Billionaires should not exist.
You’re going to have to come to grips with the fact that there is always going to be someone with the most wealth. And in an economy that is constantly creating new wealth, the peak will also be constantly growing.
This is an incredibly naive and ignorant sentiment.
Total net worth of top 10 richest is ~$1.6 trillion: https://ceoworld.biz/2024/03/15/richest-people-in-the-united-states-2024/
That makes a net worth increase of $64 billion an increase of ~4%…which is the same amount the S&P 500 is up over the past few days.
“Stock market surges following Trump’s victory and billionares’ stocks go up the same amount as everyone else’s” just doesn’t make as good a headline, huh?
This is a big pile of nothing, nice job taking the clickbait and spreading it. The outrage farmers thank you.
That’s the majority of them, but ragebait articles aren’t written about them, so you have no idea who they are.
Don’t be so easily manipulated by media.
we can’t know how many also choose to escalate because of these outlets.
But we do know that in general, porn doesn’t elicit that kind of escalation into real life. If this particular category of porn did cause that, it’d literally be a total outlier.
Same with other media, too. Rape porn lovers aren’t statistically more likely to rape irl, violent video game lovers aren’t more likely to be violent irl, etc., compared to the general population.
So I think it’s pretty fair to hypothesize that, if anything, it would reduce the incidence of real-world offense. Just look at the massive negative correlation between the proliferation of porn (thanks to the Internet), and the overall incidence of rape.
Also, I’m familiar with one bit of evidence out of Japan that apparently showed that child molesters consume less porn than the average citizen, which I was definitely surprised to learn, but once you think about it in the context of the stuff I mentioned above, it actually makes perfect sense.
In all likelihood, fictional ‘simulations’ like LLMs will directly reduce the incidence of CSA, if anything. If that’s the case, I can’t oppose such things in good conscience–it’d be pretty narcissistic to put my personal disgust over even a single kid not getting bad touched.
If you’re alluding to the actual deaths of the victims being equally bad no matter their gender because they are all humans, then congratulations for passing the lowest threshold for human decency.
Yeah, and as low as that is, there are many in here who don’t pass it, so shame on them.
Wanting to end femicide doesn’t mean you value women more than men, it’s pointing to a specific issue. It also doesn’t mean that other issues doesn’t matter.
It’s the same sort of thing as when there was that big statement made some years back about ‘stop targeting women journalists’, alongside a statistic that 11% of the journalists who were killed over the prior year were women. In other words, ‘89% of killed journalists are men, so stop killing women’. At best, a statement like that comes off as foolishly ignorant–at worst, it comes off as callous and indifferent to male victims.
If the sex of a murder victim changes, at all, how you perceive the crime, you’re sexist, period.
At least have the guts to admit it instead of pretending this is a noble stance.
There is a big difference in intent.
Literally irrelevant. The victim is no less murdered. What kind of ridiculous justification is this for devaluing male victims?
‘But the reason they were killed isn’t as bad (according to me)!’
Who in their right mind gives a shit? They’re still murdered! ‘I know your son was murdered, but don’t worry, the motive wasn’t one of the (in my opinion) really bad ones’. Seriously?
So to push this absurd ‘logic’ just a bit further, if the same number of women were murdered, but the motives were in alignment, incidence-wise, with murdered men, this would be an improvement, in your view, even though the same amount of killing has occurred. Because motive makes a murder more or less bad, apparently. Absolutely absurd.
‘Sure men are killed way way more often, but people who kill women are (I assume, hehe) more likely to do it for a way more worser reason’ is some of the dumbest, flailing, desperate attempts I have ever seen to minimize and erase male victimhood.
How many in that statistic are men being killed by women?
Thinking this is a question of any merit already exposes you. It does not matter, at all, what sex a murder victim’s murderer is, to the victim–they are equally dead.
The attempt to minimize male victimhood with this insane implication of ‘if the perpetrator is the same sex, it doesn’t count’ is actually pathetic. For shame.
Reminder that the vast, vast, vast majority of males have never and will never murder anyone, despite these disgusting sexist narratives.
Not really. Specifically saying “end femicide” is like fundraising for breast cancer treatment, but only for men, who are a small minority of those with breast cancer.
You are over three times less likely to be a victim of murder (in the US at least) if you are a woman, than a man.
There is zero reason to oppose murder of one sex any more or less than the other, and it takes the same amount of effort to voice opposition for both, as for only one. So going out of your way to advocate only for the half of the population that suffers this fate far less often, understandably comes off as sexist and callous, to the objective observer.
On paper, yes, in practice, no.
In the US, at the time that marginal tax rates got that high, the amount of things you could deduct was also MUCH higher. Truth is, nobody ever actually paid 90% back then.
republikkklown
Grow up, please, lol.
The only way to fight this is to raise the minimum wage to something that is livable for the average worker.
Then what do you do when only the Amazons and Walmarts of the world with the deepest pockets can afford that, and small business basically ceases to exist, as a result? People talk a lot about ‘if you can’t pay a livable wage you don’t deserve to be in business’, but the same people also complain about monopolies and lack of choice at the same time. How do you propose this be reconciled?
Also, no one’s ever going to be able to begin to enforce a “living wage”, even if they wanted to, until that wage is given a concrete definition–at the very least, a formula with variables to account for cost of living differences across the country. Until then, all this clamoring for a “living wage” is completely pointless.
Labor is the source of all profit. How would the company make money if no one did anything?
Charge the customer more for the finished product than what it cost to produce it. Obviously.
The simple fact is that if employees were a source of profit, businesses would all try to hire as many people as they possibly could, because not doing so would literally be leaving money on the table for no reason. But obviously that is not what goes on. When a business is in trouble financially, what’s more common, a hiring freeze, or a hiring spree?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the only reason I know of for cis kids to use puberty blockers is as a measure against the condition precocious puberty, which basically means the body is going into puberty too soon.
If that’s correct, then this isn’t really a good argument, because using drugs to delay premature puberty until its ‘normal time’ is very different from delaying ‘normal time’ puberty to a future ‘late time’–the latter moves the body into an abnormal state, while the former movies out out of one.
Isn’t that kind of like arguing that because we’ve been using blood thinners successfully for a long time (leaving out that it’s used primarily on people who are prone to blood clots to treat that condition), that there’s definitely no harm in prescribing blood thinners to people with regular blood?
making massive profits off the work of their employees.
Labor is a cost, not a source of profit, what kind of moronic statement is this? If employees were a source of profit, the notion of downsizing would never exist–why would a company ever lay anyone off, if workers create more value than their wage?
Even the founder of Costco (only stepped down as CEO a few years ago), a company famous both for how well it treats its customers, and its workforce?
I also said “generally speaking”, you know.
Generally speaking, that’s a poor way to decide what to support.
Well, here’s an example of the ignorance I was referring to: no billionaire is “hoarding” anything. Their net worth comes from the value of their investments, investments into businesses that function within the economy. And investing into a business, and in turn owning a piece of it, is absolutely not “hoarding” that piece. To define it that way would be to define that owning anything equals “hoarding” it.
Ownership and hoarding are not the same thing. The fact that I have something you don’t doesn’t mean I’m “hoarding” it. That is a ridiculous notion.
You have zero perspective on just how costly those problems are, nor the fact that there is almost no major problem that an injection of funds can fix all by itself.
The US government spends more each and every year than the net worth of every US billionaire combined. Over $1 trillion (which is ONE THOUSAND TIMES the amount of wealth that ‘qualifies’ someone as a billionaire) was spent last year on welfare programs alone.
It’s just not as much as you think it is, in the grand scheme of things.
Until you become more familiar with the facts of the matter, I definitely agree.