this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2023
988 points (94.0% liked)

politics

18846 readers
4538 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It's crazy to me that we live in a world where money and celebrity implies influence, and credentials don't mean much on a general public stage. This man can tweet something insane and its taken as a serious discussion point.

Given that money can buy influence, it is a legitimate risk to society, I get that. But how crazy is that as a concept?

[–] kescusay 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ever seen the movie Glass Onion? There's a character who is modeled partly on Musk, and it's spot on.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I keep meaning to watch that, but can't find the first knives out anywhere but on the high seas... I tend not to sail much these days. Not after the last nastygrahm I got in the mail.

[–] kescusay 3 points 1 year ago

You don't need to watch the first one to enjoy the second. And honestly, they're both great fun and well worth paying a few bucks for. The movie makers clearly poured a hell of a lot of love into the craft.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Always use a vpn if torrenting in a jurisdiction that cares about piracy

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Here you go:
Knives Out
Glass Onion

(I didn't actually like the first and didn't bother with the second but I was just watching something else on there and thought I'd check if they had those films too)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

No! Adding it to the watchlist, thanks!

[–] kescusay 3 points 1 year ago

You won't regret it. It's a great movie.

Of course, knowing that we have twerps like that influencing culture and politics might also leave you feeling pissed off.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

It's the sequel to Knives Out; I would expect it to be a quality production.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How crazy is it that people feel completely comfortable with it being true?

The reality is the complete opposite since they've proven themselves to be enemies of the well being of the general populace.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly.

At the end of the day people like him are allowed to have so much influence because of regulations (or lack there of). Tax them, hold them accountable legally, something.

[–] FlyingSquid 3 points 1 year ago

Republicans want us to return to America of the 1950s. Fine. Let's have the tax rate of the 1950s and Elon pays 91%. So do Zuckerberg, Bezos, Gates, etc.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's as much a function of human evolution as it is of how our society functions. And hell, isn't that dependent on human evolution too?

We evolved to survive, not to run a society. We've done pretty well overall despite that problem, but the wheels are coming off.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Humans have evolved to be social cooperative creatures not greedy selfish hoarders, and it is only in the last few thousand years, a blip in human history, that these systems developed by, and that only reward, greed and selfishness, have been around.

Don't let these systems and the people who benefit from them (and those who have been propagandised to believe they benefit from it but really don't) fool you in to thinking any of this is natural.

[–] dragonflyteaparty 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

From what I've been learning about human history, your first paragraph does seem to be the case. However, we didn't have near the same numbers then as we do now. It's the scarily, or appearance thereof, that causes the selfishness in my opinion.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

It’s the scarily, or appearance thereof, that causes the selfishness in my opinion.

Assuming you mean scarcity, you've almost hit a big nail on the head there - capitalism deliberately creates artificial scarcity, and the belief that it is inevitable (and in a way, it is, when living under a system that aims for infinite growth in a finite world with finite resources), however post-scarcity is already entirely possible today, especially with the growth of automation, if only the worlds resources were managed and distributed with society's well being in mind, instead of profit.

Convincing those of us the greedy and selfish exploit, who are trapped in their system with no way out, that we are in fact the greedy and selfish ones (for wanting our basic needs met, not private jets and mega yachts) who are to blame for all of our, and humanity's, ills, not them, who are literally raking in and hoarding all of the world's resources while being the biggest contributors to its destruction, is one of capitalism's nastiest and most effective lies, because in the world they've created, where greed and selfishness are not only rewarded, but necessary, it's almost impossible to prove wrong.

But it is wrong, and completely unnatural, and a better way of life absolutely is possible, it just requires those with all the power and money to not hold all the power and money anymore, and they'd rather destroy the planet and the rest of us with it, than do that, which means it's up to us to make that choice for them, or go down with them.

[–] dragonflyteaparty 0 points 1 year ago

Yes, you're absolutely right. 😅 I just didn't delve all the way into it. And yes, I did mean scarcity.

[–] dragonflyteaparty 0 points 1 year ago

Yes, you're absolutely right. 😅 I just didn't delve all the way into it. And yes, I did mean scarcity.

[–] dragonflyteaparty 0 points 1 year ago

Yes, you're absolutely right. 😅 I just didn't delve all the way into it. And yes, I did mean scarcity.

[–] dragonflyteaparty 0 points 1 year ago

Yes, you're absolutely right. 😅 I just didn't delve all the way into it. And yes, I did mean scarcity.

[–] dragonflyteaparty 0 points 1 year ago

Yes, you're absolutely right. 😅 I just didn't delve all the way into it. And yes, I did mean scarcity.

[–] dragonflyteaparty 0 points 1 year ago

Yes, you're absolutely right. 😅 I just didn't delve all the way into it. And yes, I did mean scarcity.

[–] dragonflyteaparty 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, you're absolutely right. 😅 I just didn't delve all the way into it. And yes, I did mean scarcity.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Haha, I figured autocorrect, though you're good whatever the reason, I clearly understood what you meant.
And sorry it came out as a bit of a rant, it's hard to help it, but I'm glad it's making some sense to you!

[–] dragonflyteaparty 0 points 1 year ago

Yes, you're absolutely right. 😅 I just didn't delve all the way into it. And yes, I did mean scarcity.

[–] dragonflyteaparty 0 points 1 year ago

Yes, you're absolutely right. 😅 I just didn't delve all the way into it. And yes, I did mean scarcity.

[–] dragonflyteaparty 1 points 1 year ago

From what I've been learning about human history, your first paragraph does seem to be the case. However, we didn't have near the same numbers then as we do now. It's the scarily, or appearance thereof, that causes the selfishness in my opinion.