131–140 of 217 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But we're all going to be billionaires soon, right? Right? Edit: /s, in case it wasn't obvious
Even if we are, if there are trillionaires (on the long scale) or quadrillionaires, there will still be vast (problematic[1]) inequality. [1] Problematic in the sense that the persons holding such vast wealth seem to go bonkers AND for the problems inequality leads to for society
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't think that the fact that Ellison is a staunch defender of regimes that disregard the international order in favour of military might is relevant to the fact that is also advocating for building a surveillance state? In case you don't, to me it's painfully clear that these are just different aspects of the move towards more authoritarian forms of government. You CANNOT support a genocide and expect that this…
> it's painfully clear that these are just different aspects of the move towards more authoritarian forms of government Sure. But, like, the evidence for that is the advocacy for a surveillance state. Not his support for a foreign policy project that yes, involves supporting an autocratic government in Israel (fighting, let’s be fair, an autocratic force in Gaza backed by an autocratic state in Iran), but also a whol…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's painfully clear that these are just different aspects of the move towards more authoritarian forms of government Sure. But, like, the evidence for that is the advocacy for a surveillance state. Not his support for a foreign policy project that yes, involves supporting an autocratic government in Israel (fighting, let’s be fair, an autocratic force in Gaza backed by an autocratic state in Iran), but also a whol…
I don't think I understand your point, beyond downplaying the severity of current events.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, yes, it would be better if he didn't amplify propaganda for the country that is committing a genocide and would raise awareness for the victims. Is this not self-evident?
The point is this comes down to a foreign policy disagreement that isn’t germane to Ellison’s comments on surveillance. (I can come with a litany of policy disagreements with anyone of Ellison’s stature, some of which I probably feel about strongly.) Read in good faith, it’s overzealous advocacy. In bad faith, which I don’t assume here, it serves to get this discussion flagged off the front page.
This is the fascist dream. Who defines 'Best Behavior?' Whoever owns the cameras, and the cops. Criticize the president? Not best behavior. Kiss someone of your sex/gender? Not best behavior. Call AI stupid? Not best behavior. Whistleblower on out a deadly chemical leak? Not best behavior. Disagree with a politician? Not best behavior. Defined LGBTQ+ people's rights? Not best behavior. Criticize Isreal ? Not best beh…
You are painfully correct https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/trumps-nspm-7-labels-commo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure if the causality there is the right way around, I would suggest that because they have these beliefs they are allowed to amass that wealth. Oracle is a CIA spin-off (1977), they even kept the code name. The CIA works closely with Mossad. The 'abolish all billionaires' plan is encouraged precisely because it will be ineffective - they're assets of the state secret police and good luck abolishing that.
> The 'abolish all billionaires' plan is encouraged precisely because it will be ineffective - they're assets of the state secret police Sorry, all billionaires are “assets of the state secret police”? So who calls the shots?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If anybody even insinuates that Weiss or Ellison have dual loyalty because of this they will be accused of anti-semitism. The hard truth is that weaponizing your money — earned largely from Americans — to aid a foreign country at the expense of America is about as un-American as it gets. Aside from the potentially valid argument that your voice shouldn’t be louder just because you are a billionaire — you are corrupti…
> anybody even insinuates that Weiss or Ellison have dual loyalty because of this they will be accused of anti-semitism No, they’ll be accused of derailing the conversation. Every pro-Palestinian activist isn’t civically compromised because they have strong views on foreign policy. > you are corrupting American foreign policy and American stature in the world to advance the agenda of Israel. That is a betrayal of Ame…
Foreign policy is almost universally a quid pro quo. Whilst there may be something for the USA in this it feels very asymmetric unless I am missing something.
Why is it that every single person born between 1940 and 1965 (or making more than $1 million per year) just wants to see all freedoms erased and every natural resource exhausted for their personal comfort?
This is deeply unfair. Plenty of people, including those responsible for more focus on environment and human rights, are in that age group. They are leaders and allies. Ageism is just another way divide society.
It so happens that in parts of North America this life experience is associated mostly with a certain set of of age/demographics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> anybody even insinuates that Weiss or Ellison have dual loyalty because of this they will be accused of anti-semitism No, they’ll be accused of derailing the conversation. Every pro-Palestinian activist isn’t civically compromised because they have strong views on foreign policy. > you are corrupting American foreign policy and American stature in the world to advance the agenda of Israel. That is a betrayal of Ame…
> expressing foreign-policy disagreement Foreign policy is almost universally a quid pro quo. Whilst there may be something for the USA in this it feels very asymmetric unless I am missing something.
At the state level, often. At the individual level, I don't think so.
My pet war is Ukraine. I don't have any personal stake in the war. I just think it's abhorrent and poses a long-term risk to the security interests of places and people I care about. I can construct that into a narrative of fulfilling American geopolitical interests, but that's an exercise I'd be engaging in after I'd come to my view based on, essentially, a moral preference.
That preference is real. But it's mine and far from universal. That someone thinks Russia is justified in invading Ukraine is frankly irrelevant to the validity of their statements on other matters. That's where I'm calling bullshit on this connection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would certainly better support his statement that the people are on their best behavior if being monitored. If his statement is true, then the real Larry Ellison (not publicly known one) is worse than a genocide supporter. He basically discredits himself by making that statement.
> It would certainly better support his statement that the people are on their best behavior if being monitored It literally wouldn’t. Whether people behave better when surveilled in independently verifiable. Whether or not bees exist doesn’t revolve around the political beliefs of the person claiming they do.
Anyway, I agree it is a verifiable fact, but it also can be a personal belief. Does L.E. provide any evidence, or is he stating it authoritatively?
In any case, one big piece of evidence we have for the claim is that Israel doesn't allow any foreign journalists in Gaza, and is trying to control Tiktok, in which L.E. seems to be involved.
So by pointing that belief out, L.E. indicates he is even a worse guy, because in some cases he disagrees with such independent monitoring.