7 ms·

These days I pretty much just assume every single billionaire deserves to get stood up against a wall for the things they did to become one. I've seen very litt

These days I pretty much just assume every single billionaire deserves to get stood up against a wall for the things they did to become one. I've seen very little evidence to the contrary. Even the best of them fall into the "probably worth having around even if they are a raging jackass" category.

gruez 5y ago
>These days I pretty much just assume every single billionaire deserves to get stood up against a wall for the things they did to become one. alright I'll bite. What did bill gates do? Sure, he engaged in some anti-competitive practices, but does that deserve to be "stood up against a wall"?
- toiletfuneral 5y ago
  I think anyone who hung out with Epstein after his conviction and continued to gave him money is an absolute fucking villain. Not to mention his work to enforce vaccine IP to keep poorer countries from manufacturing their own medicine is truly evil. Given the chance, I'd probably beat his nerd ass
- xref 5y ago
  Definitely sexism, possibly bordering on misogyny. During the Gates era he avoided hiring female execs because “they’ll get pregnant and leave” Not worth standing against a wall, but Gates is a bad person.
- thunkshift1 5y ago
  Since you asked - Have you heard 'Episode 45: The Not-So-Benevolent Billionaire - Bill Gates and Western Media' by Citations Needed Podcast on SoundCloud? https://soundcloud.com/citationsneeded/episode-45-the-not-so-benevolent-billionaire-bill-gates-and-western-media https://soundcloud.com/citationsneeded/episode-45-the-not-so... Transcript: https://link.medium.com/FXbDzrWDdjb https://link.medium.com/FXbDzrWDdjb
morpheos137 5y ago
These comments frighten me. Seems like we are on the verge of a woke cultural revolution. No, violence is not the answer for poor personal decisions.
- jrochkind1 5y ago
  So... things you do that harm other people are a special class of "poor personal decisions". But I agree with you, violence is not the answer, or at least not a good answer, a very last resort answer -- but applies to sending people to prison too (prison is definitely a form of violence) for their "poor personal decisions" that harmed and killed others too, I hope you agree. But yeah, it also applies to the billionairres. On the other hand, the initial comment just said they "deserved" it, which is different than saying it should happen or we will make it happen. Although I'm reluctant to decide who "deserves" violence or not myself too. (And I hope you agree that this applies to deciding who "deserves" prison too...) I think it's safe to say that at the minimum they deserve, and ought to lose all the money they made in profit from the scheme that ruined and ended lives. Like that's just the minimum starting point for what they ought to do to make restitution to the families, communities, and society that they hurt, and to make sure they don't do similar again. That this bare minimum starting point isn't being met is why people are so mad.
  - morpheos137 5y ago
    The thing is they did not do all bad. What the woke cannabis pushing media ignores is that millions of chronic pain patients had access to effective treatments that improved and in some cases saved their lives thanks to oxycotin because older opioids like morphine had already been stigmatised in previous moral panics.
    - jrochkind1 5y ago
      So that you suggest it was useful only because other opiates had been "stigmatized" is telling. But anyway, they could have done all that good without the despicable practices they used to ensure that it got over-prescribed with under-awareness of it's dangers. Those were in no way necessary for supplying a useful pain relief drug. Those things were only about greed and lack of concern for who it hurt, not some kind of necessary collateral damage of trying to do good. Nobody that does harm is without some redeeming qualities. (Not anyone we send to prison either). But those who do serious harm need to make restitution and repair for it. That starts, just starts, with giving up the fruits of that harm.
vorpalhex 5y ago
I generally don't take hard stands against people. I disagree a lot, but disagreement is par for the course. If you think the solution to any problem in society is "standing people up against a wall", you are literally the problem. You are the violent jackboot that actively harms society and has no value to discourse. You are a bad person. That you can do that against an entire class of people because of some shared characteristic is horrifying. You are made up of the same stuff of historical dictators who put people in furnaces.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- labawi 5y ago
  Do child rapists deserve to be lined up against a wall? If I think it's a good idea, am I a violent jackboot that actively harms society? Am I worse than the rapists? BTW, I wouldn't line up "terrorists", as they may have reasons (as in someone may have bombed their village or something). Is thinking some people should be lined up the bigger problem, rather than actually doing things to get billions of $, like killing >10k people, or putting 100k or millions of people in misery? I'm not sure how many furnaces you'd be able to fill before you ran out of billionaires. Seems there would be less of them than this 30% fine guy killed, so .. it might be a net benefit? Technically, I'm a pacifist, so I'd lock them up. Not sure if OP meant it literally. Then again, if locking up proves unmanageable (try locking up a billionaire), it may be a reasonable option (for individuals). I wouldn't, but if someone had a go at them, I probably wouldn't stop him.
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    If you think a terrorist blowing up a market full of kids and women is cool, but we need to be putting billionaires in ovens because.. they have money.. you may not be the pacificist you pretend to be. If you are trying to balance out the "benefit" of killing humans then you are lost. That's the "but it'd be really convenient to take land from the Jews and kill them!" kind of ethics. I would suggest you disengage from whatever is giving you this kind of warped mentality.
credit_guy 5y ago
My son likes the book series "Diary of a Wimpy Kid". This series sold more than 250 million books, and there were a few movies made after them. The author is without a doubt a billionaire. Should we execute him? Should we line up Dan Brown and J.K. Rowling next to him? Michael Jordan is obviously toast, but what's going to happen to Patrick Mahomes? He got a contract for half a bil, with endorsements and investments he's bound to cross the nine zeros one day. Should he be worried?
- Causality1 5y ago
  Jeff Kinney has a net worth of $70 million. Dan Brown has a net worth of $160 million. Rowling is no longer a billionaire after giving hundreds of millions to charity. Patrick Mahomes' net worth is $30 million. Jordan is a raging homophobe who refuses to tip waiters and a billionaire, and almost all of it came from conning kids and teenagers into wasting their money on overpriced shoes. I believe my point stands.
  - DisjointedHunt 5y ago
    You're on HN so i assume you work in big tech. Big tech has been associated with many "evils" in society. By your logic, you should be stood up against a wall. Sometimes i wonder how intelligent people in tech can reasonably make some of the arguments that they do and then i come across arguments such as these in the wild and cringe some more.
    - krainboltgreene 5y ago
      How does it feel to know you're making the same fallacious arguments as capitalists from the 1920's? "Through a warped lens the worker is equally as bad as the exploiter, hmm! Better not think critically of the exploiter or you could be next!" Good lord.
    - Causality1 5y ago
      I work in agriculture, actually. By your logic, you should be stood up against a wall. How so? My argument is that it's unlikely for an individual to accumulate and hold a certain level of wealth without being a jerk. What does that have to do with middle-class tech workers?

gruez 5y ago

>These days I pretty much just assume every single billionaire deserves to get stood up against a wall for the things they did to become one. alright I'll bite. What did bill gates do? Sure, he engaged in some anti-competitive practices, but does that deserve to be "stood up against a wall"?

toiletfuneral 5y ago
I think anyone who hung out with Epstein after his conviction and continued to gave him money is an absolute fucking villain. Not to mention his work to enforce vaccine IP to keep poorer countries from manufacturing their own medicine is truly evil. Given the chance, I'd probably beat his nerd ass
xref 5y ago
Definitely sexism, possibly bordering on misogyny. During the Gates era he avoided hiring female execs because “they’ll get pregnant and leave” Not worth standing against a wall, but Gates is a bad person.
thunkshift1 5y ago
Since you asked - Have you heard 'Episode 45: The Not-So-Benevolent Billionaire - Bill Gates and Western Media' by Citations Needed Podcast on SoundCloud? https://soundcloud.com/citationsneeded/episode-45-the-not-so-benevolent-billionaire-bill-gates-and-western-media https://soundcloud.com/citationsneeded/episode-45-the-not-so... Transcript: https://link.medium.com/FXbDzrWDdjb https://link.medium.com/FXbDzrWDdjb

morpheos137 5y ago

These comments frighten me. Seems like we are on the verge of a woke cultural revolution. No, violence is not the answer for poor personal decisions.

jrochkind1 5y ago
So... things you do that harm other people are a special class of "poor personal decisions". But I agree with you, violence is not the answer, or at least not a good answer, a very last resort answer -- but applies to sending people to prison too (prison is definitely a form of violence) for their "poor personal decisions" that harmed and killed others too, I hope you agree. But yeah, it also applies to the billionairres. On the other hand, the initial comment just said they "deserved" it, which is different than saying it should happen or we will make it happen. Although I'm reluctant to decide who "deserves" violence or not myself too. (And I hope you agree that this applies to deciding who "deserves" prison too...) I think it's safe to say that at the minimum they deserve, and ought to lose all the money they made in profit from the scheme that ruined and ended lives. Like that's just the minimum starting point for what they ought to do to make restitution to the families, communities, and society that they hurt, and to make sure they don't do similar again. That this bare minimum starting point isn't being met is why people are so mad.
- morpheos137 5y ago
  The thing is they did not do all bad. What the woke cannabis pushing media ignores is that millions of chronic pain patients had access to effective treatments that improved and in some cases saved their lives thanks to oxycotin because older opioids like morphine had already been stigmatised in previous moral panics.
  - jrochkind1 5y ago
    So that you suggest it was useful only because other opiates had been "stigmatized" is telling. But anyway, they could have done all that good without the despicable practices they used to ensure that it got over-prescribed with under-awareness of it's dangers. Those were in no way necessary for supplying a useful pain relief drug. Those things were only about greed and lack of concern for who it hurt, not some kind of necessary collateral damage of trying to do good. Nobody that does harm is without some redeeming qualities. (Not anyone we send to prison either). But those who do serious harm need to make restitution and repair for it. That starts, just starts, with giving up the fruits of that harm.

vorpalhex 5y ago

I generally don't take hard stands against people. I disagree a lot, but disagreement is par for the course. If you think the solution to any problem in society is "standing people up against a wall", you are literally the problem. You are the violent jackboot that actively harms society and has no value to discourse. You are a bad person. That you can do that against an entire class of people because of some shared characteristic is horrifying. You are made up of the same stuff of historical dictators who put people in furnaces.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
labawi 5y ago
Do child rapists deserve to be lined up against a wall? If I think it's a good idea, am I a violent jackboot that actively harms society? Am I worse than the rapists? BTW, I wouldn't line up "terrorists", as they may have reasons (as in someone may have bombed their village or something). Is thinking some people should be lined up the bigger problem, rather than actually doing things to get billions of $, like killing >10k people, or putting 100k or millions of people in misery? I'm not sure how many furnaces you'd be able to fill before you ran out of billionaires. Seems there would be less of them than this 30% fine guy killed, so .. it might be a net benefit? Technically, I'm a pacifist, so I'd lock them up. Not sure if OP meant it literally. Then again, if locking up proves unmanageable (try locking up a billionaire), it may be a reasonable option (for individuals). I wouldn't, but if someone had a go at them, I probably wouldn't stop him.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  If you think a terrorist blowing up a market full of kids and women is cool, but we need to be putting billionaires in ovens because.. they have money.. you may not be the pacificist you pretend to be. If you are trying to balance out the "benefit" of killing humans then you are lost. That's the "but it'd be really convenient to take land from the Jews and kill them!" kind of ethics. I would suggest you disengage from whatever is giving you this kind of warped mentality.

credit_guy 5y ago

My son likes the book series "Diary of a Wimpy Kid". This series sold more than 250 million books, and there were a few movies made after them. The author is without a doubt a billionaire. Should we execute him? Should we line up Dan Brown and J.K. Rowling next to him? Michael Jordan is obviously toast, but what's going to happen to Patrick Mahomes? He got a contract for half a bil, with endorsements and investments he's bound to cross the nine zeros one day. Should he be worried?

Causality1 5y ago
Jeff Kinney has a net worth of $70 million. Dan Brown has a net worth of $160 million. Rowling is no longer a billionaire after giving hundreds of millions to charity. Patrick Mahomes' net worth is $30 million. Jordan is a raging homophobe who refuses to tip waiters and a billionaire, and almost all of it came from conning kids and teenagers into wasting their money on overpriced shoes. I believe my point stands.
- DisjointedHunt 5y ago
  You're on HN so i assume you work in big tech. Big tech has been associated with many "evils" in society. By your logic, you should be stood up against a wall. Sometimes i wonder how intelligent people in tech can reasonably make some of the arguments that they do and then i come across arguments such as these in the wild and cringe some more.
  - krainboltgreene 5y ago
    How does it feel to know you're making the same fallacious arguments as capitalists from the 1920's? "Through a warped lens the worker is equally as bad as the exploiter, hmm! Better not think critically of the exploiter or you could be next!" Good lord.
  - Causality1 5y ago
    I work in agriculture, actually. By your logic, you should be stood up against a wall. How so? My argument is that it's unlikely for an individual to accumulate and hold a certain level of wealth without being a jerk. What does that have to do with middle-class tech workers?