261–270 of 320 posts
Seems pretty clear to me that he's a full blown sociopath. I know it's bad form to diagnose people online but the guy basically prides himself on it and makes no attempt to hide it. He just doesn't view others as human being.
You don't know anything about him. He doesn't speak in public much and every single source on him has obvious incentives to lie.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Most British people don’t respond well to attempts to cow them. They refuse to be cowed! To allow oneself to be cowed would be cowardly. To do so would have one accused of cowardice, of being a coward.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> egregious libel laws Apparently you can get off scot-free in Britain even if you say/write things that are generally considered defamation per se as long as you claim that you utilized the "JDART" strategy: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50695593 JDART: "Joke that was badly received, therefore Deleted, with an Apology and then Responsive Tweets to move on from the matter."
That ... doesn't seem like it would help journalists or whistleblowers who are trying to bring serious attention to problems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have done worse things, since the beginning, that they know about but people are not primed to understand yet. Each whistleblower brings us closer to full understanding, bit by bit, showing that even the lower ranks see and are party to things that are unthinkable to the older generation and that the younger are only now waking up to being not okay.
> people are not primed to understand yet What does this even mean?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Employee - Large organization. Mosquito - Human. You don't swat a mosquito out of fear, you swat it out of preventing a minor nuisance. A whistleblower is a mosquito that's bitten a human. The most likely outcome is an imminent, violent swat, resulting in career destruction.
Retaliating against whistleblowers is bad publicity and possibly even illegal depending on what's being uncovered, so orgs do have countervailing pressure to not swat too hard, whereas there is no pressure on a human to do the same with an insect. Well, unless you're the president: https://www.npr.org/2009/06/18/105574084/peta-wants-obama-to...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, a lot of people these days, including a lot of anti-Facebook techies, seem to think it is right and proper to equate “freedom of speech” to the First Amendment to the US Constitution, scoped to the government only, whereas private actors can do whatever. (Though now that I think about it I don’t know if Doctorow does—hopefully not but I’ve been disappointed by quite a few childhood idols in this way over the…
> how does one get not punishing opinions—even those that would put the listener in danger if implemented—broadly accepted as a value? Taking you literally, I don't think that's possible. Social punishment (in the form of shunning, boycotts, "cancelling", etc) has been around as long as human society has existed and is incredibly popular. If someone figures out how to reliably solve that, a few nobel prizes are proba…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think some people imagine the rule of law to be a replacement for the law of nature. I think it sits in front, protecting all parties from a much more violent form of justice. If billionaires fail to support the rule of law, especially if they wield their immense power to press on the scales, they should not be surprised when people lose faith in the more civil option.
Where are you seeing billionaires not supporting the rule of law (and Zuckerberg in particular)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It took the literal burning down of aristocratic homes during the english reforms of 1832 for the House of Lords to finally sit down with Earl Grey and hash out a bill that would finally grant large populated cities like Manchester actual voting rights. The French Revolution was still fresh in minds of these elites - the July Monarchy having just taken place - and yet still they let it escalate to the point of near c…
The point is a guillotine somewhere else is good. Guillotines at home don’t particularly hurt the rich as a class. (It’s debated whether France’s elite actually consolidated wealth and power through its revolutions.)
Malicious. Not bizarre, not "weird", not ADHD, not out-of-touch. Stop giving awful people the benefit of the doubt, and start showing them the consequences of malice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This applies to Elon's incredibly strange video game cheating scandal too. It's pathetic and weird.
That was i think the most revealing thing about his character bar none because of how mundane it all was. Anyone with a tiny bit of video game background called that out from miles away. It was so pathetic. Richest dude in world with spaceship company. Has nothing to prove. Cheats, lies, and gaslights when caught. Has to be “number one” at a video game that has virtually zero skill where rank is almost entirely who g…