Can you source most Americans working 2-4 jobs? I tried Googling around, and it seems the actual number of Americans with 2+ jobs was about 8mil, or 5%.
One out of twenty Americans is a far cry from "the average American." But I'm open to being wrong. Just couldn't find anything supporting that claim.
I'm only not surprised because causality seems to be underreported across the board in this conflict.
It's kind of the inverse of how little press the October 7th attack got after things started to really go south.
I feel like the media has just treated this as a random string of completely unrelated events.
I think you're misunderstanding me, willfully or unwillfully.
It's not about treating serious things seriously. It's the understanding that when someone says "let's not talk politics at the dinner table," they don't mean to not talk about distorted pictures of Luigi.
Words have meanings. Sometimes multiple meanings. But we have to share a common understanding of what a word means to have meaningful conversation. All the arguments about the Luigi image are as much "politics" as a chef boyardee ravioli is a "sandwich." Which is to say, probably arguably so, but people will think you're stupid if you make the argument in all seriousness.
As for roe v wade, it depends on what you mean. I'm not on the supreme court, so I certainly didn't repeal it myself. I didn't vote for Trump, so I didn't repeal it in that manner either. But I didn't campaign for it. I didn't call anyone or post angry messages online. I think it was ruled the wrong way, but it also isn't an issue that directly affects my life.
And that's my point. If you spent emotional energy on every miscarriage of justice, you wouldn't have time to live your life. Are you equally mad about every dictator in Africa or the middle east? Did you buy products from companies that take part in deforestation? Do you eat meat? Follow every single local election closely and have deep opinions about the two people running for the children's court judge position? Do you have opinions about the people running for president in the Philippines? In Canada? Mexico? If you don't actively care about all of those things, then you're the one "standing still and reinforcing the status quo" on all those issues.
It's okay to not let every issue dominate your life.
But I do agree I got bored with this exchange 2 messages ago, and am mostly responding on autopilot. Happy to call it here if you'd like to. No worries either way.
Hope life is treating you well, and you're having a restful weekend my guy.
The issue then is one of definitions. 99% of people would say that the OP image of a distorted Luigi is, in fact, apolitical.
While you can argue that it's political, it cheapens the word.
If, on a spectrum from 1-10, with Rosa Parks being a 10, this is, well, I suppose I can't say a number lower than one.
The colloquial understanding of the word political then, is one not just of kind but severity. There is some severity threshold of "abstract political-ness" of a thing that, below that said threshold, would not be considered "political" in the colloquial sense.
The issue is that, when you assert that "no, those things are political," you are elevating them in severity above that threshold. To the average listener, you are likening our distorted Luigi friend to Rosa Parks, and that is offensive.
That's why I'm pushing back on the all things are political position.
The issue with the latter point is that you're painting a false dichotomy.
We are not in fact on a moving train, we are living life where we find ourselves.
Yes, society moves forward, but it isn't a monolith. Some parts move faster, and others slower. There are 10,000 different cultural fronts, and on some you are extremely progressive, and on some you are "standing still" or "normal" as it were. It's impossible to devote the emotional/mental bandwidth to be on the bleeding edge of every front.
And standing still isn't the same as advocating that where you're standing is where everyone else should stand. It's more than possible to live a "normal" life without "coercing" other people to do the same.
I think the differentiator here is "a" moral good vs "the" moral good. I think it's more than reasonable to see unity and peace as worthy goals to strive for, and to know when to pick your battles on any given issue. That compromise can be preferable to chaos for all reasonable parties.
Which is not to say there aren't hard limits. Compromise of human life and dignity are clearly unacceptable. But the idea that someone is willing to not build their identity around political issues (which is to say, those that rise above the political severity level to make them so in our current cultural zeitgeist), and to live in peace among those with whom they disagree. That doesn't seem so bad to me.
The issue I have is that when you say that "trans people deserve equal rights," and "I prefer my toast with butter on it" are equally political, I can't take that position seriously. You might as well be saying they are equally "clifnibble" for all the meaning of has.
What you're doing here is an "everything is a sandwich" type thing. Taco, sandwich. Ravioli, sandwich. The planet earth, basically a ravioli, so sandwich.
While that's a fun thought experiment, and maybe technically true depending on how you define the word, if someone started trying to eat dirt because they said they wanted a sandwich, I'd call them nuts.
Yes, all things are political, if you define the word political that way. But when you start spouting off about how someone butters their toast being political, you're reducing issues that actually matter down to that level.
And look, I do understand what you're driving at. You are pushing back against people who don't want to involve themselves "in politics." I think it's horribly reductive to paint them all as wanting to go back to the 1950s. I think most are probably fine with the LGBTQ+ community, and aren't looking to go back to some racist "utopia."
I think most just want to live their lives. They have families and jobs and parents with failing health and financial pressures. There are thousands of marginalized groups. They would happily throw a dollar in a donation tin for them, but they don't have the emotional bandwidth or time to travel to DC and stand in protest, or argue with strangers on the Internet over it.They're not scared to rock the boat, they just have shit to do that has a far more immediate impact on their life and mental/physical health.
It's true that where there's disagreement there's politics. It's also true that where there's agreement there's politics. There's politics in Mariah's B-sides and A-sides and in the font chosen in the album cover. The material the disc is made out of is politics, and so is the air that transmits the sound waves to your ears.
My point is that if everything is political, then calling something political loses all meaning. The term political is, then, useless.
I think the issue with this interpretation is the word "inherently" in the original post. It implies there is some intrinsic value to the art that makes it political.
While it's true that all art can be interpreted politically, it's no more or less true than "all food can be interpreted politically" or "all cats can be interpreted politically." I can understand absolutely anything you want in a "political frame of reference."
When a definition is that broad, it becomes useless.
I don't think you understood my last apple analogy at all, but honestly, I'm not really emotionally invested in trying anymore.
I think our impasse at it's core is that we simply disagree on how much luck plays a factor in becoming a "X-ionaire."
You seem to think that the ones who did it are just the best of the best at being unethical businessmen. I look at the ranks of those who made it and I don't see genius Machiavellian strategic masterminds. I see people who capitalized on exactly the right idea at exactly the right time.
I can't pont to a Zuckerberg or a Gates or a Musk and say, "ah, this was the unethical strategy that got them to the top." I see that they were at the right place and time to fill a massive unfilled niche in society, and to beat everyone to the punch.
That's not skill. That's luck. That's not masterful strategy. Luck. It's not the inevitable outcome of their unethical business practices. It's dumb luck.
Are they unethical? Absolutely. Did that help along the way? To a degree, certainly.
But like, think about it like this. Did Bill Gates ruthlessly stomp on others people and companies to grow Microsoft to what it is today? Absolutely. But how many competitors were there in that space that he needed to stomp? Five? Six? That means that out of 8 trillion people on Earth, he was one of 5, maybe 6, that even had the opportunity to corner that market.
And why is that? Because life isn't perfect information, and opportunities aren't evenly spread.
To make one final pass at the apples example. In life, the apples aren't uniformly spread across the trees. You have to have the thought, "I bet there are some apples over in that part of the orchard," and then go look for them there. Sometimes there's a few. Sometimes there's a lot. Sometimes there's none. Not every area you search will be bursting with apples. Sometimes, very very very rarely, there's 200 billion apples in the area you go looking. And not everybody knows what's going on everywhere else in the orchard at all times. Sometimes you and 5 or 6 buddies stumble onto the same patch of 200 billion apples at the same time, and you fight to the death over them. Sometimes you leverage that big pile of apples you just got to force others to look for big apple patches for you. Sometimes you use the influence from your big pile of apples to change the apple finding rules in your favor. Or sometimes, you're a random dude who thinks, "man, I bet there's a bunch of apples over there," and you find them and pick them all on your own. At the end of the day, the people who have big piles of apples have them because at some point they either looked and found a motherload of apples, and beat out anyone else who saw it while they were picking, or someone who did gave them all their apples on their deathbed. And being unethical can help you kill off the people in your immediate vicinity who saw the same bunch of apples you did, but to even have that opportunity to crush your competition means that you were lotto winning lucky to even be in the race at the start.
Here's the the disconnect though. There are hundreds and hundreds of businesses that have done exactly the same things that Facebook did and went nowhere. Same strategies. Same exploitation. Same formula.
What makes Facebook different isn't that they did those things better. It's that they did them in the right place at the right time to corner the market.
I think there's a good analogy to the music industry. The most popular/famous/wealthy musicians aren't that way because they are more talented, or ruthless, or have the "winningest" music strategy. There are tens of thousands of other musicians who can play their songs as well or better than them, with more natural talent and willingness to murder for fame and wealth. So why are the famous people famous? Why are they household names while so many who are just as good if not better, with the same drive and strategy and goals, can't earn enough to put food on the table? It's luck. They won the popularity lottery by being in the right place at the right time to play to the right people that started the ball rolling.
And sure, ruthlessness and being unethical can help on that path, just as natural talent and determination can. But ultimately, at the scale we're talking about, they're negligible forces in the face of raw luck.
To use the apple picking example, what I'm saying is this. If you remove all "extraordinary" luck, and just see how well someone can do by being the meanest, most ruthless, crafty apple gatherer it is possible to be, the most they could end the day with is, let's say, 10 million apples. But we know that some people have 200 billion apples. So how do we reconcile that? The people with that many apples found an apple pile. That's the only way to get more than 10 million apples. And sure, maybe you actually found some other guy who found the pile and killed him to take the pile from him, or had some system by which you could trick people into pile hunting for you, so that you have better odds of finding the pile, but at the end of the day you have to find the pile to get more than 10 million apples. There is no other alternative. And yes, being unethical can greatly raise your odds of finding an apple pile, but anyone can find it. It's just very likely to be one of the unethical people.
But all this is, again, irrelevant to your original position, which was that there is some dollar amount X that you cannot get or keep without engaging in unethical behavior. Not that it's unlikely to get or keep, but that it is an actual impossibility. Do you still hold to that position in the face of the lottery example?
They're just Connected and Stephen Root has the more heavily Invested spirit web.
Of course billionaires can exist without having a winning strategy. Notch didn't set out to be a Billionaire. He just played infiniminer and thought it was cool, so he asked Zach Barth if he could make a spinoff. Facebook was started because Zuckerberg was trying to trick a chick into sleeping with him. These billionaires didn't have some Machiavellian scheme to become billionaires. They just made a thing that happened to dominate their respective industries. It happens when someone is first to market in a field that is prone to natural monopolies.
And of course money is a zero sum game. There's a limited amount of currency in circulation. That's true on it's face (ignoring government's creating more, etc.)
But I think the issue that we are actually disagreeing on is your claim that someone can't get more than X dollars by chance.My counter to that is, "sure they can, by winning an X+1 dollar lottery." And I don't think you've made any sort of counter to that point other than, "yeah, but they couldn't keep it without being unethical," without ever providing a timeframe that you would consider sufficient to meet the definition of "keeping it."
The issue is that your example fails to be analogous in that no one has ever had a winning strategy to becoming a billionaire. If there was an implementable strategy that anyone could do if they were unethical enough, there would be a hell of a lot more than 3000 of them in the world.
The only way to become a big-apple-person in your example is to find the treasure trove. You aren't physically capable of beating people up quick enough to steal all their apples. No current billionaire strategized their way into that position. They all found the apple lotto pile. Sometimes that pile is called Minecraft, and sometimes it's called Amazon, but they all became billionaires by finding a giant pile of apples.
And absolutely not on any strategy that makes more than 2% overtaking you. If I have 200billion dollars, at 2%, and you have 1billion at 10%, it's gonna take you nearly half a century to even reach my starting balance. Yeah, sure, you'll overtake me eventually, but that's more likely to happen because I died than because you ended up making more money than me.
And this is once again you moving the goalposts. What does it mean to "maintain that level of wealth"? Stay the richest for 5 years? 10? 20? 100? Your whole life? What if I die the day after I got the money? Do I have to invent an immortality potion to ever be able to claim to have "maintained" it? If you are unwilling to define what you mean by that, I'll just be aiming for an ever expanding, nebulous, "that's not quite enough."
I think we've now both accused the other of Russel's teapot, lol. Your claim that it's impossible to ethically become a muliti-billionaire is equally unfalsifiable, at least feasibly. I don't feel like I'm claiming anything absurd here. If you won a lottery that made you the richest person on earth (that was in some way devoid of any of the ethics concerns of the normal lottery system), then you would have become the richest person ethically. Or, at least, without having exploited excess value of other people's labor.
This isn't a Russel's Teapot because I'm arguing for a logical construction, not a point of fact. I'm not saying that such a person exists and you can't prove they don't. I'm arguing that it's almost tautologically true that if those events could happen, then my position holds water. I'm only arguing that it's within the bounds of the possible.
As for maintaining the money in a way that's ethical, sure, why not. Just throw it into a savings account that earns 2%/yr. Split it among a ton of banks and credit unions to stay within the FDIC insurance limits where possible. If you have 200billion dollars, that's 4billion a year to live on. Seems pretty easy to maintain your wealth that way. Am I missing something there?
I don't know what you're driving at with the "slippery slope" statement? Do you think I'm advocating that we should all be held accountable for the crimes of every dollar we have ever had in our possession? Or are you trying to imply that I'm arguing for always taking money indiscriminately? Regardless, I think it's reaching pretty hard in either direction.
I mean, artistry is inherently popularity driven, and we can see how knock offs rarely impact the demand for the original.
Damn, how many Minecraft or Minecraft adjacent games have come out in the last 15yrs? Have any of them made any dent in it's sales?
Look, you've set up a motte and bailey here. If I point to any example that concretely exists in real life, like Minecraft, you'll just say that the "X" wealth value is too low. If I say a hypothetical that doesn't exist, you'll say it's an impossibility. You're effectively asking me to prove a negative here.
If you truly, in your wildest imagination, can't think of a single way, no matter how extremely and unbelievably unlikely, that someone could become the wealthiest person on earth without exploiting the labor of others, I'm happy to agree to disagree on the issue. But it seems like that's more a lack of imagination on your part than anything.
Hell, here's a simple one. Elon Musk decides to will his entire fortune to a random stranger drawn by lottery, you end up winning, and then he dies. Congrats, you're now the richest person on earth. Did you exploit someone's labor to get that money?All money on earth has at some point belonged to someone who did, and I'm not culpable because the $20 bill in my wallet was once probably owned by Jeff Bezos (or, you know, someone who's dead and evil). Are you now responsible for every ill thing that Elon Musk has done because you won his death lottery? Did you commit some evil acts on your path to becoming the richest person on earth?
Yeah, the only thing I'd push back on is why I keep harping on that one point. I think that's been the whole cycle here. I've been saying, "I think X," which has been responded to with a "here's a more nuanced and detailed TUVWYZ," to which I respond with, "yeah, I agree with you on all those letters, but I'm specifically talking about X." And then the loop goes around again. I'm "continuing to push this one point" because it was the point I opened with and the only one that mattered for the purposes of the discussion at hand.
But, all that said, I'm not too worked up about it, and I agree this has gone on longer than it probably should have. Not everyone needs to agree on everything, and I think this issue, while a pet peeve of mine, is ultimately small in the grand scheme of things.
Hope your weekend has continued well, and I'll get back to enjoying mine as well. :)
How do you unethically usurp a popular musician's fame in a way that lets you earn more money than them, given the parameters of my above example?
But we're talking about this in the context of a thread that started with the claim that all billionaires are morally bankrupt (paraphrasing).
I agree with you that the system is flawed, but if the stance you're taking is that there is literally no set of actions before or after becoming a billionaire that someone could take that makes them not morally bankrupt, then maybe the initial position is flawed at best and useless at worst?
Not to repeat myself again, but I agree that labor should be fairly compensated and that systems need to be fixed to reduce inequality, and I am in no way shape or form stating otherwise. I feel like this conversation keeps going in loops, where I say that it's self defeating to state falsehoods in defense of advocating for systemic change, and you countering with "but there needs to be systemic changes!"
We're on the same page in that regard. I have exactly one point, and it's that if we agree that the statement that all billionaires are necessarily morally bankrupt is false, then we should stop using it to support our advocacy, as it is merely an additional reason to dismiss said advocacy.
I mean, I certainly think it's possible to become the richest man on earth through purely ethical means. It's wildly, incredibly unlikely, but strictly possible.
You could become a recording artist that self publishes your own music, only distribute online, and become unprecedented levels of popular. Sell each mp3 for $5 and sell a few trillion of them.
Is that likely? Absolutely not. Exceedingly unlikely. But becoming a muliti-billionaire in general is exceedingly unlikely. This is one of the lesser likely ways for sure, but it's fathomable, at least in the sense that it's a coherent narrative that strictly could occur.
What about that scenario is strictly impossible? Not vanishingly unlikely, but literally could not happen?
Man, I feel like we reached an agreement and now you're trying to walk it back. :P
And while I don't necessarily disagree with the point you're making, it feels like a setup to goal shift. Like, any example that gets brought up to counter the narrative can now just be dismissed as, "oh, but he's not enough of a billionaire."
And let's be real, a billion dollars, right now, is almost certainly beyond that arbitrary dollar amount X you speak of. There's only 3000 of them in the world! The *world! There's 8 trillion of us. How much more selective do we need to be??
I feel like this has always been the case? There's not a lot of precedence to be sure, but people have been operating under that assumption for a long time.
That's why, if you need to keep the cops from looking in your phone, you should use a password. Can't be compelled to give a password.
The classic example is a safe. There's tons of court precedence that you can be compelled to give the cops a physical key to unlock it if there is one, but you can't be compelled to tell them the combo if it's a dial lock.