Just a shower realisation... I never associated the two words before but it's so obviously true.

top 46 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 61 points 1 year ago (7 children)

That's an interesting observation.

Given the 3,028 billionaires among the 8 billion people on Earth, that's the definition of extreme.

Those 3,028 people, or 0.000036% of the global population, hold more than 99% of all wealth.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Those 3,028 people, or 0.000036% of the global population, hold more than 99% of all wealth.

    The actual number is closer to 9% than 99%. This is probably some kind of mutation from "the combined wealth of billionaires is larger than the GDP of 99% of countries" where notably yearly income and wealth are not directly comparable.

    Better (and true) things to say are "The global top 1% have more wealth than the bottom 95% combined" or "The richest 0.01% in the US have tripled their wealth in the last 30 years, while 90% of people have been treading water"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    Holy shit dude, being in a minority group does not.make you an extremist. Would you call people with Field's disease extremists too? No, of course not. But you would call them extremists if they believed that everyone who doesn't have Field's disease should be enslaved or to donate all the Earth's resources for their well-being. Likewise with billionaires.

    (Ignore me - I'm apparently not very good at reading.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago*

    Using Field's disease there is a huge false equivalence, for two main reasons.

    A: you can't just choose not to have Field's, but a billionaire is capable of donating their wealth to charity or something, and no longer being a billionaire.

    B: the existence of people with Field's has little to no impact on the average person outside that group, but the existence of billionaires massively changes how much money everyone else has

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You don't think that 3,028 people holding 99% of global wealth is extreme?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I do, my comment was in response to the first sentence of the comment. It sounded like he was saying a minority group is the definition of extreme, but perhaps I misinterpreted it, as indeed the word billionaire was included and I could have been more charitable in my interpretation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    This is why online discourse is so hard! Beyond the anonymity, which causes its own problems, the absence of nonverbal cues and lack of immediacy in feedback leaves a lot open to interpretation, so anything can be taken in any way.

    Opinions become accusations and idle musings become absolute certainty in the vacuum of supporting information that is text-only communication. I worry that the only real solution is for people to--like you--embrace the uncertainty and gracefully admit that their interpretation could be wrong. And it seems likely that the only way to collectively get to that point is to fuck it up a lot for a long time.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 26 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Billionaires are humanity's cancer.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    And since they run or influence our lives in so many ways, does that mean that humanity has cancer?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Indeed, I believe we are seeing the simptoms.

    Won't you say humanity is sick right now?

    To expand on my previous point: A cáncer cell (billionaire) is one that forgot its original purpose (being a productive member of society) and instead grows indiscriminately, eventually killing its host (Everyone else and the planet).

    Honestly I don't see any difference at all between the two.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    And another follow-up thought:

    If cancer cells are at their most dangerous when infecting an unhealthy host, does that imply that the ultra-wealthy are currently at their most dangerous, given how fragmented and non-united the human host is with respect to fighting them off?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Ooh, nice.

    Indeed, I've sometimes wondered just how much humanity, from a wide view, behaves like many a micro-organism that's too successful for their own good, eventually exhausting the local resources, drowning in their own waste, and causing their own extinction. Not exactly a nice, cheery "Hallmark card" thought(!)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Nah, they're a side effect. It's people with Cluster B personality disorders that are the cancer. You can't be a billionaire without having one.

    They're the reason that true communism and socialism will never happen. They will corrupt any system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago*

    Wealth radicalizes people.

    Look at what it did to Osama bin Laden. And that was just a $100 million.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Well yeah, they exist at the extremes of society and push almost exclusively for their own further empowerment.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    I hate minorities (billionaires)

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    so true bestie slay

  • source
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (26 children)

    Do you want to elaborate why that is so obvious to you?

  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] [S] 12 points 1 year ago (25 children)

    Because they thought it was a rational goal when they turned millionaire (might have been born millionaire), and Elmo wants to be the first trillionaire

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (24 children)

    Ah ok, so you're just using the word "extremists" to mean someone that does something extreme. That makes more sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (23 children)

    You also have to take rather extreme measures in order to become a billionaire.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago* (22 children)

    Sure, like on the business side and stuff.

    But wanting more money isn't really a religious or political position and you don't really need hold an extremist position to be able to become one, as the main stream political system already allows that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Withholding that amount of resources from others when you have no need for them yourself is a political position.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 1 year ago (7 children)
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Really? You don't see how wealth distribution relates to politics?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Of course I do, but that is not at all the question here.

    The question is whether or not individual billionaires are political extremists. And I don't see why they would need to be. I'm sure a lot are, but that's just a correlation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Well, no, the comment I replied to was you saying how you don't see how a billionaire withholding resources they don't need from society is a political position. Which I found surprising, since distribution of resources is one of the primary concerns of politics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Well, no, the comment I replied to

    Ok ... but there is more context on the comments preceding that one.

    billionaire withholding resources they don’t need from society is a political position

    Well, they don't think they are withholding resources, probably think they are helping with investments, trickledown and bullshit. So it's literally not a political position they hold. It doesn't even make sense as one as all it does would paint yourself as the problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Ok … but there is more context on the comments preceding that one.

    I'm not responsible for the comments of others. I replied to something you stated directly where the previous context really doesn't make a difference. Particularly considering you are doubling down on that comment with

    Well, they don’t think they are withholding resources, probably think they are helping with investments, trickledown and bullshit. So it’s literally not a political position they hold. It doesn’t even make sense as one as all it does would paint yourself as the problem.

    Except if they believe more wealth should be distributed to them because they believe in trickle down economics... Uh, that's political.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I’m not responsible for the comments of others.

    Well, if you are unwilling or unable to have conversations that are more than one comment deep, I guess ... bye.

    believe in trickle down economics… Uh, that’s political.

    Yes. But not extremist. It's been the main talking point of republicans for years ...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    I never talked about political extremism. The entire breadth of our conversation was limited to how you didn't see how a billionaire thinking more wealth ought to be distributed to them was political. But that's a silly position and I think you see that in hindsight, so you are trying to widen the conversation to include the extremism angle, which I never commented on.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    No, nothing to do with business

    You have to be willing to make decisions to very deliberately fuck people over. To rapaciously take more than you could possibly justify with anything other than "I want to have more, when I already have plenty"

    That's not a healthy mind. It's someone driven, and totally comfortable with doing harm to get what they want

    Sounds pretty fucked to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Yes, a lot of them are terrible are probably psychopaths or narcissists.

    But you can be all of that and not be an extremists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    You don't think psychopaths are extreme?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (8 children)

    extremist

    a person who holds extreme political or religious views, especially one who advocates illegal, violent, or other extreme action.

    It doesn't matter if they are "extreme" or "rad" in some random aspect of their live. But they are not necessarily extremist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    If you believe 10% of people should hold 90% of wealth, you have an extremist political position. Therefore all billionaires are political extremists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    That sure would be nice if it was true, but it isn't. The political views that enables this kind of wealth inequality is the main stream status-quo, so literally the opposite of political extremism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    I dont agree, most people when asked would say that it is unfair and undesirable for such wealth inequality to exist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    I'd guess, yes. But most people will still vote for the political parties that will enable more wealth inequality. It might be extremely stupid, but politically the policies are everything but extreme. They are the broad consensus that people still vote for.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Eh, semantics I guess, but eg. Trump was elected and I think most would agree he's extreme.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Well yes, depending on semantics it's a very different question, so that's kind of important.

    And while certainly is an extremists, I don't think he his because of his fiscal policy or because he's rich. Except for him going crazy with the tariffs, it's mostly in line with what the republican party always did.

    I'd say he's a political extremist when it comes to ignoring the law, immigration/deportation and the use of the ICE/military (both inside the country and against random boats now).

    So yes, he is. But not because he's a billionaire (or rather millionaire).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments