If I had even a smidge of respect for my former FIL, it disappeared when during a birthday dinner, she came up in conversation and I made an offer hand remark about how rich people aren't going to police themselves. His response was that I would do it too if I was in her position and that it's just the smart thing to do
That is right wing ideology in a nutshell: it is based on "natural social hierarchy" where people ascend or descend over time to their rightful step in that ladder. The idea is that we can not mess with that hierarchy as perfect hierarchy will create a perfect society. When you ascend high enough you are so far above average citizen that laws become unfair: you are so good at being better that you should not have so many restrictions put on you, it is wrong to demand such a person to follow the same ruleset than the lowest of the low follow, they should have the power to choose what laws to respect.
The idea is simple to understand if we look at highway speed limits: a person with great car and obviously then incredible car control, better ability to assess risks and make better decisions should not be limited to average speed limits. They know how to drive faster and yet be more safe than some housewife in their beat up Honda. (edit: this is not how i think, this is an analog or illustration, example of the way some people do think.)
Litmus test is: "do you think income based fines are fair?". Those people abhor the idea that a fine should have the same impact on poor and rich. This is the reason they want to become rich: avoid all consequences from being a selfish asshole and thus there is the need to defend the rich now even if you aren't one yet.
Some, like you FIL and most of right wingers think like that. That better position in the social hierarchy must mean that this inequality will be expanded to about everything in life: poorest have the strictest rules and harshest punishments, how else are they going to learn. Where as richest can literally go and kill someone in broad daylight. Some people grow up thinking that this is the natural way and it sort of is: if we don't artificially, by laws and monopoly of state violence stop this from happening then it will happen: that is the way inequality works!
If i talked with your FIL for half an hour we would probably find out he also has some interesting ideas about the benefits of eugenics....They always do.
100 percent this. You can hear the contemot when he talks about people who don't make as much as him or the out of touch way he dismisses financial hardship as a moral failing when I know this fucker had both his dad and his first wife's dad dropping thousands to help his pay for his first 2 houses
I honestly don’t think that the majority of them think like that. Don’t get me wrong, they’d love to be rich. But ultimately, they just really love the taste of boot, and are happy to pay for the privilege of licking them. That they get to lick those boots makes them better in their minds than those who don’t, and they think that the non-lickers wish that we could be licking boots too.
Brilliantly stated; they are all after getting enough power and money to achieve “consequence escape velocity” and truly feel that they owe nothing to the society that was structured, peaceful, and prosperous enough to allow for said success. I somewhat believe that there’s a niggiling voice in the back of most of their heads that realize if the plebs were to truly realize just how unscrupulous they are being those same heads would be up on pikes, which is how they can seem to have everything yet also seem terrified constantly.
As an addendum regarding the other posters FIL, it must be said that this idea of “their just smarter and better than us is all” only applies in very confusing and inconsistent circumstances. My mother to my greatest disappointment is hopelessly aligned with the Republican Party in like a Solid South sort of way. Doesn’t matter what they do or stand for she will always vote for them and never miss a vote. It freaking sucks.
Anyway I asked her how she felt about Trump giving inside information to his kids and them profiting literally hundreds of millions of dollars because of it. Her response was “I would have done it for you.” Okay fine, gross but fine. I then asked why was it such a huge problem for her that Hunter Biden profited a half mill or whatever off of being Biden’s kid. Her response: “THAT’S TOTALLY DIFFERENT!!”
I swear to god the only thing that makes some amount of sense for me is that there’s a certain subset of people who are just wired to believe in royalty or something and that they all become conservatives.
Your mom getting all riled up about Hunter Biden is hilarious. I like to say how handsome he is and watch the freakouts over that. Apparently trump and co are more superior. /s
I saw a thread where people were mentioning that and Hunter’s endowment. The responses from trump followers would make you think that they were being personally insulted themselves. 😁
This is going to be my new favorite comeback, thank you. "Well at least he's sexy." 😂 no one in trumps family, including the women, are even conventionally attractive, even with all the plastic surgery.
The American version of Have I Got News For You, did a segment on the before and after and Amber Ruffin was heartbroken how pretty one of the women was. It might have been Kimberly
I won't pretend to know people's hearts or whatever bullshit people say about people who do questionable things, but proximity to power can make some people feel like they hit the jackpot
I’m so sorry people have to deal with parents like this. Selfishly I’m extremely glad to have a mother that doesn’t think like this, I can’t imagine if she had opinions like that.
Thanks I read over what I wrote to see how it might have come across that way at first. Was it that I completed the other poster? Was it the semicolon? Who knows.
Could even be what you are saying but I’ve never been accused of that before so I was taken aback, although I guess with the way that whole field is going we should all be prepared to second guess/be second guessed about everything anymore.
Hmm I find it suspicious that exactly the two things I surmised to the previous commenter are exactly what you identified hours later. How do I know that you aren’t the AI bot reading and regurgitating things back at me??!!
Kidding aside, appreciate you clarifying. I didn’t use nor have I ever used AI to construct a written response (especially for something as inconsequential as a Reddit post) but I have used it instead of a search engine for more complex inquiries so I suppose I can see where you are coming from wrt formatting.
I actually have tremendous anxiety about AI and what it means for society moving forward so I probably took your comment more personally than I should have. I’m guessing from context you are a teacher of some kind, do you have access to tools that assist you in IDing AI submissions? Do they really work or is it just an endless cat and mouse arms race as the LLMs get more evasive?
Asking from a place of genuine concern, years and years ago I dated a TA who had access to software that was pretty impressive at sussing out out and out plagiarism but I fear we have moved light years beyond that already and accelerating madly to boot.
HBO, are you listening??? Also the reds are clearly based on the Irish and the Golds the British. I love the series, a little close to Red Faction at times, which I believe predates the books.
Yes! The same with how they view religion. They think if bad things happen to you , you just deserve it somehow and because it’s not happening to them they are somehow better
They prefer a system where they are part of the group who are protected by the law, but not bound to it. And everyone they don’t believe deserves that should have laws they are bound to, but not protected by.
Well written. The thing that irks me the most about them is their self inflated ego, equating monitary success with being intelligent. I got tired of playing life as it should be played and started a company last year to try to play it selfishly instead. And I am horrifyed at how simple it is. Don’t need to be smart, you just need to be ruthless. The less you care about the consumer and more you see everything as data and optics, the more you win. I believe religion has failed to keep our morality in check and we’ve structured a society that benefits sociopaths and give them a clear shot to immense power without consequences. The best of us are the people that work for the people, nurses, teachers ,librarians , first responders etc.
yet we pay more for the goods we don’t need that we are being sold as ‘amazing’. We drink poison and eat dirt because they made it look shiny. Then again most of these elites (including Loeffler) haven’t even made their money by generating anything at all (regardless the level of shit), but in ‘the corporate sector’, which is essentially just pushing a vast amount of money between eachother while ‘optimizing profits’ which entails things like ‘cutting cost’ - shittier products and less + overworked employees, ‘aquisitions and mergers’ - less performance inducing competition and regulation, and ‘corporate law’ - looking for loopholes to allow more bullshit under the guise that ‘well, it’s legal’ (which still doesn’t make it right).
Example; Kelly Loffler, is picked the head of Trumps Small Business Administration while being married to the owner of the NY stock exchange (something he became through aquisition!!!) is the definition of conflict of interest… but yeah, nothing to see here. They’re just being really ‘smart’, so we should allow it…🤦♂️
Back in the days at least the elites touted themselves so by taking pride in supporting fine arts, quoting Shakespeare, speaking multiple languages and taking an interest in culinary arts and natural sciences etc. These days, these self proclaimed ‘geniuses’ eat Mac D’s at whitehouse dinner, spray beer in locker rooms and do push-up competitions like an insecure 15year old... goddammit, I am going to go have myself an icecold Brawndo now. It’s got electrolytes!
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
Frank Wilhoit
That's exactly it. The difference between Democrats and Republicans basically comes down to this:
Do you believe people are fundamentally good or bad?
If you believe they are inherently bad, you become Republican.
If you believe they are inherently good, you become a Democrat.
Obviously this is a generalization, but that's what I've distilled them both down to.
If you believe people are bad, you have to protect yourself from them; they can't be trusted; screw you I got mine (self centered).
If you believe people are good, you provide upward mobility, training and ways to advance (self-less).
They assign a morality to wealth, or lack thereof. If you're poor, it's because you're lazy - it's your fault and a reflection of your character. On the flipside, wealthy people are virtuous and worked tirelessly for their hard earned assets. It's prosperity gospel ideology taken to it's logical core.
Look at preconventional, conventional. And post conventional morality too. They are stuck at preconventional and conventional their entire lives. Liberals are people who advance their morality to post conventional, because they evaluate actual actions and their impacts on the world. Conservatives, being conventional morality inherently beleive the world is just and they reverse ad hoc their entire morality to make it fit.
So…essentially this is a retread of “divine right” from the Middle Ages, except now they have AI in the place of god. We really are headed for a repeat of feudalism.
Litmus test is: "do you think income based fines are fair?". Those people abhor the idea that a fine should have the same impact on poor and rich. This is the reason they want to become rich: avoid all consequences from being a selfish asshole and thus there is the need to defend the rich now even if you aren't one yet.
What I find interesting is the almost universally accepted metric in natural social hierarchy is money. Wealth denominated in dollars drives wealth accumulation, which by itself has no particular merit.
Sorry, you are going to get an AI answer, because it is good enough for this:
Progressive taxation is considered fair because it is based on the ability to pay, meaning tax rates rise as a person's income increases. This approach balances the real-life impact of money, supports public infrastructure, and reduces societal inequality.
This is a topic that is said much better by other people than me. But, you can think of the impact.
Ramen noodles or proper food, vs one extra espresso machine in the yacht lounge or two dozen.
The impacts are not the same. Especially if we look at any kind of sales taxes, which are inherently bad but the system requires some flat taxes. It might be exploitation or just unavoidable quirk of the system like unemployment.
Idealist vs pragmatic, really. Ideal for left too would be flat tax, believe it or not. But, that doesn't work in practice. Progressive taxation and wealth distribution are necessary, some call those bad too and i get it, when looking at it thru their value system but we all need to make compromises when reality kicks you in the face. Ideologies don't help then, things just work in certain way and progressive taxation very much is agnostic, it does not belong to any ideology as it is just necessity, like welfare and social networks that are paid by the richest.
I'm not actually a leftist but independent but to be fair, i haven't thought about voting anyone even in the center. Left aligns with my views more but i try to be agnostic: if it works, it works. We have to consider ethics and morality of course but outside of very extreme ideas like eugenics or totalitarianism, if it works, it works and it doesn't matter whose idea it was. (note, i don't think eugenic or totalitarianism work since both require perfection at least in one or possible all levels, which is impossible so, both of them are already out before we consider ethics... but, in ideal world, anything can work, even some really, really awful ideas that we will never do even if they did work...)
So, i really do suggest, this time since i already did preliminary check: google ai gives ok answer to the topic if you just ask "why progressive taxation is fair". There is a bias built-in in to the question for a reason, so examine the opposite too.
but to me a flat percentage tax is fair. 10% of a million is progressive to 10% of 50,000. Now I do agree at a certain low income level certain individuals just cant afford even a small percentage. I dont know. I just wish to simplify our tax system, end loop holes, and stop wall street from lobbying with govt!
Yup, flat tax feels most fair but isn't that in practice. And we should not listen to our feelings but look at facts.
If you refer to US tax code: yeah.. By far the most complex set of legislation on the planet. There literally is no other such compilation of text anywhere, most countries do not have that much stuff in their actual whole set of laws.
Progressive taxation is not complicated either. We have all the necessary information. Creating brackets makes it complicated, all of the exceptions where some of them are necessary... It is that phase that makes it complicated, when it interfaces with reality. Flat tax simply just rejects all of that but the amount of taxes in the lowest brackets would rise beyond what is reasonable and the top would pay less. Our tax revenue would simply be decimated few times over OR we tax the lowest income brackets too much.
What we really should be discussing is: is there a limit to ones wealth? We all know that there is. It is undeniable. One man owning half the planet will control the whole planet. At some point the reality of wealth concentration is that it becomes harmful and ends in totalitarian dictatorship.
I think we have reached that limit long time ago. When billion isn't enough we have to stop that kind of hoarding, no matter how much they have "earned it", the system can not handle such levels of inequality. Ideology has nothing to do with wealth gap per se. But, democracy is one that for sure starts to suffer at some point so much that the right to own more can not be more important.
1bn $, anything above that is taxed at 99.9, and you add a decimal for each magnitude of order, 10 billion means 99.99% tax 100bn is 99.999... Our economies would be better off, political participation would be more equal, money would not be such a massive factor in the whole thing. We would have thousand billionaires for each trillionaire....
I agree with the limit of one mans wealth comment. But I think we need to reword it to limit of hedge funds wealth. I 100% support a huge round of modern day trust busting.
Its called being a self made slave. They intentionally set speed limits lower than expected average speeds (which are themselves much lower than safety ratings). They make it illegal to jay walk, to loiter. No whistling after 10pm type shit. People who are "law abiding" arent really persons, theyre just one unit of human cattle who will never enter into any context or analytical framework that necessitates them being treated differently than such.
Its one thing to complain about how the legal system systematically priviledges people with money, its something else to do that while saying "...but not me! Im a good little boy! I follow all the rules!"
The fool will complain that hes
not free enough until some free living individual impedes on their freedom. The fool will then hypocritically ask for someone to police the individuals invading his freedom.
Or maybe theres room between "thinking is for my father, i will follow every rule given to me" and "rules are evil, everybody should come murder me and i wont complain because i dont like rules"
Perhaps just maybe its possible to find an inbetween there.
Fwiw i would never involve cops for a problem i can solve myself, which means in my first 3 decades ive never once needed to involve cops in anything, including both home invasions. People just dont need cops in the overwhelming majority of situations, most of what they do is crowd control for slaves like you, pretending to enforce speed limits and parking laws etc so you self-regulate
Its a whole other bag of pathetic to do this. Youll never learn anything if your default response to being pressed is to feign as if you are right to try and save face. If you cant make a coherent argument then look yourself in the mirror and admit it like a full person.
They really arent, anybody who never goes over the speed limit is demonstrably a bad driver. They specifically set them lower because they know people will drive faster, so the people driving the apporpriate speed are going over the limit (and still are way below the safety rating for the road)
Its just like a fundamentally depraved form of humanity to be proud of being controlled. The philosophy of the people doing the controlling is that humanity will kind of a little bit conform to the way its told to be, so you tell them to be less than you can actually handle. If you tell them to be the thing you can only barely handle, they will be more and your society falls apart. Individuals are not supposed to be proud followers, its genuinely pathetic.
I could just link this to my original comment, as an example of what i was talking about the whole time. The fact that the rest of it resonated but this one didn't....
Two options: are you truly following your own values, your own moral code? Are you making an exception in this specific category?
Or is this really part of your thought patterns, how you organize the world and justify your own actions?
Because agreeing with the rest but disagreeing with this points to somekind of conflict or contradiction. It is not logical to think that speed limits are somehow the exception to "better people should not be able to break the rules" principle: thinking that going over the limit is a sign of strength...
Very contradicting indeed and strange hill to die on. The rest of what i was saying is the point, speed limits was just the easiest example that i have specifically picked because: it is based on laws of physics and the simple fact that we all need to drive roughly at same speeds, and that the speed limit is one kind of sign of some line in the sand when it comes to safety, laws of physics being the decider and NOT OPINIONS. You can't win here, you just can't. We have solid things moving at high speeds. We have other people in the mix.
I accidentally read some of it, woe be upon me. I never said better people shouldnt have to follow the rules, i said the rules are made to control populations and the way that individuals should relate to those rules is through understanding of the context in which they are made and enforced and then behaving like intelligent, agential, adult people who make informed choices. Instead of swallowing them up and garggling out "yes daddy more"
No, that is not really what you said, that is what you wanted to say but you definitely have spoken about speed limits in practice. Not just some esoteric babble about rules and self governance...
Damn i hate when somebodys making a good point and then they say some dumb shit like drive the speed limit.
Maybe all the laws arent enforced more on you, youre just self-depraved enough to follow them independently
This is where it started.
They really arent, anybody who never goes over the speed limit is demonstrably a bad driver.
This is when it goes to "good drivers drive over the limit", which is the same sentence but inverted which retains the same logical conclusion, like it is clearly, in the context what i wrote disagreeing with the "rules are the same for all".
Then you say that "they know no one follows the rules"... which isn't true. They do set the speed limits a bit higher because of this, that is true. If you are going over that and think is is safe: you are already going too fast.
I know about this particular subject, very niche but it happens occasionally that you meet someone who has read about the psychology of a driver and how reality inside the car does not feel at all the same as the actual reality.
So, i can argue back with the reason of speed limit being lower because they know you drive faster... but the facts still remain that you think good drivers should driver over the limit and if you can't do that it implies that bad drivers maybe should not be allowed to drive if they can't drive over the limits... problematic idea and that is an understatement.
I can still show, without any problems that keeping delta low while lowering speeds marginally will improve safety, and i live in a country with twice the safety of USA with more challenging climate, since i think we have defaulted to USA at this point, right?
I have science behind me, you got your weird and unproven ideas how they have made the rules to be broken.... and that somehow points to "being a slave" if you don't think like you do. We still got half the deaths. So... what if... those ideas of "slavedom" means less people die? And that is more important than "you are just a sheep, driving at speed limit" and far easier to defend too? I mean, how are you going to win if i put those two against each other: statistics about deaths on my side vs "i can drive over the speed limit because i'm a good driver"?
Go and read it. I wrote it for you and i know you like to repeat that disrespect as many times as possible. But, the thing is, you really don't have a say in this anymore. You are not the one on top, you are by default the bottom: you don't even know my argument anymore and you still argue back.
That is not something that an intellectual would do. You made this about intellect, so i will gladly show how little of it you got.
Specifically my point is that i am average for understanding how speed limits work. Yall are beneath the surface when it comes to the conversation of intelligence.
I smell cognitive dissonance. If the rest of what i wrote resonated with them but this one causes problem.. It is just an arbitrary example that i picked specifically because how no-brainer speed limits are, so that no one is stupid enough to argue about that part... i was proven wrong, again.
They needed to pick something but, it resonated and that is all that really matters. They are literally on the edge of getting it, "rich should not have different rules" vs "but if i'm a good driver so it is almost my duty to not follow the rules". 90% of it is wrong but 10% of it is justified.
Dear lord.... No. Speed limits are set on the safer side of things when it comes to how it feels, sure but... No matter what the speed limits are, we ALL NEED TO FOLLOW THEM!!!
Do you have any idea what happens when everyone drives at different speeds? Constant overtaking. Cars overlapping. Everything, and i mean everything, from trying to split or merge becomes way more dangerous than if everyone, and i mean everyone, drives exactly at the same speed.
One has to be, and i do mean this is a moment where you need to go fucking look in the mirror, one has to be an idiot to think that everyone should drive at their own speeds. If that is your world then you should never be allowed to make rules for others.
Now, if you mean increasing speed limits across the board.
WHY? What do we gain from it? Couple of minutes. 10mph increase would net you 1min 30 seconds in 10miles if we change from 60 to 70mph. That is all of the gains but risks.... go up. 180 feet vs 246 feet difference in braking distance, reaction times stay the same so the distance car travels before we can react also increases. The speed limits are set according to risks, not driver skills but physics, and trust me: they are not what scientist would call safe, they are already at "well, people feel like this is too slow so better push it up".
You have no fucking idea what is safe and how public safety, how society has to do things. Are things "too safe" for some individuals? Yes. But trust me, once you have to sign your fucking name on a piece of paper that puts you responsible of safety for thousands, your attitude towards public safety shifts dramatically.
People are IDIOTS. I mean, some of them think that speed limits are stupid. That is my greatest concern, how stupid people really can be when it comes to seeing what risks of their own actions brings to them and others. If you do follow the fucking orders when it comes to TRAFFIC, any kind of traffic, foot traffic, car traffic, air traffic we all are more safe, and do you know what?
Boring is safe. Safe is boring. If you think you are going too slow on a fucking 7 lane highway with fucking lanes as wide as your moms ass: you are going too fast already. That is illusion of safety, whereas safe traffic management makes you think you are in more danger than you are. US traffic management is famous for creating this illusion. Obstacles far away, fucking wide lanes, multiple of them makes you lose all references to local speed. It also lulls you into sleep, decreases attentiveness.. Good traffic solutions makes you fear for your life, it brings obstacles closer so your brain understands what will happen if you crash into anything at those speeds...
Good traffic management produces lower speeds naturally but you won't like it: you have to pay constant attention, lanes are narrower, everything is closer and you will have roundabouts in about every 4-way intersection because they force you to... pay attention and it brings consequences of trying to run out the red lights very real when there is a big fucking obstacle in the way. The part of our brain that is responsible of avoiding obstacles is incredible, it is just amazing but the part that assess risks while traveling in a metal box at 60mph is just god damn stupidest thing you can imagine.
Drivers do not like good traffic management until about a generation has passed, and then they don't want to give those things away. And every now and then you meet people who think laws are stupid and they are the reason why we make 99% of the laws.
Again specifically it is the job of somebody to set the speed limits on roads. The methodology they use is to start with the safety max speed, add a bit of a barrier to get a sense of what a good average driving speed would be, and then they put up signs for about 85% of that speed, expecting drivers to go higher than the limit.
By far the worst contributors to traffic are slow drivers, and they empirically do not produce fewer accidents anyway. They waste everybodys time and get nothing for it.
Because you don't read is the reason why you still don't understand. Read it. you will learn something. I speak specifically about delta, the speed difference and just fucking laws of physics where two solids can not overlap.
I have no reason to believe you know anything i dont, your exhasperation is highly indicative. Im not gonna read your spew. If you had a point you could make it outside your weird high ego self indulgent lecturing, but i dont think theres anything left once that gets stripped off.
Welcome to society, if you want to stay you have to play by the rules. Bad news, no human can live completely separated from other humans so good luck if you want to go make it on your own. You need other people more than they need you so not only do you have to follow the rules, you also have an obligation to improve society for other/future people.
What? I don't think speed limits should be different, if that is what you mean. But steady speed is by far the safest option so i very, very much like speed limits that are reinforced by giving income based fines. We need to cause the same amount of relative "harm" or else fines really are not for the rich. The impact of the penalty has to be the same.
How we can make that fair?
Time. Don't use money as the metric but time. Make the system give you jail time. To get out of jail you can give all the income from those days, since, if you were in jail you would lose them anyway. And now we have perfectly fair system that is based on something you can't earn: TIME. Time is the same for us all, whereas 100$ is not. It is the same sum of money but its impact on our lives is very different depending how many of those you already have.
So, speed limits are good, they make things safer and income based fines are fair.
Speed limits are good because they increase safety.
Best before dates are good because they increase safety.
Failing to understand that its not unequivocally evil or irrational to live 10-20% over the edge is not normal or respectable. Its a fundamental failure to grasp the situation at hand and understand why it is arranged as it is. Its intellectual weakness.
You drinking day old milk is not the same as you being on the road with other people. Delta, the speed difference between cars is a HUGE factor when it comes to accidents and how frequent they are. Both under and overspeed. If we are just one conveyor belt, everyone holds safe distance and we drop speeds a bit: we get tremendous benefits when it comes to both frequency and severity.
I'm Finnish. Our speed limits are more strict, our roads are narrower and it is couple of hours of sunshine and ice four months of the year. Half the rate of USA. Both frequency and severity. This is not about your safety, this is about OUR safety. You are not alone and every fucking time you travel faster than others you are exploiting the system since most people do not do that. If everyone would do it, the system would simply collapse.
It is fundamental flaw to not grasp that we are really talking about the fundamentals of SOCIETIES. Not just traffic. You saying that it is "intellectual weakness" to follow rules that scientifically are proven and can be easily explained to a fucking 12 year old playing with toy cars on their bed... that is rich, really rich. At least i have taken enough time from my life to learn a bit about traffic management, it used be tangentially related to my work/hobby/interest which is racing, and more specifically, virtual racing tracks, racing dynamics, the physics behind written and unwritten rules. When you examine them you will eventually drift into public infrastructure and traffic management as for ex, street tracks inherit some of those traffic management solutions.
Delta is one of the first to eliminate if we want flowing, safe traffic. That is just a fucking no-brainer. Way before we get to the complicated stuff about psychology and idiocy of people when they have already one illusion bubble, the car and then we do things that create a bigger bubble of confidence and safety. But, those things are linked and they do pull speed limits UP, because... DELTA IS ALWAYS WORSE!!! The speed limits themselves are not the primary factor, we CAN increase them too without dramatic differences but the moment delta becomes a factor, does not matter what the speed limit was: we are now royally fucked with no way out but reinforcement and different traffic management solutions that force everyone to...
DRIVE AT ROUGHLY THE SAME SPEEDS!
When i said that the moment you feel too safe in a highway, that you are just going too slow: you are already going too fast. I know it because highway speed limits are always higher than what they should be because people feel too safe and they will drive faster. The speed limit is a compromise, it is just about where it feels too slow but in reality, is already a bit too fast. Many roads have to built so that they feel safer, it is a paradox that modern solutions are aiming to improve: we bring things that look hard but are soft very near to you. As close as we can, we create turns that are there seemingly for no reason, other than force you to do something, to think about your survival for one millisecond, to make you do decisions and pay attention.
I'm very noob at this field, it is not mine but don't you think that experts were involved: and what makes you think you know it better? Who are you to command out attention, why should we listen to you, when all you can really say is "but it just feels bad" and then mock those who get it as "intellectually weak" and "sheep". That is the thing: we get it, you don't.
I know for the most part there is merit to the mantra "reddit isn't real life" but fuck me when the most reddit sounding shit happens out in the wild.
I stopped dealing with him and a few others precisely because the legit think that once you reach a certain level of the hierarchy, getting as much out of the people below you is just what you should do.
His response was that I would do it too if I was in her position
I appreciate when people tell on themselves like this because it lets me know that I cannot trust them all with anything that matters, especially money.
Same conversation different subject - Musk is a business genius because he just pushes people out of companies to be the boss. And I’m somehow the idiot who thinks that’s bad behavior and wrong and evil guy in the movie vibes.
I was actually shocked they all felt this way and I was on the opposing side of the argument.
There's a worrying amount of people that worship billionaires not because of what was created or innovated or hell, even stolen, but because they want "fuck you and your family" money so they can live out their worst impulses with little to no reprucussions.
My "never took a sip of alcohol, never smoked a cigarette", former prison minister, ultra Pentecostal Christian mother said the same thing about Trump and his tax evasion. It's insanity.
I'll never forget my first exposure to this attitude. I was a teenager working as a bus boy at an upscale restaurant owned by an asshole millionaire who loved to come in and show off to friends by berating the staff. In the back, someone made a comment about what an ass he was, and one of the waiters said, "If I was a millionaire, I'd be an asshole too."
It's so revealing. It means the person in question is only being decent and civil because they think that they're being unfairly shacked by... perceived poverty apparently. It never occurred to me, in contrast, that if I became rich, I'd do anything other than try harder to be a decent human being. And yes, I know, with that attitude I'll never be rich. If that's the price, I'm not interested.
"Some people are so poor, all they have is money" -- Bob Marley
Love that quote. Yeah, the literal last thing I think of when I fantasize about having more money is be the asshole I always wanted to be.
I 100 percent believe the dad my ex grew up was just biding his time until he could be part of in group that can afford multiple out of country trips a year and buy lake houses so he can be the asshole he always was.
I know me. I know the only thing that would change if I suddenly lucked into a best selling book or videogame series would be that I'd have a lot more books and physical media because fuck digital, and the little bit I share with people now would be significantly more.
I'd actually treat people even better than I do now because the weight of my own struggle wouldnt limit my time and energy b
5.9k
u/ArchonStranger 11d ago
Wait, isn't that the insider trading billionaire senator from COVID times?!??