| |
| ▲ | add-sub-mul-div 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Before passing judgment consider that while you may have the privilege of posting from a country that's never had to fight for relief from tyranny, that's not necessarily the case for others. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > that's not necessarily the case for others Totally agree. I’m speaking to cases in America. If you’re in a rich country broadly at peace with competitive elections to any degree, and you’re choosing violence, you should vacation to e.g. Burma or Sudan or Libya or Ethiopia and see the cost of the violence you’re glorifying. | |
| ▲ | lesuorac 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Tyranny of a bunch of rich white men having to pay taxes lol. There's a reason the founding fathers all had slaves; they weren't the common folk. | | |
| ▲ | cucumber3732842 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | >There's a reason the founding fathers all had slaves; they weren't the common folk. Ah, yes. All Slaveholders. I once toured John Adam's former plantation. It's expansive. Really puts Monticello to shame. (the joke here being that John Adams was a practicing lawyer in state that didn't even have slavery). | | |
| ▲ | collingreen 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Super good joke. Since your point seems to be that not all the founding fathers parent was referring to were actually slave owners do you have a claim for a rough ratio? I think that would be interesting and would be a more informative thing regardless of where on the scale it lands from "everybody but Adams" all the way up to "only a big names like Washington, Jefferson". |
|
| |
| ▲ | abenga 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > a country that's never had to fight for relief from tyranny Do you have an example of such a country? | |
| ▲ | d3ff 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | hackable_sand 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You can't keep marginalizing people and expecting stability. Here's your canary. | | |
| ▲ | andsoitis 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | > You can't keep marginalizing people and expecting stability. People who shoot someone or throw bombs at someone even though that someone never did something against them, should be marginalized. In prison. | | |
| ▲ | UncleMeat an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | The last time we had a serious labor movement in the US, which made enormous progress towards dignity for workers, it involved guns and bombs. | |
| ▲ | c_o_n_v_e_x 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >People who shoot someone or throw bombs at someone even though that someone never did something against them I think the point is that there's going to be an increasingly large percentage of the populace who think that the AI bosses / billionaire class did indeed do something against them. | | |
| ▲ | munksbeer 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | This has always been the case, hasn't it? There have always been groups of people who perceive technology change as a negative, or they are in fact negatively impacted. But they didn't ask the rest of us if we're ok for them to murder someone on our behalf. Personally I hope that AI will be a step change for the positive. I think it is inevitable that it will progress form here, in the darwinian sense, that someone else on this thread mentioned. With that in mind, we should all be pushing for it to be used to our benefit, rather than detriment. And like almost all technological advances in the past, I think this can happen. So if people are saying violence against Sam Altman is expected, then they're also saying violence against me is expected, because I am hopeful and vaguely supportive of the technology. That's quite scary. |
| |
| ▲ | hackable_sand 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Okay | |
| ▲ | trymas 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > <...> even though that someone never did something against them, <...> Many tech billionaires openly, publicly and loudly said something among the lines: "I/we/my company/tech-bros are building torment nexus - it will take your job and/or kill people and/or shut up political opponents. You are powerless to stop this." There are some of those billionaires willing to put their name and face in front of billions of people in the world. You will have no trouble finding people that will think that X or Y tech bro is personally responsible for some poor persons problems. Especially when there's a bunch of news like "layoffs due to AI", "record investments due to AI", etc. I am not supporting violence, never done it and never considered it. Though not surprising when talking heads of political/economical extremes can get threats from people that have nothing to lose. | |
| ▲ | s5300 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
| |
| ▲ | d3ff 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | > There isnt a well known CEO in europe whos been the target of a failed stabbing Sure. Figurative language will be figurative. There have been tons of assasinations in the last 10 years of police chiefs, politicians, journalists and an MP. If we’re being pedantic, there isn’t technically a CEO in America who’s been killed. Mangione potted a middle manager with a CEO title. The billionaires who own the company are fine, as is the group CEO, and none of them materially changed any policies as a result of his death. |
|
|
