568
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2024
568 points (100.0% liked)
News
23274 readers
2976 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
OR, and hear me out, you could just not be a total asshole? Maybe have a baseline of tolerance and respect for the people who made you a billionaire? No? Then fuck right off and accept the consequences of your hatred.
It seems billionaires have really wacked out midlife crises. Instead of buying expensive cars and cheating on their partners, they come out as terfy nazis, build hate platforms, and crash companies. I mean to be fair, at this point the sample size is only two, JKKK Rowling and Musk, but it's still surprising that it'd happen twice.
Bill Gates started a charity.
Steve Jobs killed himself because he thought he knew better than his doctors. Well, that's wacked out too, but at least it's not being a Nazi...
These guys need to get on John McAfee's level
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McAfee
John McCracked
McAfee is not worth cracking
That dude's videos are extraordinary.
At last this guy was entertaining, not only disgusting like these modern "billionaires". Pff.
John McAfee’s poop hammock is perhaps the best story about him.
For the uninitiated:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5elAr2s6Gno
Have you seen the (censored) GoPro footage he released?
Oh you son of a..
Bill gates didn’t start the charity as a midlife crisis.
It’s a tax dodge and a lot of other ways of protecting his money while also doing a little reputation washing/ morality banking
Wasn't he 45 when he started the charity? That sounds like a perfect candidate to be a midlife crisis, haha
Just because it was midlife doesn’t mean it’s a crisis.
He started the charity as a shelter for his obscene wealth. That is all.
I'm not obscenely wealthy, so I don't have the experience...but it seems plausible that a billionaire midlife crisis could be "Where am I going to put this ridiculous amount of money that I've earned through less-than-ethical means?"
It’s plausible that a man who made his billions fucking everyone over who was even remotely near him….
… developed a conscience?
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-ultra-wealthy-americans-use-philanthropy-to-avoid-taxation-2021-10
https://apnews.com/article/business-philanthropy-b8acb10f529ac2dbaff7631021d823c9
I mean, the main motivator for the endowment was always Malinda Gates. I'm sure it functions as a tax shelter, but I doubt that was really the main motivator. He's already given over several times what his tax burden would have been, and if we compare it to other NGOs whose sole purpose is truly preserving or raising money, they really aren't comparable.
I'm in agreement that no one should have hundreds of millions of dollars, let alone billions. We can discuss the validity of NGO as a concept, but as far as NGO go, the gates foundation has done more actual aid work for 3rd world countries than most governments.
most governments don’t have nearly the same revenue. This is like saying corporations have done more to help homeless people than homeless shelters (to whom the corpos donate money.)
The reality is that a lot of the way things are, are caused by people like- and including- bill gates.
While there are many NGOs that exist to do good things- and are very good at aid- the gates foundation is not one of those.
I think you’ve bought into the reputation washing the foundation has done for the Gates, and severely underestimate just ho sociopathic they are…. And just how profitable the foundation is for them personally.
I didn't say that
Have you ever worked with the Gates foundation? Because calling it a "tax dodge" like that is completely baseless, they're a really reallyngood charity, like honestly one of the best in the world, and also that's very ignorant of how taxes work.
They do good work and help people? That's great! They do the best work out of all charities worldwide? That's even better!
Still a tax dodge. You really want to help the world, donate. The money being out of their control is kind of the point...
How is the money being out of their control the point?
The point is to save lives and help people, which the Gates foundation does incredibly well.
And it's not a tax dodge, he's literally just not selling his Microsoft shares for cash, getting taxed, and then giving the money to the foundation and instead just giving the foundation the shares directly.
All that may be true, but it does a lot of good too.
Steve Jobs was always a piece of shit, and he had that diet well before he got cancer. But yeah the fact he continued to double down in the face of death shows how much of a narcissist he was.
I think a factor with some of them, probably both the ones you mentioned, is that they can't handle criticism. So when they get any push back they double down. Then they get drawn into conservative nonsense that reinforces their beliefs. Then it's a downward spiral as they get radicalized far beyond their original positions.
To be fair, you just described my mother to a tee. She’s a narcissist and has managed to alienate everyone from her life.
You can add Markus Persson to that sample group
Oh yeah!
So you would like it to be enshrined in law that it is acceptable for whoever holds power to arrest people whom they believe to be assholes?
No, not even a little bit. There is a difference between being an asshole and committing a hate crime. Hate crime laws, when properly crafted and enforced, are an important component of a functional society. They can act as a deterrent, but they are also a way for those materially harmed by a hate crime to get justice. Free speech is never a universal right, anywhere in the world. There are always legitimate restrictions to ensure the public's overall health and safety.
I'm not sure there is a difference with this law.
I'm not sure that's true. Freedom of speech is an important component, and sometimes that means tolerating distasteful speech.
What constitutes harm though? The UK tends to include offense (or offence) as a harm.
Absolutely, but being offended by a bigot probably shouldn't be criminal without some component of advocacy for violence.
We don't have to tolerate the intolerant, they refuse to abide by the mutual contract of tolerance so they don't deserve the protections of a tolerant society.
JKR isn't just doing a little bit of free speech she is a billionaire advocating for hate on a massive platform and donating to hate groups, she has influence and power. She is absolutely advocating for the restriction on trans peoples rights, that is violence. Especially in a time when anti trans hate is on the rise we should be even more skeptical of claims of free speech, right now across the world hate crimes against trans people are going up and our rights are being stripped away.
Arguments about free speech are just a way to ignore the issue and do nothing as transphobia continues to thrive and spread. Stop defending hate.
Until the intolerance of the intolerant is applied to not tolerate you... You see hate crime laws being used to defend religions from criticism for example.
Oh my what ever might that be like, having to deal with intolerance. I never have to deal with that nope. Nope it's definitely not a daily occurrence for pretty much all trans people.
But the transphobes get to advocate for my erasure and that's just free speech.. yep makes sense.. totally fair and balanced
What? I think you missed what I was saying. For example they could argue criticism of their religion is itself intolerant and should therefore be illegal.
So.. we should just let bigots get their way and let them continue to successfully advocate for the rights of trans people and other minorities to be stripped away because they might also try to do a religious theocracy?
That is what freedom of speech is. I really don't like what a lot of people say, and I think a lot of it is harmful
Well I think that's a cop out to do nothing and act moral while letting other people get hurt and suffer.
Freedoms should only go so far as to not encroach on other people's freedoms, hate speech goes too far, advocating people's right to healthcare to be stripped away is too far, advocating we be classified as sex offenders just by existing is too far.
I don't care what your abstract notion about free speech is, it's just a fanciful notion that has never actually been realized and doesn't work in practice. Meanwhile real people are getting hurt now and you choose to defend the speech of those advocating that violence. It's wrong.
You can do a lot without being authoritarian. The question is if the government can do it with threat of violence, and I don't think that's ok. To point a gun at someone for saying* something I disagree with.
Agreed, but advocating it, definitely not. If so anyone advocating draft, or imprisonment for a crime I believe unjust, or according to some people- taxation, or banning unpasteurized milk. Would all be to some people advocating infringing on their rights.
No, arguments about free speech recognize that there is no more important right that a free society can have. If a group can dictate that the language that they find distasteful is criminal, then so can any other group.
Without protections for free speech, what happens when an authoritarian like Trump determines that support for trans people is actually misogyny, or that support for POC is racist against white people and then criminalizes that speech? These are arguments they already make.
You're talking about prior restraint which, at least in the US, has always been harshly scrutinized. As it should be. A line needs to be drawn, but promoting violence should be that line, not merely that which is distasteful.
And I think you're naive, and terrible at grammar (it's "you're" not "your"). Am I pro-murder too because I don't like the death penalty either? I know that you have a tiny inept brain, but try to imagine that I could dislike something and not want to criminalize it.
Oh look, they're already following the obvious playbook. If you make speech criminal it's not going to be used against the people you want it used against.
What is the difference?
You know it doesn’t work that way but spout nonsense anyway.
That's already the law. Look at Florida.
Are you seriously arguing against hate crime laws??