286437714's recent activity
-
Comment on What I learned about billionaires at Jeff Bezos’s private retreat in ~society
-
Comment on What I learned about billionaires at Jeff Bezos’s private retreat in ~society
286437714 Link ParentYou'd think I'd have read Narnia, but I never have. I just know the lion ends up being Jesus. Thanks for the analysis above. I didn't have the energy. For one we've both read:You'd think I'd have read Narnia, but I never have. I just know the lion ends up being Jesus.
Thanks for the analysis above. I didn't have the energy.
For one we've both read:
"There is a very interesting debate raging at the moment about the nature of sin, for example,” said Reverend Oats.
“And what do they think? Against it, are they?” said Granny Weatherwax.
“It’s not as simple as that. It’s not a black and white issue. There are so many shades of gray.”
“Nope.”
“Pardon?”
“There’s no grays, only white that’s got grubby. I’m surprised you don’t know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is.”
“It’s a lot more complicated than that—”
“No. It ain’t. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they’re getting worried that they won’t like the truth. People as things, that’s where it starts.”
-
Comment on What I learned about billionaires at Jeff Bezos’s private retreat in ~society
286437714 Link ParentBetween medical expenses and saving for retirement, I give more than 100USD to one of the big WFP distributors each month. I can't really afford it, but it's the right thing to do. I was injured...Between medical expenses and saving for retirement, I give more than 100USD to one of the big WFP distributors each month. I can't really afford it, but it's the right thing to do.
I was injured and permanently disabled trying to achieve better security for people affected by drought, famine, and internal displacement caused by genocide and ethnically motivated slaughter.
It doesn't go without saying. That was rude, presumptuous, and I don't wish to engage with your bullshit any further.
Other readers, please forgive my tone. This really got under my skin.
-
Comment on What I learned about billionaires at Jeff Bezos’s private retreat in ~society
286437714 Link ParentI think the consistency of your human-made analysis is that the individuals listed by the AI table all could perform billionaire philanthropy and have a far greater impact if they were willing to...I think the consistency of your human-made analysis is that the individuals listed by the AI table all could perform billionaire philanthropy and have a far greater impact if they were willing to not be billionaires anymore.
No notable billionaires from the current class have.
I don't think it's possible for professional philosophers to come up with a definition of evil everyone agrees on. But for me, having the ability to lessen an enormous amount of human suffering, whilst retaining immense comfort - and making the conscious choice not to - is evil in my eyes.
To quote from a book series I don't even like, "Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling… It makes no difference. The degree is arbitary."
To me there's no point ranking least harmful billionaires, especially using an AI summary that incorporates their own press releases. There could easily be, to my definition, a good billionaire. They just wouldn't be a billionaire anymore. They'd have a reasonable plan for family inheritance, sell off all but one yacht, fly commercial, live in a house (even a mansion!) they already own and sell off their properties, and work with the UN to end world hunger.
That plan would have to be updated because of multiple genocides and subsequent famine conditions in the years after it was created, but it's a workable start. It was created in response to Elon Musk saying 'My money couldn't have any meaningful impact on poverty anyway,' and the WFP creating a costed plan in 2021 to provide evidence otherwise. Of course he didn't do it. He rejected their offer for talks, got his Twitter followers to amplify UN peacekeeper violence investigations, and claimed the WFP commits financial fraud. Their books are public, so obviously this was disproven.
But that's the most tangible example I can think of. Any one of the people in that dumb graphic could have said 'I'll do that.' Or, even, 'look, I can't do all of it, I only have 4bn, but if you find someone to help out I'm in.' They wouldn't be living hand-to-mouth. They'd still be what you and I consider extremely upper class. They'd just be hundred-millionaires instead of billionaires.
The fact that no one has made that choice reminds me of the canonical American founding fathers from the Southern States promising to free their slaves after they died. The majority didn't, citing legal difficulty, or loss of income for their descendants, or 'my hands are tied by the current legal system.'
It sounds familiar because to me, I feel like I can draw a direct line between the men who founded America with the premise of an indiviudal owning humans being fine, and the current ideology that clearly tells the rest of us that, to billionaires, it's not worth losing money to improve the lives of others, or even save them from avoidable suffering and death.
-
Comment on An insight into looksmaxxxing/blackpill "ideology" in ~life
286437714 Link ParentOkay cool, I understand a little more, but I'm still a bit confused. You've 'ascended' in the terms of that culture. I guess my broader question that's still unanswered is - what for? It's a...Okay cool, I understand a little more, but I'm still a bit confused. You've 'ascended' in the terms of that culture. I guess my broader question that's still unanswered is - what for?
It's a really good catch phrase. I like it in the abstract. And I promise I am not 'just asking questions' as I hate those people, I'm asking out of genuine personal interest (which means, feel free not to answer if it's annoying). Once people in the community have ascended and forgot, what then?
I'm not necessarily asking for your personal experience here as it sounds like you don't fully embrace the ideology, but I just have no idea what the desired end-state of becoming hot is in this subculture.
-
Comment on An insight into looksmaxxxing/blackpill "ideology" in ~life
286437714 (edited )LinkYou've posted before about how good looking you are, and how you've become a young Mark Ruffalo, and what a difference it's made in your life. Reading this post put that one in another light. I...You've posted before about how good looking you are, and how you've become a young Mark Ruffalo, and what a difference it's made in your life.
Reading this post put that one in another light. I suppose on first read it was 'well, good for you', but now I'm wondering whether there is something else going on here.
I honestly, 100% don't mean this as a personal attack, but it is very hard to frame what I want to say without it sounding mean. I'll do my best.
I was told since puberty that I was handsome, and not just by my mom. Looking back at high school and college photos of myself, I can't believe how much I used to tell myself I was ugly when I was as beautiful as people were telling me I was. I just didn't believe them.
I suppose my point is my physical appearance made absolutely no bearing on my wellbeing, despite 'pretty privilege', until I went to therapy for a long period of time in my early twenties and started to be able to develop healthy emotional relationships with friends and with partners.
My knee-jerk reaction to 'LooksMaxxing' in the news is that Tywin Lannister quote from GoT: 'Any man who must say "I am the king" is no king.' I've always thought that people brag about themselves being hot are deeply insecure. I was told I was hot and I was deeply insecure.
I don't think many of the 'LooksMaxxing' hacks are that revolutionary - maybe there are to America, but I wore makeup from puberty because that's what boys were expected to do in my (admittedly multicultural) society, so they didn't look like shit. Now, when I wear nice makeup, I wear it so I feel good about myself heading into work, or going on a date with my wife. I go to the gym not to peacock in front of girls at the pool but to feel like my body is capable of doing my (admittedly physically demanding) job, and feeling like I'm strong enough to make the transition to midlife without too much visceral fat that could increase my susceptibility to organ disease.
I am certain that I would be a loveable, attractive partner to my wife if I became severely disfigured or physically damaged because I know many successful relationships where that is the case. I know I'd still be loved by my friends, my brothers, and my family. I wish I had have been confident in that for the first 20 years of my life, but it was part of growing up for me.
Does the looksmaxxing community engage with this kind of problem at all?
I guess similar to @Lia's point about the 'well women can have sex easier!' fallacy, I'm interested in the broad end-state that is desired. It'll differ for everyone, but what is the point of becoming so hot if it's constantly self-proclaimed and has to be re-enforced by others? How much does the community engage with the issue of external vs. internal validation?
If the point is casual sex, I guess I can understand it, though I've always found that frightening, unfulfilling, and dangerous, so I can't empathise. If the point is a romantic relationship with meaning, I think this is antithetical to the goal's achievement. If the point is validation from other people, the dependency principle means that's just a road to being addicted to the praise of others. It'd also be way easier to achieve just by going on Grindr or physically to a gay club if someone has the complex.
Is the point (generally) specifically to dominate other straight males in social spaces? Are looksmaxxers aware that secure men don't give a shit and would laugh at them?
I'm just confused as to the stated end-game of 'achieving high tier' when these people seem so miserable and literally dependent on getting people to acknowledge them.
Yeah, I get it. The fallacy of the argument was half of what pissed me off. I'm not sure what the right term in English is for that kind of argument, but, hm. It reminds me of when BP came up with the carbon footprint campaign to put the pressure on people who had no ability to make meaningful change, all whilst knowingly making climate change irreversibly worse.
There is a vast gulf (no pun intended) between regular people giving their disposable income to charities and the literal ability to pool billions of dollars to solve dire food insecurity and deaths of extreme hunger. Making that comparison feels (not logic, emotion) like a really pathetic attack on the wrong target to make a rhetorical point.
I don't think their intended point holds up under scrutiny. Your reworded one makes sense, so if we go with:
'The vast majority of people aren't evil because they don't donate a significant portion of their income to charity.' That tracks, I agree. But in my view, again, billionaires who don't meaningfully help out in their own lifetime, without caveats about net wealth never dropping below a certain point, without stashing half their hoarde in untouchable trusts are evil (or, more accurately, immoral, by own framework, and dealing less in absolute terms). And to be even more sweeping, I think this is a workable model because I feel the same way about companies that reap enormous profits operating in a country, and paying no corporate tax back to the commons by using offshoring.
I think it's deeply immoral to accrue more than you can ever realistically use, but in the case of individual multi-billionaires where their comfort wouldn't even be impacted by the decision to save lives, that's where it blurs over into evil for me.
Thanks P-squat.