4 ms·

No justification for this. Better to be bankrupt than inhumane.

by barnabee 3y ago

dragonwriter 3y ago
Why choose? I’m sure Musk can do both!
- barnabee 3y ago
  +1 funny Buuut… bankrupt and inhumane includes inhumane, so just bankrupt is still better
sidibe 3y ago
Lately the circle he interacts with on Twitter has been pretty big on women staying home to raise families, and it's been mixed in more with their usual fare of decrying paedophilia which apparently the "MSM" thinks is A-OK and fighting back against trans people. Here's his contribution to the conversation: "Being a Mom is a real job that deserves major respect" https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1649621493733629952 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1649621493733629952
- barnabee 3y ago
  The charitable take would be that he’s an exceptionally compartmentalised thinker who is stuck in a bunch of local maxima. Less charitably, perhaps his ideals are pretty flexible (assuming they exist at all) and within some bounds he’ll say whatever he thinks people want to hear and do whatever he thinks serves him best. Perhaps a combination of both.
  - Zigurd 3y ago
    Look at The Boring Company and Hyperloop. Both are shams intended to move public support away from transit and long distance rail. He knows what he is doing.
  - nikau 3y ago
    I mean he is fairly progressive for a former lumberjack.
logicalmonster 3y ago
Is it better for you to be bankrupt than inhumane, or is that just the case for Elon Musk? I can give you the donation links for a bunch of reputable organizations that try and deal with child hunger Will you give every last penny you have to them? Not donating would be inhumane. It's better to be bankrupt than inhumane, right?
- barnabee 3y ago
  If I understand your point correctly, your view is that any money not given to charity towards people worse off than me (or perhaps just worse off than some standard you get to define?) is inhumane? [Why] do you believe that? I believe that bosses owe more to their employees than individual people do to all the other random people on Earth. Maybe I’m wrong. How do you define inhumane? Am I treating everyone less wealthy than me inhumanely if I don’t give them money?
- Zigurd 3y ago
  When faced with a choice of how to treat people making irrelevant comparisons couched in humanitarian terms to argue in bad faith is it more or less ethical to back up the trolley and run over the bad faith arguers twice?
- jerojero 3y ago
  People love to bring up this argument which was quite well developed by philosopher Peter Singer but every time I see it (in many contexts) they always fall short of the continuation of it. There's a big difference between the richest man in the world letting their employees have 20 weeks of parental leave, than someone living on a salary giving away all their money to charity. The difference is in how much we are affected personally by the "giving" we are doing, and this is not a meaningless point. It's very narrow minded to think we ought to give everything we have at all times because where would you stop? There is always someone that's more in need. Ultimately we should be giving away as much as we can and this needs to take into consideration how much we have. Do you seriously think Musk is not in a position to give 20 weeks of parental leave to his employees? If the richest man couldn't do that, then wouldn't this mean it's so taxing no one could? But there's plenty of business owners around the world that do, and none of them are richer than Musk, so what gives?

No justification for this. Better to be bankrupt than inhumane.

dragonwriter 3y ago

Why choose? I’m sure Musk can do both!

barnabee 3y ago
+1 funny Buuut… bankrupt and inhumane includes inhumane, so just bankrupt is still better

sidibe 3y ago

Lately the circle he interacts with on Twitter has been pretty big on women staying home to raise families, and it's been mixed in more with their usual fare of decrying paedophilia which apparently the "MSM" thinks is A-OK and fighting back against trans people. Here's his contribution to the conversation: "Being a Mom is a real job that deserves major respect" https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1649621493733629952 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1649621493733629952

barnabee 3y ago
The charitable take would be that he’s an exceptionally compartmentalised thinker who is stuck in a bunch of local maxima. Less charitably, perhaps his ideals are pretty flexible (assuming they exist at all) and within some bounds he’ll say whatever he thinks people want to hear and do whatever he thinks serves him best. Perhaps a combination of both.
- Zigurd 3y ago
  Look at The Boring Company and Hyperloop. Both are shams intended to move public support away from transit and long distance rail. He knows what he is doing.
- nikau 3y ago
  I mean he is fairly progressive for a former lumberjack.

logicalmonster 3y ago

Is it better for you to be bankrupt than inhumane, or is that just the case for Elon Musk? I can give you the donation links for a bunch of reputable organizations that try and deal with child hunger Will you give every last penny you have to them? Not donating would be inhumane. It's better to be bankrupt than inhumane, right?

barnabee 3y ago
If I understand your point correctly, your view is that any money not given to charity towards people worse off than me (or perhaps just worse off than some standard you get to define?) is inhumane? [Why] do you believe that? I believe that bosses owe more to their employees than individual people do to all the other random people on Earth. Maybe I’m wrong. How do you define inhumane? Am I treating everyone less wealthy than me inhumanely if I don’t give them money?
Zigurd 3y ago
When faced with a choice of how to treat people making irrelevant comparisons couched in humanitarian terms to argue in bad faith is it more or less ethical to back up the trolley and run over the bad faith arguers twice?
jerojero 3y ago
People love to bring up this argument which was quite well developed by philosopher Peter Singer but every time I see it (in many contexts) they always fall short of the continuation of it. There's a big difference between the richest man in the world letting their employees have 20 weeks of parental leave, than someone living on a salary giving away all their money to charity. The difference is in how much we are affected personally by the "giving" we are doing, and this is not a meaningless point. It's very narrow minded to think we ought to give everything we have at all times because where would you stop? There is always someone that's more in need. Ultimately we should be giving away as much as we can and this needs to take into consideration how much we have. Do you seriously think Musk is not in a position to give 20 weeks of parental leave to his employees? If the richest man couldn't do that, then wouldn't this mean it's so taxing no one could? But there's plenty of business owners around the world that do, and none of them are richer than Musk, so what gives?