5 ms·

I'm no fan of rich people as a principle given they suck wealth from the poor and Smaug the money away like the narcissists they are, but this is the definition

I'm no fan of rich people as a principle given they suck wealth from the poor and Smaug the money away like the narcissists they are, but this is the definition of that horrible cancel culture. She's accused him which isn't something the public should act upon. If proven, then it's appropriate to form that negative opinion.

rlt 3y ago
I was told we’re supposed to #BelieveAllWomen.
MrNeon 3y ago
Name one Smaug-like rich person that is just sitting on massive amounts of wealth.
- cmontella 3y ago
  That’s the point — any person sitting on massive wealth is definitionally Smaug-like, because that’s exactly what Smaug did.
  - MrNeon 3y ago
    But WHO is sitting on massive wealth Smaug-like? Who? That is what I asked.
evantbyrne 3y ago
It's not "cancel culture" to ask that your leaders address salacious allegations brought against them by their own family. The question of his firing is way less serious from a ethical standpoint, and yet this is what OpenAI employees are willing to stick their necks out for? That is some telling prioritization.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  Burden of evidence for accusations is always on the accuser, the accused could flat out ignore and take them to a court of law and that would be perfectly reasonable. I have no idea nor do I care about what Altman's sister accuses him of, but until it's conclusively proven in a court of law it's not something that should be used as a basis for anything of consequence. Remember: Innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.
  - evantbyrne 3y ago
    The existence of legal process does not preclude the responsibility of the board and employees to address allegations of this seriousness. And it is serious–it is not normal to be accused of rape by a sibling. Addressing the elephant in the room is not the same thing as being guilty by default you are falsely conflating acknowledgement with punishment. The lack of pressure to at least produce a public statement while this lessor drama does speaks volumes to the lack of moral guiding principles at OpenAI.
    - Dalewyn 3y ago
      >And it is serious–it is not normal to be accused of rape by a sibling. Thanks, I care even less now if that's even possible. "Woman coming out with sexual assault allegations against man of prominence." is a dime a dozen occurence; most of them just end up wasting everyone's time due to flimsy or even non-existent hard evidence. Engaging in character assassination, aka cancel culture, on the basis of such nonsense plays right into the hands of the accuser. The court of law exists specifically to deal with these kinds of allegations, acting appropriately and as necessary within the legal process is the extent of the responsibilities and duties owed by the accused. The accused owes the court of public opinion nothing, much less character assassins such as yourself.
      - evantbyrne 3y ago
        Choosing to look the other way instead of addressing uncomfortable questions is a choice, and the law does not absolve you of your moral obligation to practice due diligence in choice of leaders. Take it easy.
- xvector 3y ago
  His sister is clearly mentally ill. Allegations are impossible to prove or deny. They should simply be ignored like the unhinged rantings of mentally ill people in general.
  - evantbyrne 3y ago
    Mental illness is the norm for child abuse victims. It's not like she has a demonstrated pattern of doing this with other people, and she has appeared internally consistent over the course of years, so it should at least be addressed instead of hand waved away.
    - smegger001 3y ago
      Her accusations against him are for acts that supposedly happened when she was to young have formed long term memory of them. She also thinks he is hacking her WiFi and somehow shadow banning her on multiple social media sites he has no control over. It screams of paranoid delusions.
      - evantbyrne 3y ago
        Since when can 4-year-olds not form memories? This is neither congruent with medical literature nor experience.
        smegger001 3y ago
        Its called infantile amnesia it why people cant remember their earlychildhood as the brains not great at storing and generating autobiographical memories until about age 5. And it is well recognized in the literature.
        evantbyrne 3y ago
        You're misrepresenting the medical literature. It is not abnormal for children to form memories of highly personal events at that age.
lovecg 3y ago
> suck wealth from the poor and Smaug the money away like What does that even mean? They buy up factories and let them sit idle?
- dontlaugh 3y ago
  The poor work in the factories, yet the owners of the factories get paid without having worked.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- adventured 3y ago
  It's based on the false premise that there is a specific amount of wealth and that's it (which also requires fixed productivity, which is a crazy premise if one knows anything about the past several hundred years or has ever read a single history textbook). So in order for someone to be rich, they had to steal it from someone else. If you follow it to the logical conclusion, it's nothing more than repackaged original sin. All wealth, all income, is stolen from someone else with less, therefore you are all evil without exception to the extent you have anything. It's a liberal form of original sin (for humans to thrive we must alter our environment, we must save, to the extent you manage to accomplish that, you're evil, therefore you're evil for existing). Keep in mind of course that China nicely disproved that premise in approximately the most dramatic way possible from ~1990-2020. If the pie were actually finite and had to be divided, swapped around, then China's extreme rise in wealth would have wiped out the equivalent of all of Western Europe's wealth combined.
  - nullindividual 3y ago
    > It's based on the false premise that there is a specific amount of wealth and that's it Absolutely not. This is, in today's world, a perpetual cycle. Pay not keeping up with inflation, yet consumer costs across a wide range of vital services keeps increasing. This keeps the poor poor(er) and the rich rich(er). EDIT: Fark.com always has perfect timing: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/20/60percent-of-americans-live-paycheck-to-paycheck-before-the-holidays-study.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/20/60percent-of-americans-live-... Why are 60% of Americans living this way when the <=1% could never, in their entire lives, spend the money they have (liquid or otherwise)? Why do the <=1% need all of the assets they have (planes, multiple large houses, mega yachts, and so on)? What kind of human parasite justifies that while they step on the backs of those who make money for them?

rlt 3y ago

I was told we’re supposed to #BelieveAllWomen.

MrNeon 3y ago

Name one Smaug-like rich person that is just sitting on massive amounts of wealth.

cmontella 3y ago
That’s the point — any person sitting on massive wealth is definitionally Smaug-like, because that’s exactly what Smaug did.
- MrNeon 3y ago
  But WHO is sitting on massive wealth Smaug-like? Who? That is what I asked.

evantbyrne 3y ago

It's not "cancel culture" to ask that your leaders address salacious allegations brought against them by their own family. The question of his firing is way less serious from a ethical standpoint, and yet this is what OpenAI employees are willing to stick their necks out for? That is some telling prioritization.

Dalewyn 3y ago
Burden of evidence for accusations is always on the accuser, the accused could flat out ignore and take them to a court of law and that would be perfectly reasonable. I have no idea nor do I care about what Altman's sister accuses him of, but until it's conclusively proven in a court of law it's not something that should be used as a basis for anything of consequence. Remember: Innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.
- evantbyrne 3y ago
  The existence of legal process does not preclude the responsibility of the board and employees to address allegations of this seriousness. And it is serious–it is not normal to be accused of rape by a sibling. Addressing the elephant in the room is not the same thing as being guilty by default you are falsely conflating acknowledgement with punishment. The lack of pressure to at least produce a public statement while this lessor drama does speaks volumes to the lack of moral guiding principles at OpenAI.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    >And it is serious–it is not normal to be accused of rape by a sibling. Thanks, I care even less now if that's even possible. "Woman coming out with sexual assault allegations against man of prominence." is a dime a dozen occurence; most of them just end up wasting everyone's time due to flimsy or even non-existent hard evidence. Engaging in character assassination, aka cancel culture, on the basis of such nonsense plays right into the hands of the accuser. The court of law exists specifically to deal with these kinds of allegations, acting appropriately and as necessary within the legal process is the extent of the responsibilities and duties owed by the accused. The accused owes the court of public opinion nothing, much less character assassins such as yourself.
    - evantbyrne 3y ago
      Choosing to look the other way instead of addressing uncomfortable questions is a choice, and the law does not absolve you of your moral obligation to practice due diligence in choice of leaders. Take it easy.
xvector 3y ago
His sister is clearly mentally ill. Allegations are impossible to prove or deny. They should simply be ignored like the unhinged rantings of mentally ill people in general.
- evantbyrne 3y ago
  Mental illness is the norm for child abuse victims. It's not like she has a demonstrated pattern of doing this with other people, and she has appeared internally consistent over the course of years, so it should at least be addressed instead of hand waved away.
  - smegger001 3y ago
    Her accusations against him are for acts that supposedly happened when she was to young have formed long term memory of them. She also thinks he is hacking her WiFi and somehow shadow banning her on multiple social media sites he has no control over. It screams of paranoid delusions.
    - evantbyrne 3y ago
      Since when can 4-year-olds not form memories? This is neither congruent with medical literature nor experience.
      - smegger001 3y ago
        Its called infantile amnesia it why people cant remember their earlychildhood as the brains not great at storing and generating autobiographical memories until about age 5. And it is well recognized in the literature.
        evantbyrne 3y ago
        You're misrepresenting the medical literature. It is not abnormal for children to form memories of highly personal events at that age.

lovecg 3y ago

> suck wealth from the poor and Smaug the money away like What does that even mean? They buy up factories and let them sit idle?

dontlaugh 3y ago
The poor work in the factories, yet the owners of the factories get paid without having worked.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
adventured 3y ago
It's based on the false premise that there is a specific amount of wealth and that's it (which also requires fixed productivity, which is a crazy premise if one knows anything about the past several hundred years or has ever read a single history textbook). So in order for someone to be rich, they had to steal it from someone else. If you follow it to the logical conclusion, it's nothing more than repackaged original sin. All wealth, all income, is stolen from someone else with less, therefore you are all evil without exception to the extent you have anything. It's a liberal form of original sin (for humans to thrive we must alter our environment, we must save, to the extent you manage to accomplish that, you're evil, therefore you're evil for existing). Keep in mind of course that China nicely disproved that premise in approximately the most dramatic way possible from ~1990-2020. If the pie were actually finite and had to be divided, swapped around, then China's extreme rise in wealth would have wiped out the equivalent of all of Western Europe's wealth combined.
- nullindividual 3y ago
  > It's based on the false premise that there is a specific amount of wealth and that's it Absolutely not. This is, in today's world, a perpetual cycle. Pay not keeping up with inflation, yet consumer costs across a wide range of vital services keeps increasing. This keeps the poor poor(er) and the rich rich(er). EDIT: Fark.com always has perfect timing: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/20/60percent-of-americans-live-paycheck-to-paycheck-before-the-holidays-study.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/20/60percent-of-americans-live-... Why are 60% of Americans living this way when the <=1% could never, in their entire lives, spend the money they have (liquid or otherwise)? Why do the <=1% need all of the assets they have (planes, multiple large houses, mega yachts, and so on)? What kind of human parasite justifies that while they step on the backs of those who make money for them?