Just a shower realisation… I never associated the two words before but it’s so obviously true.
Billionaires are humanity’s cancer.
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.
hey, us normies with cluster b’s are trying our best :(
And since they run or influence our lives in so many ways, does that mean that humanity has cancer?
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.
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?
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(!)
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.
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”
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.)
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
You don’t think that 3,028 people holding 99% of global wealth is extreme?
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.
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.
Wealth radicalizes people.
Look at what it did to Osama bin Laden. And that was just a $100 million.
Well yeah, they exist at the extremes of society and push almost exclusively for their own further empowerment.
I hate minorities (billionaires)
Worshiping money above all else is similar to worshiping a god above all else, and can both lead people down a path to extremism.
so true bestie slay
Do you want to elaborate why that is so obvious to you?
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
Ah ok, so you’re just using the word “extremists” to mean someone that does something extreme. That makes more sense.
You also have to take rather extreme measures in order to become a billionaire.
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.
Withholding that amount of resources from others when you have no need for them yourself is a political position.
certainly extreme to delude yourself it’s rightfully yours
while least effectively of anyone alive making good use of that money
I don’t see how it would be.
Really? You don’t see how wealth distribution relates to politics?
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.
Yes, a lot of them are terrible are probably psychopaths or narcissists.
But you can be all of that and not be an extremists.
You don’t think psychopaths are extreme?
