> you are speaking in absolutes.

No I'm not. I said "there's something to it". I'm not OP, and I think OP could be understood to be speaking as "in the vast vast majority of cases" rather than an unbreakable now-and-forever rule. It's wise to interpret people in the most charitable reasonable light, generally.

> but is it absolutely true, and absolutely true today

If it's true in 99% of cases, or 100%, the difference is pretty small. Seems odd to focus on.

And we weren't discussing whether or not this would be true in a hundred years, but what the situation is now and historically. Certainly there is a potential for radical change; I would even call it necessary.

▲

dustingetz 7 months ago | parent [-]

> But there is a level of wealth and position where you ABSOLUTELY MUST participate in the most evil parts of society to stay where you are.

(emphasis added)

I’m a founder of a venture backed seed stage startup, as a missionary not mercenary founder i do not seek extraordinary wealth but my shareholders do and I have fiduciary duty as well as substantial ownership. I struggle to accept without clear demonstration that my mission’s success means I “ABSOLUTELY MUST participate in the most evil parts of society”. This is a very strong claim, I don’t think it applies to me!

	▲	20after4 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		Being a founder of a startup, even a relatively successful one, doesn't put you into the same class as the top 0.1% of billionaires. At the very least you have to exploit the labor of the bottom 99% of society in order to attain 1% wealth. When you get to the level of Musk, I think it's almost self-evident that it isn't possible to attain that much wealth, without being directly responsible for a significant fraction of all the evil in the world. That's slightly different from "participating in evil parts of society" but I think that it certainly would be difficult maintain that kind of wealth but somehow avoid participating in the activities of your peers.