421–430 of 715 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
people are never OK with violence against human beings.
This has to be one of the most naive comments I've read on this site. Theres example after example of people in history being totally fine with violence against human beings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Luigi Mangione, the guy who shot an health insurance company CEOs in 2024
Yes, but what does the “or even” mean?
> [...] not defending [the people who "seem to genuinely be OK with violence"]—or even Luigi (the one who carried out the violence in question)— [...]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The top 1% of income earners pay 40% of all the federal taxes collected. The top 25% pay 89% of taxes. Net of transfers, 60% of households receive more from government transfers than they pay in taxes. The idea that rich people don't pay taxes is just not correct. The entire system is basically rich people subsidizing everybody else through byzantine distributional systems.
Billionaires aren’t becoming billionaires from income. It’s increased stock valuations that create that level of wealth. I constantly see posts focused on high earners already paying tons of tax. They do, but this should reinforce the point that the ultra wealthy should be paying more tax. People aren’t saying the guy on £500k should pay more, they’re saying the guy with £100m in assets should be.
I don't think most people in tech are quite aware of the level of visceral AI hatred amongst non-techies. I've personally witnessed the worst Thanksgiving dinnertable fight I've ever seen (after someone revealed that their recipe was AI-generated, a couple people literally spat out the food they were enjoying and threw their plates in the trash), and a divorce (a very solid marriage between two people who were once b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We gave up violence and made the state the authority but thats contingent on the social contract being upheld.
We did this in the late 1800's and early 1900's because the upper classes understood that they needed to be afraid of the masses. Prior to that political violence seems like it was the order of the day. The US has always had a pretty strong aristocracy, but the aristocrats were variously either moral people or they at least had enough of a sense of self-preservation that they wouldn't get too greedy.
It is a bit scary how people seem to genuinely be OK with violence (see this reddit thread [0]). Is just me or does it feel like the overall "temperature" has gone up. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1shugf8/firebomb_t...
It is a bit scary how people seem to genuinely be OK with violence (see this reddit thread [0]). Is just me or does it feel like the overall "temperature" has gone up. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1shugf8/firebomb_t...
These are message boards. The obvious sentiment, that firebombing attacks are awful (perhaps cut a little bit with "the perpetrator appears to be someone deeply in need of help) is boring. This is an availability bias issue: the only sentiments that actually spool out into threads are edgy. Once you learn to spot these effects, message boards make a lot more sense and are less jarring.
- Go onto a Reddit thread about ICE, everyone in the comment threads says they don't like ICE. That's the obvious statement, not edgy.
- Go onto a Reddit thread about Trump, everyone says they don't like Trump. That's the obvious statement, not edgy.
Why would we think the Sam Altman thread is any different? I unfortunately think the Reddit thread might be the real deal, or at least a little more real than you are saying.
It is a bit scary how people seem to genuinely be OK with violence (see this reddit thread [0]). Is just me or does it feel like the overall "temperature" has gone up. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1shugf8/firebomb_t...