• jqubed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      22 days ago

      I’ve been thinking that ever since that dumb “submarine” sank at the Titanic. I don’t feel particularly sorry for the people who died (other than the kid who apparently didn’t want to be there in the first place), but the outright glee I saw a lot of people express online was surprising.

      It seems like there was a largely unspoken agreement among the wealthiest in the West throughout the middle of the 20th century, particularly in the aftermath of the Depression, World War II, and the rise of communism, that they wouldn’t try to extract the absolute maximum of wealth from the workers and try to keep a stable, happy middle class and even lower class that had a relatively comfortable existence without feeling too at risk of losing everything. As you get to the end of that century and into this century, the wealthiest forgot why that policy existed, newcomers didn’t understand it, or they decided they wanted to see how much more extraction they could get away with thinking they’ll be able to reign in any unrest before it gets too bad; probably some combination of those and other factors. It’s a dangerous game to play, though, and it seems like explosive moments are closer than the wealthy powers realize.

      Not that I think there’s any real organizing power behind the scenes, just that in the past a lot of people came to a collective understanding of a system that could bring a lot of financial stability to a lot of people.

      • pjwestin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        43
        ·
        22 days ago

        It seems like there was a largely unspoken agreement among the wealthiest in the West throughout the middle of the 20th century, particularly in the aftermath of the Depression, World War II, and the rise of communism, that they wouldn’t try to extract the absolute maximum of wealth from the workers and try to keep a stable, happy middle class and even lower class that had a relatively comfortable existence without feeling too at risk of losing everything.

        Actually, the richest people in America were terrified of FDR and the New Deal, and even attempted a fascist coup in order to overthrow him. Fun fact, George W. Bush’s grandfather, Prescott Bush, was implicated in it!

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        22 days ago

        As you get to the end of that century and into this century, the wealthiest forgot why that policy existed

        The collapse of the Soviet Union removed the threat of an alternative and “proved” that capitalism was the superior ideology, pushing their confidence that they could do no wrong through the roof.

    • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      21 days ago

      I fully agree. If I were a billionaire, I would be “let’s get a team together and come up with a strategy” levels of nervous. See, the 1% has sort of dehumanized themselves, by creating this decades-long narrative that they’re this untouchable caste almost on the level of Demigods, and the closer you get to God, the further you get from Human. Now that one has been shot and killed in broad daylight in the middle of NYC, and again with the idiots on the homemade submarine, that narrative is obviously untrue. When a dragon is slain, we don’t mourn its death, we cheer the Dragonslayer. So, if I were in the 1%, I’d be very worried about appearing all too human, all too quickly.

      • Lasherz12@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        21 days ago

        Doomsday bunkers were an obsession back in the 2000s for billionaires. If you think about their ideas from that framework it puts some of their stupid inventions into perspective. The cybertruck is the vehicle Musk would want to be in during a riot against him if he isn’t on Mars at the time.

        • Irelephant@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          21 days ago

          Considering how fragile it is, its the vehicle i hope he’s in in a riot against him

          • Lasherz12@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            21 days ago

            I saw whistlin disel’s video on it, and it seemed to prevent people from getting to you despite being easy to damage the vehicle itself. I think it sucks too, but most cars don’t use double pane shatterproof windows on the side. It seems like every window is similar glass to a standard windshield so it won’t collapse.

  • Free_Opinions@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    28
    ·
    22 days ago

    So many here showing their true colors and demonstrating that they’re actually no better than the people they oppose.

      • greencactus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        21 days ago

        I disagree with this metaphor. Humans aren’t inherently evil, in contrast to the dragon. Even though the guy definitely did evil shit as a CEO and is responsible for thousands of dead people, he is not fully evil. I’m very sure he also did good things.

        For me this is really important, because that’s exactly why I oppose death penalty. No human is absolutely evil, and thus in every person there is something worth preserving and being protected.

        • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          21 days ago

          A couple things. I don’t see any billionaire as a human, and to be frank, they did it to themselves. They’ve spent decades spinning a narrative that they’re this special untouchable caste of modern-day demigods. That we have to try them differently and respectfully, because they have more money, and the closer you get to “God”, the further you get from “Human”.

          Secondly, he chose to do evil. He willingly and without hesitation discarded his humanity. I can’t be bothered to feel bad for someone like that.

          • greencactus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            21 days ago

            I disagree. Still thank you for replying - I appreciate it. It got me thinking about my personal position.

            • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              21 days ago

              I’d like to inquire as to what, specifically, you disagree with. I understand that you don’t think any person is inherently evil, however I hold that actions are a reflection of one’s character. While this CEO may indeed have done a couple good turns for people he personally knew or cared about, his actions and decisions as the CEO of a health insurance company have inflicted incalculable suffering upon hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people and their families. As a human being, I could never imagine doing such things, nor do I want to.

              This, to me, reflects a deeply sociopathic character. Selfish, arrogant, greedy, and malicious. This was a person who saw themselves above mere mortals such as you and I, whom he saw as tools, disposable and replaceable. And when you see yourself as above mere mortals, would you not want the mortals to believe it, as well? Is it then, so surprising that the mortals stop seeing you as human altogether?

              • greencactus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                21 days ago

                I agree with everything you say, up until the last sentence. Probably as a disclaimer, I study psychology and want to become a clinical psychotherapist. I deeply believe that no person wants to be bad. In fact, I am of the utmost conviction that every person has the potential to become a better person than they are right now. That does not absolve him of his crimes - in fact, it is quite the contrary: he chose to go down the path of evil and to condemn people to die. But that doesn’t mean that he cannot ever change to become better. It is a part of my life philosophy that every person can heal. Obviously many people won’t do so - this guy DEFINITELY would’ve had the chance to go to a psychotherapist himself, for sure. But that does not mean that he deserved to die. My argumentation is heavily based on Albert Ellis (one of the founders of cognitive-behavioural therapy) and REBT. In short, Ellis said that our actions do not determine us as whole human beings. The fact that we often act badly doesn’t make us bad human beings, nor does the fact that we act well makes us good. We are simply humans, and to judge us means putting yourself in the shoes of a God. We can and should judge our actions, by all means - but we are far, far more than actions. To judge a person as a whole is a position I do not want to take. And even though this guy wanted to see himself as a God, I personally want to stay human and recognize that he is and was a broken spirit and a human, just as you and I are. Even though he might have wanted to discard his humanity, he still is and stays human.

                Tl;Dr - terrible actions, has committed countless crimes. But his actions don’t determine his worth as a human. Thus I do not want to say that he deserved to die, nor that he was evil as a human.

                • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  21 days ago

                  Another factor to consider is dehumanizing people is often the first step in justifying atrocities against them, such as the murder of this doubtless terrible CEO, and that has an impact on both the person doing the dehumanizing and the person or persons being dehumanized.

      • Free_Opinions@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        21 days ago

        It’s all fun and games as long as you get to decice who the dragons are. The people you oppose have their’s too.

        • shneancy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          21 days ago

          the people we oppose have been widening the wealth gap, shrinking the middle class, and pushing more people into poverty. And in America - not having enough money means you, or your loved one, dies.

          That particular dragon was in charge of denying as many insurance claims as possible without getting anyone too ravenous for his blood. He was playing a game with people’s lives, eventually he was bound to lose. His true cause of death was greed.

          Unless you’re a billionaire who hoards wealth, you’re no dragon, and nobody cares about you until you step out of line of being an obedient money cow

        • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          21 days ago

          Well, really, they did it to themselves. We didn’t turn them into greedy, avaricious weath-hoarding dragons, they did. The closer one moves the slider to “God”, the further it moves from “Human”.

        • theluckyone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          21 days ago

          Pretty sure that CEO was integral in the continuation of policies and procedures that determined who the peasants were, if not the creation of, long before the shooter decided he was a dragon.