Michael @ M1ch431 @slrpnk.net

Posts

0

Comments

95

Joined

4 mo. ago

So in the absence of evidence, let's defend Bill. Got it.

We could stay neutral, but still be concerned that this person still has power, wealth, and influence...but everybody loves billionaire philanthropists, am I right?

Ah, right. It was just Bill getting financial advice - purely business.

It's certainly normal to get financial advice from sex offenders and those convicted of prostitution, with multiple accusers in court against them.

Bill Gates knowingly associated with a person involved with and convicted of some pretty crazy stuff. Bill knows it's crazy, that's why he's been spending out the ass on PR for many years. His wife divorced him, and Bill's relationship with Epstein was seemingly a big factor.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/articles/melinda-gates-opens-divorce-betrayal-211513816.html

Melinda: "I did not like that he had meetings with Jeffrey Epstein, no. I made that clear to him…He was abhorrent. He was evil personified. My heart breaks for these women."

The philanthropist stressed that Bill's relationship with the sex offender affected her deeply, writing: "That October, things had reached a fever pitch when The New York Times published a deeply disturbing article that raised serious questions about Bill's conduct."

"Questions that suggested he had betrayed not only our marriage but also my values," Melinda lamented in her book.

If even his former wife throws Bill under the bus, why are you defending him?

Why does society need to have billionaires? Why can't (e.g.) Bill Gates just participate in society based on his own merits like the rest of us?

None are preferrable. Nobody should have that much wealth, power, and influence.

The current system needs to be retired. Wealth and power should not be concentrated to the degree that it is.

The human race is committing suicide needlessly, all because of concepts like "cost" and a system and world order that is out of control.

Read the edit that I just put in at the end — Trump's rise to power is bipartisan.

Democrats currently writing strongly worded letters to the White House, while Trump openly violates the law and shits on the constitution and due process, is not sufficient action and shows their complicity. Again, these people represent capital. Human rights and even a hint of democracy is inconvenient to capital.

You're allowed to disagree and continue getting gaslit. It's fine, you do you. I know things are complicated.

Do a significant group of people will for this policy, and if so, are they being propagandized into willing for it?

Portraying our modern slaves (e.g. 40% of US agricultural workers are undocumented immigrants) as violent and criminal is a big stretch. We largely rely on them to pick our cotton (so to speak), we subject them to horrible working and living conditions, we don't give them any rights, we keep them in poverty and lack, and deportation has always been on the table for them.

A large fraction of the country doesn't vote. I haven't looked at the polling recently, but most people don't really seem to approve of Trump overall.

Trump and his administration represent capital. Capital wants to maintain control through fascism and authoritarianism.

You don't simply ignore your oath to uphold the constitution, openly ignore due process, and also be in contempt of court. This is all being allowed to play out by all of our "representatives", who also represent capital.

The constitution and its bill of rights is inconvenient to capital, just like true democracy. That's why corporations (et. al) write our laws and tell our representatives how to vote through legalized bribery (lobbying).

For example, it's bipartisan to want to limit or control speech and expression. It's also bipartisan to engage in mass surveillance through private corporations, advertisement firms, data brokers, and through the NSA and PRISM. So, the first and fourth amendments have been under attack for a while. It's nothing new.

This is their final push. If you remember, Clinton, the DNC, and the mainstream media (which represent capital) pushed for Trump in 2016:

The Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee called for using far-right candidates "as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right." Clinton's camp insisted that Trump and other extremists should be "elevated" to "leaders of the pack" and media outlets should be told to "take them seriously."

He's definitely not living poorly. His legacy will still be "filthy rich".

He's not giving so much that he can't live a life with more privilege and access to abundance than the overwhelming majority of people. He also wields more power and influence than most could ever hope for.

Yes, I do think it's important to address the echo-chambers and the centers of propaganda, no matter which side of the coin you're looking at.

To the side that you're referencing: Fox News (et. al), conservative think-tanks, and the many conservative influencers spread these perspectives and viewpoints. Responsible individuals and organizations convince everyone that it is a matter of survival that they don't contribute to their societies.

These groups and influencers convince people that others shouldn't have it easy because it invalidates their struggle. They also convince them that the government is out of control, that it is interested in taking their wealth and their rights, and that it largely doesn't serve their needs — that they are getting a raw deal.

So these individuals want a small government. They don't really care what happens to society at large because they are just focused on themselves, potentially their families, or at best a portion of their local communities or churches. They are in the weeds of survival mode and tribalism — they are warding off invaders and perceived threats and stopping others' ability to take what they earned, including their status and power in society.

The answer is finding the real cost of capitalism, of ineffective governance, and of not making any forward movement as a global society. What are the real costs of this apathy and inaction? It can't be something that you simply argue with science — with the costs of runaway industrialization, because they have been propagandized to think our emissions/etc. have no affect on the world at large. They are thinking small, and again, in a state of survival.

Conservatives, under the rule of this current administration, are going to be faced with some harsh realities and truth as this stagnation (and at worse, this regression) continues. They are going to quickly find out the source and human cost of our goods, be it domestic produce or various other items sourced from exploited countries.

It's relevant to point out that an estimated 40% of US agricultural workers (arguably more) are undocumented immigrants. This administration is deporting workers that we depend on to work our fields, harvest our food, and likely produce the products that go on our shelves. They are doing so at a breakneck pace. When these conservatives are forced to work the fields to survive or forced to go into the factories, they will quickly understand how much blood, sweat, and tears go into their consumerism.

As for Doordash, it is a symptom of our apathy, the disconnection with our communities, and the result of local business being crushed. Just like Doordash being not so great, you can't go to the grocery store and not support modern slavery. You need to consume food to live. The food on our shelves is devoid of nutrition, it is loaded to the brim with chemicals and contaminants (like PFAs, from the use of biosolids to fertilize our crops), and it is vastly under-regulated and making us ill. Our soil practices are also unsustainable and they will only remain viable for approximately 60 more harvests.

If RFK and some of his proposals (particularly regarding food) resonate with these voters, there is hope yet, especially if these individuals get a wake-up call in the form of a food crisis, facing the consequences of alienating our trade partners, and our store shelves going empty.

They already resonate with the government being broken, and we don't need to give up anything as a society to thrive and live sustainably. We can accomplish all modern convenience and privilege with our technology and ingenuity without raping the environment.

These individuals are propagandized against green energy and regulation (industrial or otherwise). If we can convince them that everybody can thrive without breaking a sweat, and show them the costs of deregulation of our environments (e.g. their communities and their water tables) and the costs of deregulation on our health (their health and the health of their children), they will probably come around quick.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a63152930/proton-batteries/

If that technology is finished, we won't even need rare elements to store energy. It is a story that many slept on. Solar panels are very cheap comparatively to make.

The culture is already there. We have a great base called the constitution and its bill of rights — we largely already support concepts like democracy and human rights.

Humans and our units tend to be weak and vulnerable, we are easily manipulated, and we are easily corruptible. Capital has an greater influence on individuals (and especially our leaders and institutions) than forward momentum and the act of working towards solutions — making life better on this planet for everyone. Capital should not be a factor operating at a level above our ability to govern and direct our societies.

Humanity has to start to learn how to thrive and simultaneously learn to live in balance with the planet. Consumerism is certainly out of control, but it's reductive and unfair to single out any single person, group, or entity. Humanity is largely kept in survival mode (and also in fear, hate, and division), scarcity is artificial with our current level of technology and organization, and the truth of our consumerism (and its roots) is veiled to us.

Nobody besides the oppressed truly knows the extent of modern slavery, of modern child slavery, and of third-world exploitation.

In my eyes, the solution is direct democracy and socialism. Building up our communities and making our society at large (and especially our cities) self-sustainable.

I personally think that an international human bill of rights would be a wonderful goal to have to kick off a golden age for humanity.

Capitalism exists in the form it does because government doesn't exist. It's a big lie. We are in the age of modern feudalism, ruled by corporations, oligarchs, and others that concentrate wealth, power, and influence.

I wouldn't trust the government to reliably redistribute the money or to reliably tax the very rich.

We have a system that rewards greed, parasitism, and exploitation with wild success. Until that is solved, redistributing wealth will be unsuccessful — a temporary fix, at best.

People will say a lot of things about me when I die, but I am determined that 'he died rich' will not be one of them

I'll just save time for my future self: He died complicit, supporting and enabling the system that creates inequality and blocks progress, and he directly stagnated technology by engaging in monopolistic practices.

Bill Gates quite obviously pays a lot for PR, and giving away wealth to those in need is obviously positive, but if he used his influence to call out Microsoft for using their technology/AI and infrastructure in war, called out the imperialism and destabilizing influence of the US empire, and so on; maybe I would have a more charitable forecast for his legacy.

I would be more than happy to be wrong and I hope I am.

The point is that they forked an older version of Gecko and have been maintaining it with a small team ever since - and it still works reasonably well.

Is its security great? At least in the past they made great efforts to keep up with CVEs, but they don't pump it full of money and talented individuals - so I'm doubtful that the security is great. Is it actively exploited? I doubt anybody would bother.

Am I endorsing Pale Moon? No, but it's still an impressive effort even if I disagree with a lot of their choices.

See how Elon Musk gets away with the nazi salute? People have been calling him a nazi for months. People have been boycotting his products. Despite losing so much, he seemingly revels in the attention. When it comes down to it, he vehemently denies the accusation and the show goes on. His power over others remains. He's rich as fuck, he can afford to weather any conventional storm we throw his way.

I'd rather spend my time and energy on more productive things. Like focusing people's energy towards removing the wealth inequalities that create and enable individuals like him. Nobody should have that much wealth and power over others. Nobody should be able to openly commit election fraud (pay people for votes).

It's not putting someone down to stick to the facts - the facts resonate with many people. Starlink, for example, is a monopoly. No single corporation should have a monopoly on satellite internet. If people focused on that, alongside his shady dealings with his other companies/products and the DOGE, things could move to a more productive direction.

Can we prove Elon Musk is a nazi? Is doing a salute, that has a shocking resemblance the nazi salute, even against the law in America in that context? It just seems like a waste of energy to focus on that. It's a label and nothing improves by pointing it out and condemning him.

I choose to not practice condemning others or otherwise putting them down. Fighting hate with hate usually results in more hate. That's my personal strategy, at least. Follow your heart, I say.

Thanks for making it clear that you aren't being hateful.

From my perspective, you don't need to parrot a line or respond to a barrage of questions.

Learning to be more sensitive and tolerant and actually changing takes time. It's a process. If you indeed aren't holding hate in your heart, it makes it all the easier to see the flip side.

Sorry. It's one word. That's literally ALL people want you to say to help them feel safe and comfortable. It doesn't need to be hard.

Should your private message have been published? No, probably not. It was unfair to you.

Are people being unfair to accuse you of being a massive transphobe with the evidence at hand? I'd say so, but people are primed against people that hint at their transphobia through the use of particular terms.

And why wouldn't they be? Individuals masking extreme hate towards transgender/etc. people with dogwhistles is something that happens frequently.

If you aren't masking hate just say so and apologize.

It's obvious to me that Nutomic and Dessalines both have gigantic hearts.

Anybody who promotes human rights and concepts like socialism are incredibly courageous.

Thank you for creating this platform. It's a critically needed service for discourse. I hope others reconsider their strong stances against you and Dessalines.

Lemmy is of incredible value to humanity and not a moment passes where I am not grateful for this platform and the hard work put into it. I'm sure many, many others feel similarly.