111–120 of 195 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would anyone read the article when they can take the opportunity to bash the rich?
because the top 8 billionaires own more wealth than the bottom 50% of the global population? the rich have really been sucking it up lately. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/20...
Is there a historical precedent for those above the peasants, but still below the king, to constantly rationalize and serve as king apologists? I notice an interesting trend with a large chunk of the discussion being centered towards why [rich person's] [behavior] is not [as bad] as you think. Maybe it's because the king enables those above the peasants to retain that position? It's really interesting, actually. Kind…
"The system operates through a complex of inducements, privileges, class interests, etc., relying on the tendency of much of the intelligentsia to conform to power (while proclaiming their courageous independence of mind), and the unwillingness to endure vilification, lies, and denial of the opportunity to work and publish, as punishment for telling the truth."
One of the big four millionaires in San Francisco build a spite fence around the undertaker who wouldn't sell the property to him for his mansion. The undertaker in turn build a giant coffin on the roof, visible over the spite fence.
Here's the fence, before the coffin: http://i.imgur.com/n1o7S3T.jpg
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While we're being condescending, it seems like some people have Zuckerberg derangement syndrome. Guess Aaron Sorkin's quasi-fictional biopic was effective. I don't see how anyone who reads this article will think Zuckerberg is hurting anybody. A bunch of people who previously owned useless fractional shares are going to get some cash.
It's a perfectly rational thing for Zuckerberg to do. It is also absolutely a case of an ultra elite (basically a "king" of today) white man is availing himself of state (ultimately, military) support to force native Hawaiian people off their lands. You made an error in your comment. You said their shares were useless. Clearly, they have a use to the individuals in question - both the natives and Zuckerberg.
I don't like this topic, but when someone talks about this I'd like to know their opinion on this:
- what is his/her ethnicity - what ethnicity does he/she think jews have.
Why I raise these questions? Becase if someone talks about this topic this is pretty sensite, and also pretty context sensitive.
Do "privilieged white" people consider jewish people also "privilieged white" people, or of a different ethnicity?
Do jewish people consider themselves "privilieged white" people?
Do other ethnicities consider them as the same?
What ethnicity does Mr Zuckerberg consider himself? His is of jewish herritage, as far as I know.
This "white people" narrative is pretty destructive, but also is an overgeneralization, and just as destructive as overdifferentiation. I beleive both are a form of destructive, retrogade racism which has crept into Public language lately and is plaguing the thinking of people and destroying the progress of the last half cetury.
I don't blame you for using it, and I don't beleive you wanted to say anything nasty, nor do I want to do so, just formulated some questions the topic raises in me.
Is there a historical precedent for those above the peasants, but still below the king, to constantly rationalize and serve as king apologists? I notice an interesting trend with a large chunk of the discussion being centered towards why [rich person's] [behavior] is not [as bad] as you think. Maybe it's because the king enables those above the peasants to retain that position? It's really interesting, actually. Kind…
I think it's more of a knee jerk reaction to the "wealthy people are evil" narrative that is quite common in the media. Some people just read the headline and immediately assume it's another instance of this, whether they are right or wrong. Personally, this kind of article doesn't "gratify my intellectual curiosity" and I don't think it belongs on HN.
First, I had no idea about these kinds of land titles in Hawaii, pretty interesting stuff for me at least.
Second, as someone of pretty low education, I enjoy coming to HN because I get to be in the company of posters who are much smarter and more knowledgable than myself. Admittedly though, this leads me to fall into the trap of viewing everyone posting here as being well informed. Articles like this, and some of the subsequent comments that to me at least sound as if posters didn't even read the article, force me to consider that even people with great domain specific knowledge aren't necessarily open minded or knowledgable about subjects outside of their domains.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While we're being condescending, it seems like some people have Zuckerberg derangement syndrome. Guess Aaron Sorkin's quasi-fictional biopic was effective. I don't see how anyone who reads this article will think Zuckerberg is hurting anybody. A bunch of people who previously owned useless fractional shares are going to get some cash.
It's a perfectly rational thing for Zuckerberg to do. It is also absolutely a case of an ultra elite (basically a "king" of today) white man is availing himself of state (ultimately, military) support to force native Hawaiian people off their lands. You made an error in your comment. You said their shares were useless. Clearly, they have a use to the individuals in question - both the natives and Zuckerberg.
I'm no Zuckerberg apologist, but it's clear from the article that there are varying situations represented here and at least some reasonable fraction of them are totally happy to sell him whatever percentage they own. The one person interviewed who actually had a connection to the land is supportive of the sale, because he probably can't pay taxes on it, at which point it goes to the government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would anyone read the article when they can take the opportunity to bash the rich?
because the top 8 billionaires own more wealth than the bottom 50% of the global population? the rich have really been sucking it up lately. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/20...
Whats the use of owning 700 acres of beachfront property if you can't exclude all the humans that used to live there. It's not like you could have avoided displacement by purchase of a smaller plot to enjoy. It's not like he could have chosen a less populated island to start with.
Privacy advocate Mark Zuckerberg deserves more privacy at the cost of mere mortals. Sue that underclass till they break Mark! /s
It is clear that almost no one commenting here has actually read past the first few paragraphs of the article (if that). It is very well written and explain that this is an extremely complex issue. Property rights are the foundation of civil society. Due to variety of factors, Hawaii has destroyed property rights on some parcels due to degenerate laws and legal customs. Just consider one point raised by the article:…
You could err on the side of the living ancestor(s). In absence of saying "that fraction is approaching zero", you could assume the intent of the original buyer that they wanted anyone from their family living there.
At least this way, all the owners are finally identified (at considerable cost to the plaintiff, I might add), and they are properly monetarily compensated for the land.
If the current owners really did want to live on the land, they are more than free to band together and bid on the parcel themselves in the auction -- especially the ones who didn't know about the land before.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your math is little wrong. 1%: The Politicians, Bureaucrats & Friends. 19%: The Rich paying with money. 80%: The Poor paying with freedom. Guess who takes shelter in tax havens like rich but at the same time pretend to be altruistic to/for poor.
Erm, not to be all factual and shit, but politicians generally aren't in the 1% until after they're out of office. There are exceptions of course (the Clintons, because of the sheer length of service and variety of positions they've each held) but being a politician doesn't actually pay that well. There are perks, but you won't get into the 1% on perks. The 1% is primarily made up of people who have enough money that…
