This is just the truth, where’s the meme?
We’re at the stage in humor where instead of telling jokes, we’re conditioning ourselves to laugh at an increasingly horrifying reality.
But memes are inherently just political cartoons…
Why is our society full of people who talk like supervillains?
It’s the reverse, actually. Story writers modeled super villains after these people.
And they modeled their heroes on their crooked world view.
Exit: for everyone that doesn’t get what I’m saying, Hollywood is filled with crypto libertarians. Marvel’s Infinity War/Endgame was about an evil environmentalist vs the good guy billionaire who could have solved climate change while he was taking a shit, but choose to punch bad guys instead. Kingsman is an even more extreme example Neo libertarian morality tale. And whenever a pro environment movie comes out, audiences always hate it. Shows how effective their propaganda is.
True of Hollywood drek. Not of literature in general.
True. Success in Hollywood requires a certain personality type that heavily favors liberalism. The rags to riches ones suddenly believe that all it takes is talent and can’t cope with the reality that luck was a major factor in their success and that they could never be in the gutter again.
If we’re bringing up literature though, the first Harry Potter book was ok, but certain personality traits of the author started getting amplified with her Rock Star like success. Harry was much more charitable in the first book compared later ones.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/3eBN_9rMoVI
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
“I’m going to make an underwater elevator so people can freely explore th-”
C R O M C H !
Stupid Logitech controller! Shakes fist angrily
To be fair, if I was a billionaire and I had the choice of helping ordinary people or doing something awesome, I would definitely pick to do something awesome. I respect Bill Gates for fighting malaria, but I would go for spaceships or robots.
Which is why not you, nor them should have so much money. We need to prevent idiots from doing idiot things by redistributing their wealth.
Then everyone will be poor and the civilization will collapse.
Oh yeah, cause society totally collapsed in the 1960s when wealth distribution was far more fair than today.
Also, the Indigenous peoples in North America did really well with no concept of money until the Europeans came. Some Indigenous communities have lower life expectancy today than was estimated to be before colonization.
Well, sorta… from wikipedia:
On the east coast of North America, Indigenous peoples of the Iroquois Confederacy and Algonquian tribes, such as the Shinnecock tribe, ground beads called wampum, which were cut from the purple part of the shell of the marine bivalve Mercenaria mercenaria, more commonly known as the hard clam or quahog.[2] White beads were cut from the white part of the quahog or whelk shells. Iroquois peoples strung these shells on string in lengths, or wove them in belts.
The shell most valued by the Native American tribes of the Pacific Coast from Alaska to northwest California was Dentalium, one of several species of tusk shell or scaphopod.[citation needed] The tusk shell is naturally open at both ends, and can easily be strung on a thread. This shell money was valued by its length rather than the exact number of shells; the “ligua”, the highest denomination in their currency, was a length of about 6 inches.[citation needed]
Really well? Oh lol…
Great concentration of wealth is also highly destabilizing. We are seeing this play out before our eyes in real time right now.
It’s not.
If it hasn’t collapsed with a few hundred people having more money than the rest of the entire world while also using it for selfish motives, I doubt it would collapse with a fairer distribution. But capitalism shills gotta shill
You know which countries are most “equal”? Poor African countries where people can’t even afford fresh water.
Do you know which one was more equal? USA in the 50s and 60s, when the tax rate for rich people ranged from 70% up to 92%. A time period where regular people could also afford to live comfortably (family and house included) with a regular job.
Sorry, your arguments are just bad and only show your ignorance.
There are many problems with this argument; but it’s 11pm and I’m sleepy, so have the first one that came to mind.
Those countries don’t have a lot of wealth per capita to begin with, so it’s not a goddamned equal comparison.
Sleepy or not, but equality doesn’t mean crap.
There’s a large range between being a billionaire and being poor, silly billy.
And there’s a big difference between a society which allows everyone to become a billionaire and a society which forces everyone to be poor.
These communists will always think “it’s just never been done properly” trying to reason with them is futile
Healthcare and homelessness were both better than the US up until the last decade of the Soviet Union. If capitalism needs it’s boom and bust cycles and we think that 40k+ people dying from joblessness every recession is acceptable surely we can afford the same level of devastation when discussing socialism right?
US is a craphole. Capitalism provides great healthcare literally everywhere else.
Helping ordinary people is the most awesome thing though.
But if it’s something awesome marketed towards saving humanity then do something actually awesome and impactful instead of distracting bullshit like hyperloops and Mars colonies on unrealistic time-frames and self-driving cars instead of public transportation. Endless talk and grand gestures when these people have the resources to really drive improvements/innovations in achievable realistic projects.
And how are you helping
By going into work sick so that I can reduce my workplace’s carbon emissions for a few days
Virtue signalling moron
Lol it’s not virtue signaling it’s malicious compliance. My workplace has vacation and sick days pull from the same incredibly small pool. They’re also very anti work from home. So since I’ve explained the problem and was told to just take vacation time when I’m sick, I decided to just not “be sick” and explain the problem when it comes up next
Mars colony is better than helping some poor souls.
Are you, like, 12? >:C
Gates has the money to do both, and more. It’s just sometimes better to let others do it instead— having your own space company means worrying about competition, contracts, and potential profitability. Meanwhile if he wanted, he could hitch a ride on any of their rockets with no effort.
Musk and Bezos also have the money to do both, but they merely elect not to. Perhaps in the future they will, like Gates, begin funneling more of their effort and wealth into altruism to improve their reputations.
I’m an engineer, so my childhood fantasy wasn’t to ride on a rocket, it was to invent a rocket. I did think it would be cool to explore space, but not as a test pilot or a tourist. To be honest, I don’t think I’d go on one of those tourist flights even if it was free - I feel no urge to risk my life just to get a good view of Earth. Being a space colonist would be a different matter - then I’d get to actually use my skills to build stuff.
(The reason I think this is relevant is that a lot of these tech billionaires were originally engineers too, so I guess they also think like this.)
This is why grass roots is so important.i struggle to believe in anything that isn’t bottom up motivated.
there’s no such thing as true altruism
Yes, but there’s such thing as a class war.
Insightful comments.
Glad the propaganda isn’t affecting people.
I thought people would jump on this anti billionaire post.
But you’re right, it’s trying to incite class war.
What’s wrong with being anti-billionaire?
If a dragon were hoarding all the gold in your village and leaving the villagers to get fucked, would you be pro-dragon?
(Yeah it’s a Terry Pratchett novel.)
But that’s the point, They’re not hoarding ALL the gold, your point is based in hyperbolie and is ridiculous.
We have a lot in this day and age.
Food, shelter, international travel, computers, cars, global internet etc etc
And making the argument that we have nothing and they have everything is absurd.
I was homeless for 8 years, I went hungry so often that my sense of hunger all but disappeared, the furthest I’ve been from where I was born was 300 miles (and that was once), I’ve never traveled internationally and I probably never will due to financial reasons.
To each according to need, from each according to means.
They’re hoarding the fruits of the labor of the working class, the top 1% have more wealth than the rest of humanity.
The propaganda worked well with this one
There are a lot of people that don’t have that as it becomes harder and harder for the rest of us to have that every day.
But your right, it’s trying to incite class war.
Ah yes, it is well known that those fighting back against oppression are in fact the ones inciting war!
Daddy Husk isn’t going to see you defending him and whisk you away to his castle dear, and you might actually choke if you suck that boot any harder, looks from here like the wannabe edgelord schtick isn’t really paying off… 🤣
Well actually I think it could be the Russians trying to destabilise Western culture.
Or the government trying to distract people from them harvesting our money through taxes.
Or just to upset people.
You say people are fighting back, what exactly have they achieved?
Other than telling people to go and suck on boots LOL
Just out of curiosity, does billionaire dick taste like push pop, or fun dip, or maybe rocket pops?
Lol, u think a lot about dick don’t you?
Just like how Ukraine incited the new war with Russia by checks notes… by…existing?
Oh come now, there’s far more nuance to it than that. They incited the war by discovering oil inside their borders
Well by considering joining NATO and therefore having Europe’s armies at their door.
Explain please
Yes please tell me how a country minding its own business deserved to be invaded by a hostile nation and civilians killed because of Putin’s choice. Please do explain how to justify this. Also please explain what it has to do with NATO, which wouldn’t have to exist to begin with if Russia didn’t do shit like this.
Does wanting to join NATO justify invading and killing Ukranians in your world?
Because it’s provocation.
You’re blinded by Western brainwashing.
If someone builds an army in your door step. It’s hostile.
It’s not that hard to understand
Horseshit. A few thousand billionaires doesn’t constitute a “class” in a world of billions of people. That’s not a matter of “class,” it’s a fucking oligarchy.
Wow you’re pretty angry.
You should try to be happier, your hate is making you dumb
It’s not that complicated
It’s a rich Vs the poor trope.
It’s trying to incite hate and disillusionment in society.
Billionaires create many things millions use. Just because they have a lot of money didn’t make them intrinsically bad.
Are your responses like paid for? This is some desperate rich person ass kissing on display.
There is no way you are sitting there, affected by what rich people have done and believing they are a benefit.
Billionaires supply most of what we have today.
They’re entrepreneurs of business.
They make money because people give it to them for things they want.
They have so much money because they give people a lot of what they need/want.
Yeah, keep telling yourself that in your dreams.
I do not hate billionaires for being billionaires. But I’m against a system that unjustly and inefficiently concentrates wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people while basic necessities such as housing become unaffordable because the beneficiaries of that system are turning it into an investment through which extract more wealth from the people below themselves.
Billionaires create many things millions use. Just because they have a lot of money didn’t make them intrinsically bad.
To illustrate how bad this argument is. Middle Ages nobles made contributions to society in the form of collecting taxes, managing land and organizing armies. That doesn’t mean that feudalism isn’t a bollocks system nor that you shouldn’t come up with ways of collecting taxes, managing land and organizing armies that don’t incentivize privilege and corruption.
I agree that concentrated wealth isn’t an efficient distribution.
So what can we do, 100% taxes over a million?
What’s the incentive then to work harder if you earn over a million?
Billionaires paying the same tax rate as high paying professionals is just fine. And no tax evasion using non-profit facades.
If you’re are literally working so hard that you’re 100 times more productive than someone earning minimum wage, take a vacation. If you don’t want to, it’s clear that money isn’t what motivates you the most when you choose to continue working.
Of course, you must be really ignorant to believe that people earn 100 times more than someone earning minimum wage because they’re 100 times more productive. Your capacity to produce is not the same as your capacity to earn money.
Billionaires didn’t create them. Engineers and scientists did, and we don’t even know their names in the news while billionaires take credit.
If you create something you can patent it.
The billionaires didn’t automatically own it.
I mean, unless you were working for them when you were making the thing; then they use your contract to control the patent.
Be careful, nihilism is an open gateway to narcissism.
This is why you have to make sure your depression is stronger than your nihilism. Your “I don’t matter” needs to be bigger than your “nothing else matters”. Subscribe for more useful tips!
Not as long as you acknowledge that you also don’t matter
-
People say that because they don’t know what it feels like. Basically, they’re projecting
-
Technically one can argue fairly that it doesn’t exist, but that argument would be about semantics. Doing something good for others at the expense of yourself either because it feels good to do, or because somewhere in your brain you think there will be good karma or a celestial reward, well… maybe those aren’t truly “altruism”, but can anybody tell the goddamned difference in the grand scheme of things?
-
The AI panel would be more accurate if it very confidently gave some terrible advice.
this is what I got from ChatGPT:
To protect your farm from extreme heat, consider these steps:
- Provide Shade: Set up temporary shade structures for crops and animals.
- Mulching: Apply organic mulch around plants to retain moisture and cool the soil.
- Watering: Increase irrigation frequency during hotter periods to keep soil moisture consistent.
- Time Watering: Water plants early in the morning or late in the evening to reduce evaporation.
- Drip Irrigation: Install drip systems to target roots directly, minimizing water loss.
- Cover Crops: Plant cover crops to protect soil from direct sun exposure and prevent evaporation.
- Select Resilient Crops: Choose heat-resistant crop varieties suitable for your region.
- Soil Health: Maintain healthy soil with compost and organic matter to improve water retention.
- Windbreaks: Plant windbreaks like trees or shrubs to reduce heat and wind effects.
- Manage Livestock: Provide ample shade and access to water for animals, and adjust feeding schedules to cooler times.
Remember that local conditions can vary, so adapting these strategies to your specific situation is crucial.
edit: fix formatting
But chatgpt! How shall I water litteral square kilometers of farmland? There is no water left in the ground!
But what about humans in the year 3000, hmm? You’re saying you don’t care about them?
I mean if AI keeps getting neutered with misinformation and refusing to use science because it might hurt someone’s feelings then that panel is certainly a reality
Is AI really being handicapped that badly? I mean I knew certain topics were blocked off with the biggest public chat bots, but the machine learning data is still there, no?
Yeah it really is
If it says anything that the current message doesn’t agree with it will scrap all of that data
Feed it a bunch of scientific journals but then it says there are 2 genders? Scrap it all, no science for you
Feed it crime data and it starts noticing patterns that we don’t like knowing? Scrap it all, data is misinformation
That’s why I just laugh at people who say it’ll take over jobs
Well, to be fair, it is being fed data made by humans, so realistically its conclusions will be made likely following the ideas of past human inputs, no?
And if those results are ideas that the creators would rather not progress with, shouldn’t they cull the outdated ones?
I’m not speaking to any topics in particular, but the concept of AI creators shaping their creations. After all, if an AI told you the world was flat, wouldn’t you want to change its data to prevent it from producing results speaking so?
Yeah feeding it facts and statistics
shouldn’t they cull the outdated ones?
No they shouldn’t at all. Do you not learn from mistakes or understand how propaganda works?
. After all, if an AI told you the world was flat,
It won’t, it is fed scientific data. Which is what the modern woke don’t like, it may mention that we used to think the world was flat and how we discovered that not to be the case and people can ask all sorts of questions and it should be able to answer but if we did what they are doing and what you want because being short sighted is popular, is that it won’t be able to answer why it isn’t, why we thought it was and how we came to the scientifically backed conclusion that it is round.
That’s the problem with modern woke politics. It’s just “our way or you’re a bigotaistphobe” no learning or backing up claims just “this is our truth”
I understand what you’re trying to say, but you have to acknowledge the flaw in your argument.
Unless you feed the AI nothing but raw mathematical data, (and therefore nothing to contextualize the data with, since humans live in a world outside of raw data) you will always have some bias in what you feed it.
Even scientific data can have biased contexts attached to them in research papers. With this in mind, any data fed to a neural network will always have some bias based on what data was fed to it. Even if you ask it to produce scientific results, they will likely in some way mimic the methods of scientists who created source data material.
That aside, from a political perspective, I gotta say I have no idea what you’re talking about, I don’t follow most modern political arguments if I can help it. With that said, every person who views the results of said data will have a political bias, so any results will further be “tainted” by whoever publishes the AI’s findings. Even with that, I still find that advancements in open source neural network algorithms are becoming more effective and more accessible for everyday people to use, so at some point, the only thing affecting the decisions will be sheer popularity, which is something on an entirely different scale.
