3 ms·

Yes - all of that - but don't over state it. Gawker did bad. JD Vance was 'Hillbilly Eulegy' guy and firmly anti-Trump, going so far as to call Trump 'fascist'

Yes - all of that - but don't over state it. Gawker did bad. JD Vance was 'Hillbilly Eulegy' guy and firmly anti-Trump, going so far as to call Trump 'fascist' etc - at the same time TheIl was supporting him. Alternative View: these are power hungry, narrow minded egoists. It's that simple. The ideology is second. So - as long as they are in their 'CEO box' - that's fine - they should not be famous, not be giving lectures, influencing politics so much. They can make 'whatever' and want 'more equity'. We just can't have them manage society. If they are 'marginal figures, managing some companies' - then their ecclectic weirdness is not that bad, just intellectual diversity. Putting CEOs in charge of society was always a bad idea. These CEOs just 'act a bit different' than traditional CEOs or NY Banksters. They are cringe, call them that, let them have their companies, not their influence.

manoDev 5mo ago
> So - as long as they are in their 'CEO box' - that's fine - they should not be famous, not be giving lectures, influencing politics so much. They can make 'whatever' and want 'more equity'. Like China.
- bluegatty 5mo ago
  No, not like China in any way.
  - manoDev 5mo ago
    No? What’s the Chinese Elon Musk/DOGE fiasco equivalent?
    - bluegatty 5mo ago
      look to WW2 industrialists.
hackyhacky 5mo ago
> We just can't have them manage society. I agree, but it's too late. After all, once one has firmly reached billionaire status, what is one supposed to do? Just sit around and sip martinis by the pool? As we've discovered, the billionaire class, having achieved unimaginable wealth and been convinced of their own intellectual superiority by a coterie of sycophants, have an apparently irresistible drive to meddle in affairs of state, especially when those affairs are well outside their domain of experience. And no matter how badly it goes, they will never be convinced that they are doing bad. The real argument for taxing billionaires out of existence is not that the money would benefit other people more (although that is true), but because such accumulated wealth in such few hands results in too much concentrated power without the need to care whether it's being applied well, because either way, they will still be rich and powerful. The argument for democracy is not that the "people" always choose the best leader, but that the leader must do at least something well in order to maintain their support.
- bluegatty 5mo ago
  Yes - the concentration of wealth is a problem, but then see it as that - no through the lens of 'TESCREAL' and weird boogymen things
  - hackyhacky 5mo ago
    TESCREAL and similar boogeyman is just an ideology tying together the current batch of anti-democratic billionaires. Without the money, TESCREAL wouldn't be a problem. But it is a problem.

manoDev 5mo ago

> So - as long as they are in their 'CEO box' - that's fine - they should not be famous, not be giving lectures, influencing politics so much. They can make 'whatever' and want 'more equity'. Like China.

bluegatty 5mo ago
No, not like China in any way.
- manoDev 5mo ago
  No? What’s the Chinese Elon Musk/DOGE fiasco equivalent?
  - bluegatty 5mo ago
    look to WW2 industrialists.

hackyhacky 5mo ago

> We just can't have them manage society. I agree, but it's too late. After all, once one has firmly reached billionaire status, what is one supposed to do? Just sit around and sip martinis by the pool? As we've discovered, the billionaire class, having achieved unimaginable wealth and been convinced of their own intellectual superiority by a coterie of sycophants, have an apparently irresistible drive to meddle in affairs of state, especially when those affairs are well outside their domain of experience. And no matter how badly it goes, they will never be convinced that they are doing bad. The real argument for taxing billionaires out of existence is not that the money would benefit other people more (although that is true), but because such accumulated wealth in such few hands results in too much concentrated power without the need to care whether it's being applied well, because either way, they will still be rich and powerful. The argument for democracy is not that the "people" always choose the best leader, but that the leader must do at least something well in order to maintain their support.

bluegatty 5mo ago
Yes - the concentration of wealth is a problem, but then see it as that - no through the lens of 'TESCREAL' and weird boogymen things
- hackyhacky 5mo ago
  TESCREAL and similar boogeyman is just an ideology tying together the current batch of anti-democratic billionaires. Without the money, TESCREAL wouldn't be a problem. But it is a problem.