|
| ▲ | hax0ron3 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It depends on what kind of violent attacks they are exactly. I believe that most of the population would either not care about people of the Altman and Zuckerberg wealth level getting killed or would be happy about it. I think the general population is much more likely to feel joy about it than want a police crackdown. If we're talking about attacks against average software engineers and obscure founders, fewer people would be happy about it, but a great number still would be. There is a lot of envy toward software engineers and founders. |
|
| ▲ | frm88 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Most of the population will be for that I doubt it. It would further polarize your population and what you really want is to unite them. You could make a video documentation that contrasts all the known, massive corruption cases in your administration (and SV personae) with the equally massive decay in your infrastructure from roads to bridges to the closure of maternity wings in hospitals because they are no longer profitable. Make as little dialogue/narration as possible and quote dollar numbers as often as possible. Spread posts contrasting corruption/decay to every outlet/social media. Most people don't understand technology and/or its second order effects. They do understand when they are being stolen from. |
|
| ▲ | kelipso 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Whether most of the population will or will not be for that is an open question. |
|
| ▲ | UncleMeat an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Overplaying their hands? They broke a few windows and were in a place they weren't allowed to be in. How horrible. Doesn't complaining about protestors at Columbia just make it clear that these complaints aren't actually about violence but are instead about rabble-rousers? |
|
| ▲ | saligne 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Victim blaming and pearl clutching is not a substantial justification for the status quo |
|
| ▲ | gamblor956 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Most of the population will be for that. Most of the population will be for the violent attacks. Techbros went way too far in gleefully describing how they would destroy most people's careers while enriching themselves. Never bothered to think whether they should just because they could. Now the rooster is coming home to roost. The best way for the attacks on AI executives to stop is to pass meaningful legislation that limits the use and scope of AI. |
|
| ▲ | d3ff 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | > the sentiment for many is that 'we don't care we have nothing to lose anyway' Everyone says this before they learn what they didn’t value. Peace, for example. > Its easy for you to say, all perched up as a VC It’s easy to say for anyone who has read the history of political violence. When that comes on the table, universally [1], the people with power also have the power to raise armies. The people who stand to benefit from violent insurrection, today, are the oligarchs. This happens every time because it’s obvious. If CEOs getting killed is normal, then activists against those companies getting killed is normal too. A lot more people will kill for a million dollars than because they hate some guy. [1] Apart from early 20th century Communist revolutions, where elites actually suffered. | | |
| ▲ | impossiblefork 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think you're extremely wrong here. Here in Sweden, political violence by the farmer class ensured that by the end of the pre-democracy era, self-owning farmers held 50% of the land, whereas in Denmark, it was only 10%. This was due to violence, serious, organized war-like violence; and yes, of course the government brought in mercenaries, noble forces, etc. but fighting the farmer class had a substantial cost, and that they were willing to impose that cost gave them better conditions. Killing guys at the bottom is very different from killing somebody at the top. If people are killing activists, journalists etc. that is always oppression. If people are killing people at the top it can be either way, depending on whether they are put there by some large grass-roots phenomenon or are trying to run society from the top of a pyramid, but in your argument you are placing these things as equal, you say: >If CEOs getting killed is normal, then activists against those companies getting killed is normal too and this is false. It is so false I don't quite understand how anyone can write it. | |
| ▲ | gamblor956 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If CEOs getting killed is normal, then activists against those companies getting killed is normal too. A lot more people will kill for a million dollars than because they hate some guy. The more likely result is either that every member of the board and c-suite ends up on death row, or in a grave. There are far more people willing to avenge loved ones than there are people willing to kill for money. | |
| ▲ | shooly 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > It’s easy to say for anyone who has read the history of political violence Reading and understanding do not always go along, though. | |
| ▲ | Teever 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | How should people who live in allied countries that the US has recently threatened to economically annex or invade feel about US military contractor oligarchs being attacked? The way I see it, the pragmatic choice is to prefer to see Americans attack themselves because a divided America is less of a threat to my country. Sometimes less civilized countries fall into civil war, sometimes they invade neighbours. If you're the neighbour which would you prefer? Is that a reasonable perspective to you? | |
| ▲ | d3ff 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | > these people don't care about a history lesson - they act as they do irrespective of logic I doubt they’re on this forum. > Clearly you're not a fella who's faced much hardship in life Ha. Putting my own past aside, I’ve found it’s folks who grew up never knowing violence who are the quickest to embrace it. > They already do There is always more. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | infamouscow 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| DAs can refuse to prosecute. But even if the DA prosecutes, the jury can nullify the charges, which is a risk. What happens when a jury finds the accused not guilty? The masses will only tolerate so much before the elite start dying. See all of human history. |
