top 98 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 153 points 6 days ago (16 children)

They're gonna need to have much better PRIDE avatar flags next year to win back my confidence.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 82 points 6 days ago (14 children)

    I know you're joking but I immediately started thinking that. Is Target going to suddenly have totally legit honest LGBTQ stands again now? I have a feeling we're going to have whiplash with all of these corps.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 67 points 6 days ago (5 children)

    They will absolutely flip and pander, and people are going to willfully look the other way, because it's too difficult not to have a Facebook.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 6 days ago (2 children)

    I really don't understand how so many people are unwilling to be mildly uncomfortable

    One of my friends won't get off Twitter "because that's where the good memes are". I'm like ma'am you can live on slightly stale memes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 6 days ago (7 children)

    Target is never getting my money again, unfortunately most people's memory is as short as a goldfish

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 6 days ago

    So much of what is wrong with the world in general these days seems to come down to how fucking brainless and easily manipulated people are. Advertising essentially becomes mind control and that's why the whole economy seems to revolve around who can shove the most ads into people's faces.

    Target will pay for the Facebook ads, and mindless morons will start wandering right back in again, buying the next stupid fucking Stanley Cup or labubu or beanie babies or cabbage patch doll or monchichi...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 6 days ago (1 child)

    Fully agree, the last time I went was once this year, and I paid with a gift card I got from before their bending the knee, so it only took assets away from them. Other than that, I will not shop there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 72 points 6 days ago (17 children)

    they gambled and lost and now taxpayers pay their gambling bills

    economy über alles

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 6 days ago (10 children)

    We don't have to, the government can literally take their money if we collectively decide to. Personally, I think "no billionaires" is a pretty good policy. Once someone's net worth hits $999M, the government takes all their income above that amount, taxes any gifts they receive at 100% of their value, takes all their capital gains, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 6 days ago (6 children)

    Or, just impose a percentage based wealth tax like some of the Scandinavian countries. Simple and efficient.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 days ago (4 children)
  • [–] 2 points 6 days ago (3 children)

    Yeah, it should probably be a progressive rate but with the catch being that the rate never stops increasing!

    So maybe we start very small -- a 1% tax on wealth over $10 million. And that $10 million is also our magic number below which the wealth tax cannot drag you, which will be important in a second.

    Then there are a few tiers above that which don't need to be fancy. Maybe add 1% to the incremental rate per $100 million.

    But then at $1 billion, the incremental rate becomes 100%. So if you end up over the limit you essentially get set back to $1 billion, which is further taxed according to our imaginary progressive rate.

    I also wonder if it might be a good idea to provide a strong incentive for the individual to disburse their gains to charitable causes rather than the burden of administration always falling to the government. One interesting thing might be to introduce one or two even higher brackets that go above 100%.

    Say that at $2 billion the tax on each additional dollar becomes 150%. That means that if you get lazy or just want to hoard wealth short term, you not only get knocked back down to $1 billion but lower than that.

    Honestly though, we don't need that complexity. 100% wealth tax on anything over a billion and the government does extravagant shit to honor the top payers each year and names buildings after them and whatnot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 days ago (2 children)

    or we just kill them. they don't add anything to society. a billionaire is always an exploiter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 58 points 6 days ago (5 children)

    Round up the CEOs and introduce them all to a woodchipper.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 6 days ago (4 children)

    Why are you suggesting something so kind?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 6 days ago (2 children)

    Maybe like, a really dull woodchipper, or one with the blades on backwards or something

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • make them watch as you kill or sterilize the children they polluted the world with. make clear everything they hoped for will be stopped, because they hoped for it. kill their adult loved ones. then get to work on them with the power tools on live stream. show them the numbers. show them how much they're hated. show them how much everyone wants this.

    then someday, when its been hollowed out and empty for years, you let the meat die.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 43 points 6 days ago
    [–] 39 points 6 days ago (6 children)

    Tell that to California, who just decided it didn't want to tax billionaires by a landslide.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 6 days ago (1 child)

    I saw the “trickle down” happening in San Francisco first hand when I got off the Rapid Transit a stop early and emerged in the middle of a cardboard city.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 6 days ago (2 children)

    I thought part of the reason was because it's a one time thing? But the oligarchs were against it, which is a great reason to be for it, imo.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 110 points 6 days ago (7 children)

    When do we get to eat them?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 46 points 6 days ago (4 children)
  • [–] 13 points 6 days ago (1 child)

    ģ̭͎̘͋͒̐̒r̲̦e̶̥̳͌̋n̸̘̳͔͒ͥ̂͊d̶̩͎̉ĕ̬̲̭̑͆̋l̫̘͛̂͒ͥ͌ pͬ̿̑͗ͯr̨͙̦̣̗ͭ͑i͔̱͌ͫm̸̄͑e̗ͤͥ̑͛ i͕̳̟͔n̑ͤͫt̶̩̲̹̟̘ͯͮ̽e̵̲̮͒ͨ͂͑͆n͖̼̯͖̆ͪͩ̒s̸̜͎̼̅͌ĭ̴̪̮͇̝̐̐̂͐f̶ͥ͊ͯ͆ͭi̺̲ͥͅe̵̥̗͑ş̙̤͆̿̐

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 32 points 6 days ago

    Tomorrow google maps will show Lake Ontario and Gulf of Mexico and they will put black history month back on their calendar.

  • source
  • [–] 30 points 6 days ago (3 children)

    They went all in on installing technofeudalism and red and blue states are adopting mass surveillance an AI data centers so it kinda seems like they’re still winning

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 days ago (2 children)

    true. that's why they need to be killed. t

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 days ago (1 child)

    They need to be arrested for sure

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • no. no don't let them hang out with their cop retainers. they need to be killed. they were out openly collaborating fasch. the things they admitted to and lobbied for in public are enough to warrant death. they did much much worse. they need to die. it needs to be a spectacle. their bunkers need to be raided. their bedrooms need to be flashed and filled with chemical weapons as armed men storm in and kill everything that moves.

    no trial will survive this amount of money. they worked against the concept of democracy. they worked against the concept of justice. if they aren't just killed they will be released and it will happen again. they need to be killed.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 26 points 6 days ago

    Analysts at SemiAnalysis ahead of the election feared the worst...“[Hinojosa] would impose a moratorium until legislation is passed that gives communities a voice, protects household utility bills, and ends the tax incentives for data centers."

    Few sentences more effectively demonstrate the disconnect between billionaire capitalists and the rest of us.

  • source
  • [–] 25 points 6 days ago (1 child)

    Never forgive, never forget.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 72 points 6 days ago (3 children)

    For an industry obsessed with risk models, betting everything on Trump’s popularity was quite a choice. Especially while telling ordinary people to accept higher power bills and endless data centers. Turns out the electorate wasn’t as easy to disrupt as the CEOs hoped.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 6 days ago

    I’ve worked in tech a long time and never have I seen an actual risk model used.

    I have had CEOs tell me they don’t like my analysis and there’s gold in them thar bad decision hills, and they don’t care what my numbers say.

    I get some schadenfreude watching the disaster unfold, but it usually ends in decent people getting fucked over by management.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 6 days ago

    They’re venture capitalists they’re obsessed with risk in the sense they believe big risk = big reward and are vain enough to believe they can force several hundred million people to vote against their best interests with some poorly done smoke and mirrors. They forgot most VC ventures are failures because they’re too far up their own asses to see reality anymore

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 6 days ago

    I think what happened was a FOMO moment in which Elon’s contributions worked really, really well in 2024 so everyone else just jumped on that bandwagon.

    The rich believe that the endgame is near so they are very ready to take as much power as they can.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 6 days ago

    futurism.com is full of clickbait garbage

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 6 days ago

    Billionaires in danger? Of what, money-poisoning?

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 6 days ago (1 child)

    They're in SERIOUS Danger of a Gosh Darn Letter ROOTY TOOTY!

    -Chuck Schumer!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 21 points 6 days ago (3 children)

    They were going to lose anyway. Everyone seems to memoryhole that the Biden administration was on the verge of forcing Google to sell of chrome. They were probably going to enforce more antitrust on big tech.

    But of course people memoryholed it. They control what you see and think.

    It's no surprise they comply with Trump's arbitrary whims. The tech industry didn't gamble. Trump was their only choice.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 6 days ago

    They could have chosen to spin off parts of their companies to avoid a forced breakup. They could have chosen to fight back against disinformation during the 2024 election. And they could have chosen to say no to Trump and his mad king decrees. But, they chose to side with the fascists, and that's now the only decision that matters.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 6 days ago

    The very first thought in my mind when I woke to Trump 2.0, "There goes Lina Khan, our last best hope."

    She was set to tear these anti-capitalist monopolies down and get democracy back overseeing the economic system. At least Mamdani snatched her up and she's kicking ass for NYC!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 6 days ago

    Lost to the tune of still earning millions of dollars a day.

    I hope to lose that big one day some day so I could set up a fund or two, to fix a bunch of stuff about society - you know, like a member of the same species would.

    Remember billionaire who are doing that are not a member of the species.... And ergo they have no human rights or protections.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 6 days ago
    [–] 18 points 6 days ago

    No worries. Dems love corpo money too; the industry will just have to change the sales pitch and keep doing the same thing.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 6 days ago

    The problem is that they will just shift who they cosy up to and who they bribe with “lobbying”. We all need politicians with the integrity to stand up to that.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 6 days ago (2 children)
  • [–] 5 points 6 days ago

    Leave no prisoners comrade.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 6 days ago (2 children)

    Just like with the oil lobby and AIPAC, the tech lobby hedges their bets by lobbying members of Congress in both parties to ensure their preferred legislative outcomes regardless of the broader political landscape.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 days ago (1 child)
  • [–] 5 points 6 days ago

    Relying on a single party to be the standard bearer for their policies would be dooming those policies half of the time; cherry picking favorable candidates from both parties moves the overton window for an issue in their favor. If anything, that agreement is then celebrated as a rare instance of bipartisanship while congresspeople debate other issues.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 6 days ago (7 children)

    Serious danger?

    You think the corporate Dems who just got elected are going to do anything to curtail big tech?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 6 days ago (4 children)

    The last Dem presidency gave us Lina Khan who was absolutely tearing it up until Trump fired her

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 6 days ago (2 children)

    Now kicking ass for a Mr. Mamdani somewhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 days ago (1 child)

    No single decision gave me more faith in Mamdani than snatching Khan for his team. When I was a young man, I realized that no high-level leader can possibly do the job and that role's most important skill is picking a competent team. I about screamed when I saw her under his wing!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 6 days ago (1 child)

    They will if you get off your butt and hold your Dem reps accountable instead of whining on Reddit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago

    I live in San Francisco and my new rep had his campaign funded by a cohort of tech billionaires. I could call him every day and it won't matter, this election has shown billionaires run the politics in this city.

    Same goes for almost every other dem, they're going to be afraid of AI companies funding their opponents so they won't do anything. Look at crypto, it's an obvious scam defrauding millions of normal people but no legislation has ever been passed because they have money.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 6 days ago
    [–] 3 points 6 days ago

    They'll be soon black/pink/lavender/green-washing their corporations' images, again. Just like they did before Trump. And anyone falling for it is a sucker, and deserves to be treated as one.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›