4 ms·

> In general if you're making the argument that A is easier than B, and B keeps happening at a much higher rate than A, then you're probably missing some very i

by GDC7 5y ago

> In general if you're making the argument that A is easier than B, and B keeps happening at a much higher rate than A, then you're probably missing some very important detail to explain that difference Visiting a prostitute is way easier than dating, how many people visit prostitutes? Taking away a candy from a child is really easy, how many people actually do it? Rich individuals aren't seen as a threat, because they can be easily overpowered with violence What people see as threats are people who have a following such as politicians, thought leaders or technoutopian cult figures who also happen to be rich.

ashtonkem 5y ago
> Visiting a prostitute is way easier than dating, how many people visit prostitutes? Ignoring the fact that a partner meets needs beyond sex, I think you're probably underestimating how many people actually pay for sex work. People just tend to not talk about that, because it's both illegal and heavily stigmatized. > Taking away a candy from a child is really easy, how many people actually do it? This implies that people treat children nicely because they're not a threat, which is a worrying implication. Personally, I think that people don't steal candy from children because they don't want to hurt children, especially over something as trivial as candy. > Rich individuals aren't seen as a threat, because they can be easily overpowered with violence Uhhh, what? Rich people are capable of bringing a huge amount of violence to bear, both in terms of their ability to hire armed citizens to protect them, and their ability to marshal the power of the state directly or indirectly. I'd highly recommend you read some history about labor organization in the United States. The armed representatives of rich men machine gunning down striking workers is a pretty common occurrence. Rich industrialists also made it de-facto illegal to be a socialist in the United States for most of the 20th century. And that's direct violence. We can also talk about the ability of the rich to starve people via blacklisting and the undermining of social safety nets. > What people see as threats are people who have a following such as politicians, thought leaders or technoutopian cult figures who also happen to be rich. <Insert "They're the same picture" meme here> Less glib, I think a lot of people see these as part of the same system. Rich people pretty quickly become politically entrenched or weird cult leaders, and the thought leaders are largely subsidized by the rich people that they write on the behalf of.

by GDC7 5y ago

ashtonkem 5y ago

> Visiting a prostitute is way easier than dating, how many people visit prostitutes? Ignoring the fact that a partner meets needs beyond sex, I think you're probably underestimating how many people actually pay for sex work. People just tend to not talk about that, because it's both illegal and heavily stigmatized. > Taking away a candy from a child is really easy, how many people actually do it? This implies that people treat children nicely because they're not a threat, which is a worrying implication. Personally, I think that people don't steal candy from children because they don't want to hurt children, especially over something as trivial as candy. > Rich individuals aren't seen as a threat, because they can be easily overpowered with violence Uhhh, what? Rich people are capable of bringing a huge amount of violence to bear, both in terms of their ability to hire armed citizens to protect them, and their ability to marshal the power of the state directly or indirectly. I'd highly recommend you read some history about labor organization in the United States. The armed representatives of rich men machine gunning down striking workers is a pretty common occurrence. Rich industrialists also made it de-facto illegal to be a socialist in the United States for most of the 20th century. And that's direct violence. We can also talk about the ability of the rich to starve people via blacklisting and the undermining of social safety nets. > What people see as threats are people who have a following such as politicians, thought leaders or technoutopian cult figures who also happen to be rich. <Insert "They're the same picture" meme here> Less glib, I think a lot of people see these as part of the same system. Rich people pretty quickly become politically entrenched or weird cult leaders, and the thought leaders are largely subsidized by the rich people that they write on the behalf of.