4 ms·

> > [Rich & powerful assholes often maintain their status by unethical means.] > This is conspiracy level thinking. The prevalence of assholes is a documented

> > [Rich & powerful assholes often maintain their status by unethical means.] > This is conspiracy level thinking. The prevalence of assholes is a documented thing (latest numbers I've heard was over 6% of clinical narcissists, reportedly a very conservative lower bound), and who would ever be surprised that high-status people like being high-status? I don't know about libraries specifically, but the idea that rich assholes would like to keep the education level of the general population below a threatening threshold is not conspiracy thinking to me, it's just obvious. I am of course not denying the existence of nice rich people. Though I'm afraid they tend to be selected out of ludicrous wealth. In fact, I fully expect to find many more assholes among super-rich people than I would among the general population. (But I'm not sure either: the strife we find among some of the poorest people also tend to generate assholes…)

bumby 3y ago
The irony is that one of the largest contributions to the public library system was one of the richest guys ever. Carnegie funded over 2500.
- loup-vaillant 3y ago
  You do realise you're not contradicting anything I've just said, right? Quoting myself, "I am of course not denying the existence of nice rich people".
  - bumby 3y ago
    But then you go on to say, >Though I'm afraid they tend to be selected out of ludicrous wealth. The irony is that one of the most ludicrously wealthy people in history was also probably the single largest contributor to public libraries. Whether or not he was simply an outlier, I think that’s an important thing to point out. Further, some data suggests that as much as 5% of the general population are narcissists. So collectively, your point seems to be that rich people are pretty much like the rest of us, just with more money.
    - loup-vaillant 3y ago
      > But then you go on to say, I said "tend to". A tendency does not make an absolute and complete genocide. I also said "I'm afraid", which is supposed to convey some level of uncertainty. Carnegie's donation doesn't invalidate my point, even if he wasn't an outlier. > The irony is that one of the most ludicrously wealthy people in history was also probably the single largest contributor to public libraries. Where you see irony, I see expected statistics: the largest contributor to pretty much anything has to be ludicrously rich. Because the only way to give that much, is to own even more. And I will add that one incentive for rich people to donate is their public image. And in many cases their "donations" are largely neutered by tax cuts or by increasing the return on some of their other investments (basically their donations causing other of their investments to increase their returns). Donations by rich people aren't always genuinely generous.
      - bumby 3y ago
        What evidence would it take to change your mind? Because it seems like you'll rationalize any outcome to fit your mental model. If the wealthy don't fund something, it's because they're narcissists. If they do, it's because of statistics. At the same time, you ignore the statistics about narcissism.
        loup-vaillant 3y ago
        > If the wealthy don't fund something, it's because they're narcissists. If they do, it's because of statistics. I said no such strawman, and it's not my main point anyway. My main point is: the idea that rich & powerful people will generally do what it takes to stay rich & powerful is not conspiracy thinking, it's common sense. The idea that a sizeable proportion of them will resort to unethical (even lethal) means to do so is not conspiracy thinking, it's common sense. That's it, and I don't think Mr Carnegie here provides any significant evidence to the contrary. I mean, the same guy reportedly had strikers shot and killed, didn't he? It's hard to believe such a guy donated large amounts of money out of the goodness of his heart.
        3y ago
kiba 3y ago
Why would that be obvious? It seems more likely that they don't care about libraries.
- loup-vaillant 3y ago
  Can you precise what "that" is referring to?
  - bumby 2y ago
    I think "that" = "the idea that rich assholes would like to keep the education level of the general population below a threatening threshold is not conspiracy thinking to me, it's just obvious." ("the idea" is what you claimed is obvious)

bumby 3y ago

The irony is that one of the largest contributions to the public library system was one of the richest guys ever. Carnegie funded over 2500.

loup-vaillant 3y ago
You do realise you're not contradicting anything I've just said, right? Quoting myself, "I am of course not denying the existence of nice rich people".
- bumby 3y ago
  But then you go on to say, >Though I'm afraid they tend to be selected out of ludicrous wealth. The irony is that one of the most ludicrously wealthy people in history was also probably the single largest contributor to public libraries. Whether or not he was simply an outlier, I think that’s an important thing to point out. Further, some data suggests that as much as 5% of the general population are narcissists. So collectively, your point seems to be that rich people are pretty much like the rest of us, just with more money.
  - loup-vaillant 3y ago
    > But then you go on to say, I said "tend to". A tendency does not make an absolute and complete genocide. I also said "I'm afraid", which is supposed to convey some level of uncertainty. Carnegie's donation doesn't invalidate my point, even if he wasn't an outlier. > The irony is that one of the most ludicrously wealthy people in history was also probably the single largest contributor to public libraries. Where you see irony, I see expected statistics: the largest contributor to pretty much anything has to be ludicrously rich. Because the only way to give that much, is to own even more. And I will add that one incentive for rich people to donate is their public image. And in many cases their "donations" are largely neutered by tax cuts or by increasing the return on some of their other investments (basically their donations causing other of their investments to increase their returns). Donations by rich people aren't always genuinely generous.
    - bumby 3y ago
      What evidence would it take to change your mind? Because it seems like you'll rationalize any outcome to fit your mental model. If the wealthy don't fund something, it's because they're narcissists. If they do, it's because of statistics. At the same time, you ignore the statistics about narcissism.
      - loup-vaillant 3y ago
        > If the wealthy don't fund something, it's because they're narcissists. If they do, it's because of statistics. I said no such strawman, and it's not my main point anyway. My main point is: the idea that rich & powerful people will generally do what it takes to stay rich & powerful is not conspiracy thinking, it's common sense. The idea that a sizeable proportion of them will resort to unethical (even lethal) means to do so is not conspiracy thinking, it's common sense. That's it, and I don't think Mr Carnegie here provides any significant evidence to the contrary. I mean, the same guy reportedly had strikers shot and killed, didn't he? It's hard to believe such a guy donated large amounts of money out of the goodness of his heart.
        3y ago

kiba 3y ago

Why would that be obvious? It seems more likely that they don't care about libraries.

loup-vaillant 3y ago
Can you precise what "that" is referring to?
- bumby 2y ago
  I think "that" = "the idea that rich assholes would like to keep the education level of the general population below a threatening threshold is not conspiracy thinking to me, it's just obvious." ("the idea" is what you claimed is obvious)