but, it doesn't work that way.
2muchcoffeeman 6y ago
What would Bill Gates have to do to finally shed his reputation as a business man? Honestly, Gates seems like a pretty good guy from interviews he’s given and he’s doing something good with his money.
- II2II 6y ago
  In my youthful days of Microsoft bashing, I learnt that many people couldn't distinguish between the man, the company, and the product. They also seemed to have trouble separating the motivation, the behaviour, and the consequence. In the end, I suspect that the reputation he acquired as a businessman was embellished. I suspect that Gates will have trouble shedding that reputation since those people will have a hard time distinguishing between his past and present behaviour.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    You don't have to "distinguish between the man, the company, and the product." You only have to read his open letter to hobbyists to see how they all intersect.
- dotancohen 6y ago
  To take your question to an unnecessary extreme, what would Adolf Hitler have had to do in early 1945 to shed his reputation? Once a nail has been hammered in place, even after removing it the hole in the wood is there to stay.
- amurthy1 6y ago
  If you followed his MS days closely, like many in this community, I doubt you'd change your mind about him. But I imagine large part of the public knows about him mostly from his philanthropy. Heck I bet some people only know of him from whatever that 5G conspiracy was.
  - elevenoh 6y ago
    >If you followed his MS days closely, like many in this community, I doubt you'd change your mind about him As in, he was a good fella on the net?
mam2 6y ago
> Also Gates, to put it in very uncharitable terms, has shown that it doesn't matter if you're seen as a hated, greedy CEO as long as you do enough philanthropy later in life. Well this is a weird way of assuming theres some sort of need to redeem yourself after having been "perceived" in a way by some (possibly) retards. At that point its just easier to not care at all what people think. And its actually healthier.. look at the conspiracy anti bill gates now. Even in france some people think he tried to sterelise girls in india so the amount of charity you do doesnt even matter
- freehunter 6y ago
  I’m sure there is a way to phrase that same thought without disparaging the mentally disabled.
  - mam2 6y ago
    You are the one disparaging them by thinking its a negative comment.
- moralestapia 6y ago
  >having been "perceived" in a way by some (possibly) [redacted] Perhaps you're a young man. Warranted or not, 90s Gates was the prototype for the asshole tech CEO. Only Larry Ellison came close, and that's saying something ...
  - kens 6y ago
    I'm pretty sure that Shockley, the founder of Shockley Semiconductor has them both beat. His management style was described as autocratic, erratic, and hard-to-please as well as domineering and paranoid. Not to mention his questionable views on race and eugenics. In 1957, eight of his researchers (the "traitorous eight") had enough, so they left and founded Fairchild Semiconductor, (co)invented the integrated circuit, and essentially started Silicon Valley. Gordon Moore and Robert Noyce, two other members of the traitorous eight, went on to found Intel. If Shockley had been a nicer guy, Silicon Valley might not exist.
kinkora 6y ago
my "insider" knowledge from the FB upper management is that Zuck is considering a future presidential candidacy so all of this congress stuff, dealing with political correctness, etc is great training wheels when he eventually gets into it. If you look at it from that lens, it makes sense right? Disclaimer: note bunny ear quotes and like any 2nd hand information, there might be some stretched out truths attached to it.

by dddbbb 6y ago

ryantgtg 6y ago

Not sure if Gates has shown that. > According to a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll, 44 percent of Republicans believe that Bill Gates is plotting to use a mass COVID-19 vaccination campaign as a pretext to implant microchips in billions of people and monitor their movements — a widely debunked conspiracy theory with no basis in fact.[0] [0]: https://news.yahoo.com/new-yahoo-news-you-gov-poll-shows-coronavirus-conspiracy-theories-spreading-on-the-right-may-hamper-vaccine-efforts-152843610.html https://news.yahoo.com/new-yahoo-news-you-gov-poll-shows-cor...

dagmx 6y ago
It's depressing knowing how large swaths of people are anti science and have made it part of their political identity to boot
- ethbr0 6y ago
  They're not anti-science: they're ignorant. If we had better basic education, presumably people would be able to understand how things work.
  - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
    Many people are willfully ignorant. Dinosaur bones are "carved from stone" so that their infallible written timeline of events remains unchallenged.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    > If we had better basic education, presumably people would be able to understand how things work. Agreed, like the fundamentals of philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, etc. Perhaps then we could rid the world of this widespread perception of clairvoyance (perception of knowing the thoughts of millions of other people, for example).
    - randcraw 6y ago
      I think what's missing from education in the US isn't more depth or breadth of facts, but the ability to think independently and critically. We need to gain better awareness that if we're responsible for making an important decision, but we can't be bothered to become informed before making that decision, bad things will happen to us (and others who rely on us) that we could have avoided if we had taken responsibility for our actions like an adult. I think a huge fraction of society are used to living like a child -- we're used to being told what to do in every part of their lives. So we never learn to accept responsibility... for a business, or an investment, or the health/welfare of others, or for their jobs and livelihoods. We reject accountability. I think most people believe they're powerless to control their lives, that they're helplessly propelled by giant forces far beyond their control, so their individual decisions and actions don't matter. Thus they don't need to know the facts or consider the consequences of their choices. The collective they belong to will make that decision for them. Their only decision is what sociopolitical gang they should join. They delegate all authority to the group's leaders to think for them after that.
      - ethbr0 6y ago
        > I think what's missing from education in the US isn't more depth or breadth of facts, but the ability to think independently and critically Absolutely. I've long thought a modern version of rhetoric is perhaps the most important class to mandate in a democracy. At least one full semester of a teacher trying to lie or convince you of things using common approaches, coupled with an analytical study of what they are and how they work. > We need to gain better awareness that if we're responsible for making an important decision, but we can't be bothered to become informed before making that decision, bad things will happen to us IMHO, democracy is predicated on the ratio of informed_voters : total_voters. That ratio has never been 1, but it feels like it used to be higher. I think the next version of democracy is going to use a pre-test of objective facts (so loaded!) to weight votes.
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    It's partisanship. Some people will say they believe even the most ridiculous of things if that means they're toeing the party line.
    - ryantgtg 6y ago
      I agree with this. And partisanship is largely the outcome of propaganda peddled by the media to sell ads. I know this is a narrow, arrogant viewpoint, but I view all hardcore partisans as victims of propaganda (with the caveat that perhaps "propaganda" is not the best word here...).
      - jolux 6y ago
        This is ridiculous both-sidesism.
        ryantgtg 6y ago
        I'm not a both-sidesist. My comment has nothing to do with "both sides have good/bad people." We are currently in a situation where many on the left believe that the far right are pure evil idiots. And those on the right believe that people on the far left are... pure evil idiots. But - guess what - this isn't true.
        jolux 6y ago
        The American left isn’t currently trying to turn the country into a single party state ruled by an autocrat. I don’t care if they’re idiots or not, but the right have abandoned respect and decency for their fellow citizens. I don’t want any of them dead, I just want free and fair elections in the country I love. It’s their media sources arguing for armed vigilantes to take to the streets to defend their beliefs.
        ryantgtg 6y ago
        The right-voting populace just wants abortions to be illegal. Everything else that's going on is collateral damage. I know - well, not a lot, but a couple handfuls of - Trump supporters, and 100% of them vote for him because of his purported policies on abortion (and they all lamely defend him on his other actions). I think people underestimate how many voters are single-issue voters, and that this is THE issue. I want the things you want to - and I am very very left leaning. And I strongly disagree with your "their media" statement. I think many media outlets are contributing to a widening gap between the left and the right, because sensationalism and stupid articles sell. A single example from yesterday: I just read an NPR story that 260 out of 500,000 Sturgis attendees have come down with Covid. And they're trying to pitch that this is... a lot?
  - e_dv1 6y ago
    It's a conspiracy theory, so even education doesn't always help. Kary Mullis is one example of someone who was smart enough to win a Nobel prize for his work on PCR... but unfortunately later fell into the conspiracy theory rabbit hole for HIV, climate change, etc. I have read that anxiety issues [1], as well as a personality spectrum called "schizotypy" [2] which in itself can be linked to severe anxiety issues at the heavier end of the spectrum, [3] is linked to the ability to believe conspiracy theories [4]. My guess is that the wide spread of conspiracy theories related material (which COVID-19 has amplified to considerably) boils down to some combination of mental health and other social and/or economic anxieties, and the conspiracy theories really won't go away until some of these anxieties are addressed. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-drawn-to-conspiracy-theories-share-a-cluster-of-psychological-features/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-drawn-to-c... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizotypy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizotypy [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizotypal_personality_disorder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizotypal_personality_disord... [4] https://www.psypost.org/2017/10/study-links-facets-schizotypy-belief-conspiracy-theories-50027 https://www.psypost.org/2017/10/study-links-facets-schizotyp...
    - manjana 6y ago
      I'm not sure whether this holds much merit in reality as it is purely speculation, but I'd strongly suspect that a great deal of modern popular conspiracy theories are designed and initially propagated by PSYOP groups to influence and control certain aspects of reality for whatever intended purpose (that's kind of the essence or purpose of a PSYOP) - like for example, preventing Bill Gates' eliminating third world poverty or whatever his goals are. Some of his philanthropic work will quite possibly have a snowball effect on a certain areas that some countries won't like which would give rise to misinformation campaigns to sabotage and hinder his work.
      - ItsDeathball 6y ago
        I'm not saying you're wrong, but a conspiracy theory about a conspiracy to spread conspiracy theories is extremely meta and wonderfully ironic.
  - shadowprofile77 6y ago
    I don't buy that they're simply ignorant. Yes, perhaps they are but tied into that ignorance for many, many people (that I've met anecdotally and, i'm sure in statistical terms) is a strong willfulness about their postures. In other words, despite being shown any evidence you'd like, no matter how concrete about the incorrectness of their beliefs, they'll simply disregard said information, because to accept or even consider it would imply the possible disruption of specific political/religious beliefs that a great deal of emotional identification is invested in. And lack of access to information isn't even an excuse for this in most cases: It applies frequently to people who live otherwise technologically connected lives, with easy access to a vast wealth of extraordinarily detailed knowledge about anything they don't understand in terms of evidence, theories and facts. Despite this, they just.... disregard it, and will even give MORE weight to the most absurdly unsubstantiated "alternative" ideas so long as they don't poke at that emotional investment I mentioned above. Again, this is not simple ignorance, it's something much more deliberate and to call it anti-science is not at all unfair.
    - andrekandre 6y ago
      > Again, this is not simple ignorance, it's something much more deliberate what is it? i couldnt get it from the comment... just curious
      - shadowprofile77 6y ago
        I'm tempted to call it a dogma, but it strikes me as something much more visceral than that. The closest that comes to mind is a mulish rejection of reason when it strikes emotionally rooted beliefs. Calling it "Anti-science" is valid but tricky, because the anti-scientific part can be very selective: argue with certain people about the safety of vaccine science and they reject you outright no matter what evidence you offer, but explain how a cell phone works to these same people and they'll happily defer to scientific explanations.
        andrekandre 6y ago
        maybe "memes" are a useful term? seems some memes get stuck in peoples heads and blocks all reasonable discussions?
  - netsharc 6y ago
    I tried arguing with a "Bill Gates wants to kill Africans", and "there's an online furniture store peddling kidnapped teenagers to pedos" girl once, and she thinks I'm the one being brainwashed by MSM and snopes.com (and that they're controlled by the Rotschilds and Rockerfellers), and she thinks she's the one who is enlightened. If I asked for proof, she'd link to some random blog she read and trusts where some lunatic (from my point of view) is asserting some lie. And if I sent her links to MSM sites debunking things, she's claim these are the lies. I posted a link to Snopes and of course she had a link ready showing how Snopes was paid off by someone. How do you win? In the end I felt like she was just being narcissistic, I couldn't be bothered continuing the discussion, because I knew it would just piss me off...
    - andrekandre 6y ago
      why do people beleive "wacky" relegions? my guess is it provides an explanation for things, and for people who might not have some direction in their life, something like conspiracy theories provide some meaning (stop the evil conspiracy) + explanation (so thats why things are so screwed up)... thats my guess anyways....
- golemiprague 6y ago
  I think people take some facebook tongue in cheek too literally. It is like when soccer fans chant songs about the referee mum's occupation, they don't really mean it literally but they do mean to show dissatisfaction with the referee decisions. Same thing goes for all those Q anon theories or similiar ideas, most people know they are not true literally but it just shows dissatisfaction with certain politics of the left side of the political map and the hypocrisy of it all.
- FriendlyNormie 6y ago
  It’s depressing that no one has killed you yet.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  It's depressing knowing how many people think all polls are scientifically valid representations of the general population. It's well known that even the way a question is stated or worded can influence the outcome of a poll.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    This is an encouraging comment, if more people were actually scientific minded enough to realize this type of thing, perhaps we could get out of the ditch we've driven into.
  - jkinudsjknds 6y ago
    Can you phrase the question "Did Bill Gates cause COVID-19" in such a way that a non trivial proportion of respondents saying "yes" seems reasonable?
  - gdubs 6y ago
    Well, a single poll, sure. Many polls...
    - OvidNaso 6y ago
      Until I was about 28, myself and my whole group of friends would 95% of the time give bullshit (usually whatever was funniest) answers to anything resembling a poll. Didn't matter how 'private' or anonymous. We thought polls were bullshit, and we treated them thus. Other classmates, even more than us, filled them out as the person they wish they were. We CAN'T be unique...this happens a LOT!
  - mrfusion 6y ago
    And polls are used more often to drive opinions than to report on them.
rossdavidh 6y ago
I think a lot of people say they "believe" that, but really the question they are answering is, "do you like Bill Gates, or do you think him morally capable of doing this horrible thing?" Bill Gates was one of the early, big proponents of Common Core, and educational testing and reform movement which ended up becoming very unpopular on the right.
- jolux 6y ago
  That’s a massive cop out. You either believe in conspiracy theories or you don’t. People who don’t believe in conspiracies don’t say they do as a way of expressing they don’t like the people involved.
  - rossdavidh 6y ago
    In my experience, your second statement is, factually, incorrect. Nothing personal, but I find that not to be an accurate reflection of human behavior.
    - jolux 6y ago
      Well, it fits with my experience.
adamiscool8 6y ago
The unnecessary dismissal of these theories as having "no basis in fact" probably contributes to their stickiness. This absolutely does have basis in, arguably misconstrued, fact: >The claim emerged after a Reddit Q&A in which Gates mentioned foreseeing the use of “digital certificates” to show who has been tested for COVID-19 or who has recovered from the disease . Most of the iterations of this claim misleadingly refer to “quantum dot dye” technology, which was founded by the Gates Foundation. Kevin McHugh, one of the lead authors of the “quantum dot dye” research paper, confirmed to Reuters this technology is not a microchip or human implantable capsule. Instead, it is similar to a tattoo, which would help provide up-to-date patient vaccine records for professionals in places lacking medical records. [0] [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-gates-fauci/false-claim-bill-gates-wants-to-microchip-people-anthony-fauci-wants-people-to-carry-vaccination-certificates-idUSKBN22H2JD https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-gates-fauci/fal...
- samatman 6y ago
  This isn't arguably misconstrued, it's deliberately twisted by actors with an agenda. It's also an own-goal on the part of the Gates Foundation. Any adult in the US should know better than to tap into "mark of the beast" hysteria; anything which smacks of Revelation is politically a non-starter. I think the greater source of damage is squarely on WHO and CDC: they baldly lied about masks for almost two months, then turned around and made them mandatory. That was incredibly reckless and stupid: I was furious about it at the time, and the consequents have played out exactly how I envisioned at the time. Our authorities spectacularly blew their credibility, out in the open where everyone can see it. Now we need them to have that credibility back, but, it doesn't work that way.

2muchcoffeeman 6y ago

What would Bill Gates have to do to finally shed his reputation as a business man? Honestly, Gates seems like a pretty good guy from interviews he’s given and he’s doing something good with his money.

II2II 6y ago
In my youthful days of Microsoft bashing, I learnt that many people couldn't distinguish between the man, the company, and the product. They also seemed to have trouble separating the motivation, the behaviour, and the consequence. In the end, I suspect that the reputation he acquired as a businessman was embellished. I suspect that Gates will have trouble shedding that reputation since those people will have a hard time distinguishing between his past and present behaviour.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  You don't have to "distinguish between the man, the company, and the product." You only have to read his open letter to hobbyists to see how they all intersect.
dotancohen 6y ago
To take your question to an unnecessary extreme, what would Adolf Hitler have had to do in early 1945 to shed his reputation? Once a nail has been hammered in place, even after removing it the hole in the wood is there to stay.
amurthy1 6y ago
If you followed his MS days closely, like many in this community, I doubt you'd change your mind about him. But I imagine large part of the public knows about him mostly from his philanthropy. Heck I bet some people only know of him from whatever that 5G conspiracy was.
- elevenoh 6y ago
  >If you followed his MS days closely, like many in this community, I doubt you'd change your mind about him As in, he was a good fella on the net?

mam2 6y ago

> Also Gates, to put it in very uncharitable terms, has shown that it doesn't matter if you're seen as a hated, greedy CEO as long as you do enough philanthropy later in life. Well this is a weird way of assuming theres some sort of need to redeem yourself after having been "perceived" in a way by some (possibly) retards. At that point its just easier to not care at all what people think. And its actually healthier.. look at the conspiracy anti bill gates now. Even in france some people think he tried to sterelise girls in india so the amount of charity you do doesnt even matter

freehunter 6y ago
I’m sure there is a way to phrase that same thought without disparaging the mentally disabled.
- mam2 6y ago
  You are the one disparaging them by thinking its a negative comment.
moralestapia 6y ago
>having been "perceived" in a way by some (possibly) [redacted] Perhaps you're a young man. Warranted or not, 90s Gates was the prototype for the asshole tech CEO. Only Larry Ellison came close, and that's saying something ...
- kens 6y ago
  I'm pretty sure that Shockley, the founder of Shockley Semiconductor has them both beat. His management style was described as autocratic, erratic, and hard-to-please as well as domineering and paranoid. Not to mention his questionable views on race and eugenics. In 1957, eight of his researchers (the "traitorous eight") had enough, so they left and founded Fairchild Semiconductor, (co)invented the integrated circuit, and essentially started Silicon Valley. Gordon Moore and Robert Noyce, two other members of the traitorous eight, went on to found Intel. If Shockley had been a nicer guy, Silicon Valley might not exist.

kinkora 6y ago

my "insider" knowledge from the FB upper management is that Zuck is considering a future presidential candidacy so all of this congress stuff, dealing with political correctness, etc is great training wheels when he eventually gets into it. If you look at it from that lens, it makes sense right? Disclaimer: note bunny ear quotes and like any 2nd hand information, there might be some stretched out truths attached to it.