this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2024
1162 points (92.4% liked)

memes

10689 readers
1987 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] electric_nan@lemmy.ml 166 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Let's start with those that profit directly from human suffering.

[–] Allonzee@lemmy.world 86 points 2 weeks ago

So the entire Healthcare, agriculture, and processed food industries.

And obviously Ticketmaster.

[–] dumbass@leminal.space 15 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah for sure, but we can still plan for tomorrow.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 118 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (7 children)

Edit: I'm using him as an example of an other billionaire who is constantly defended even though he owns 6 mega yatchs and a few submarines costing him an estimated 75 to 100 million a year just in maintenance. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[–] A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world 86 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Look I love Gabe as much as anyone but nobody earns a billion dollars

[–] CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world 37 points 2 weeks ago

Especially when steam could have a sliding scale for fees where developers with fewer sales could earn more profit from the sale which would greatly benefit the indie developers.

Instead it has the opposite structure where fees decrease as you sell many millions in revenue which has the opposite effect.

[–] dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net 37 points 2 weeks ago

And the perfect counterpart is another rotund fuzzy tech guy, Steve Wozniak. The Woz, who isn’t a billionaire in part because when Steve Jobs decided to fuck over a bunch of Apple employees before the IPO Woz gave them some of his shares. Woz, who spends his time in part video chatting with elementary school classes and talking to them about technology.

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 20 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

To be fair

He did get the steam deck made, so that was kinda cool.

But maybe owning 6 yachts is a little less cool.

Unless the sub and boats were like research vessels he funds, that would be cool

But they aren't.

Why can't billionaires dump their money into funding scientific research? It's not like there aren't scientists out there with plenty of research to be done.

Or even maybe wherever he lives, he could like, fund the entire county school districts for the rest of existence and no one would have to worry about taxes.

Or maybe regularly cancel the medical debt of Valve employees and their families.

Like how fucking hard is it to redistribute your own wealth?

Like fucking Christ, that's the part I don't understand. They complain about taxes and shit at the top, but they do absolutely fuck all to make things better for large swaths of people. Or if they do, it's after they die and $200m gets donated to a university and it prevents next year's tuition from increasing.

[–] EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

I think part of it is the form that that wealth exists in. Not defending billionaires in any way, but they don't have stacks of cash lying around. The way that they live is that their money is in various forms of equity that passively increase in value, like stocks and houses, which they take loans against in order to pay for things. Then, they take out more loans to pay off the previous and repeat until they die and the debt disappears due to legal loopholes.

Stuff like the yachts and all the other crazy expensive stuff is one thing, but to redistribute the wealth, it's not as simple as handing out cash to everybody (and I think turning all their mansions into subsidized housing instead of selling them would be more beneficial anyway).

I think incentivizing them to do more useful things with that cash and disincentivize them from simply hoarding it in various forms would be a decent short-term solution to the issue without having to put in much effort on the government's part, but I never expect to see that happen.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

Are you presenting him as an example of a good billionaire? Cause still, nah.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 29 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

It was not my intention, I edited my comment to make it clearer.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 110 points 2 weeks ago (18 children)

Hi, Swiftie here 🙋‍♀️

There are no good billionaires. Taylor Swift is not a good person due to her business practices. I have no defense of her and I would never say “she is one of the good ones.” I and most of the Swiftie circles I run in wish that she would practice equitable compensation in her tours (where she gets the vast majority of her profit), among other areas.

Taylor Swift is a capitalist, and that’s bad. There are thousands of artists and laborers being exploited by her every performance. All those laborers, stage hands, designers, arena staff, etc should have a say in how the massive revenue generated is distributed, and they do not get that say. That is bad.

As a majority male space, Lemmy has a tendency to slide a bit toward dunking on women and majority women’s spaces because you may not be aware that many leftist Swifties are just as critical of Swift as other billionaires. This post is a good example of that. (If you feel bad or called out by this, don’t stress it. I just want to gently course correct the conversation a tad 🙂)

[–] AlecSadler@sh.itjust.works 25 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I appreciate you posting this, it was actually unexpected to see to me and was nice to know.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 18 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

I'm not a swiftie, and I'm male, so take my words as you will in that context.

Simply: IMO, it is possible to appreciate someones artistry while disliking their personal value system and actions.

Just because someone is a good artist, does not and should not imply that they are good.

Both liking someone's music and disliking their decisions as a person, can both be true. I hate the plethora of false dichotomy arguments that you can't appreciate music made by a person if that person is considered a bad person. One does not mean the other cannot be true.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[–] GraniteM@lemmy.world 93 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

It's not a matter of "nobody should be allowed to be ultra wealthy," it's a matter of "nobody should be allowed to be unacceptably poor."

If our civilization can generate wealth at an astronomical rate, then there is no morally defensible reason for anyone to be homeless, hungry, poorly educated, lacking medical care, drinking unsafe water, worked to death, or any of a number of other baseline metrics of civilization. All of those ills exist because wealth is funneled upwards at an unbelievable rate, leading to the existence of billionaires. All of that wealth should be used to raise everyone's standard of living, rather than give a handful of people more power and luxury than ever appeared in Caligula's wet dreams.

Of course the way that you accomplish that is by an exponentially progressive taxation system, and that will... probably make it impractical to be a billionaire, but frankly I think that focusing on helping the bottom end of the economic ladder is more productive than just talking about how it should be illegal to have more than a given amount of wealth.

[–] LANIK2000@lemmy.world 34 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

I'm still surprised that taxing the rich is such a difficult bill to pass. Assuming we live in a democracy, the 1% shouldn't be able to have such sway over the population.

[–] fallingcats@discuss.tchncs.de 30 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Might have something to do with almost all relevant politicians being in the 1%. Maybe. Possibly.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 77 points 2 weeks ago (14 children)

As a swiftie, I can say you're right. However, there's also no such thing as a purely good or purely bad person, and liking a billionaire does not make someone good or bad. People, it turns out, are complex.

I can love Taylor's music while also criticizing her for her excessive personal jet use and massive pollution problem.

I think if we stop making it a binary decision that more people will start opening up about changes need to make. In Taylor's case, most Swifties would never dare say anything negative about her for fear of others in the fandom thinking they aren't true fans, and vis versa, I'm sure people here will read this as I must support billionaires because I like her music. No, complex multifaceted opinions are valid.

I think we should abolish ICE vehicles. It doesn't mean I think I need to yell at family members who pull up in their 02 Camry because they can't afford to upgrade.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 38 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

You need to be evil to accumulate billionaire levels of wealth, no one forces her to be that wealthy, she could give hundreds of millions to MSF and other reliable charities and still be richer than 99.999999% of people on earth.

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 21 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Completely agree. Went to her show, loved it. She's donated to every food bank in each city she's stopped at, but I don't think it's nearly what she could be doing. She has "put an actual dent in climate change" money bur instead gives a few thousand to food banks. Like I said, people can hold 2 opinions.

[–] baldingpudenda@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I recently had this conversation with my sister who's been a huge swiftie for years. Her reaction:

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Disagree here. I'd argue being good and being a billionaire are mutually exclusive. You can be good before you are a billionaire (rare) but it's not possible once you enter that class.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 28 points 2 weeks ago (16 children)

I totally agree, but also the pop star billionaires are the least offensive type. If you're targeting them before the other billionaires, you got played and are doing it wrong. The richest most politically powerful billionaires are the biggest threat to freedom.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] foggy@lemmy.world 24 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

I just think that at $1BN net worth or whatever, you start getting taxed on 99.99% of everything you earn or gain in worth after that.

This way people still get stupid rich, and if someone ever has $10bn you can easily just sound the alarm then and there and say nope, fuck this guy.

The tax curve just just be exponential and it should be basically vertical at $1bn.

[–] JamesTBagg@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Up until the 70s or 80s I think, in the United States, the top tax bracket was 90%.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] anticurrent@sh.itjust.works 24 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (9 children)

Those billionaires are being propped by stupid people buying exorbitant ticket prices to see their idols dancing from a mile a way. I blame the populace for this. you can make them irrelevant without even spending a penny.

[–] drunkpostdisaster@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

As someone in the entertainment business, those performers don't like ticket master either. Or at least on the level I am at.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 22 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

There may not be good ones, but like everything there are different grades.

Someone who became a billionaire selling weapons to conflict zones after pushing them into conflict is a lot worse than an artist that is popular and actually works for their riches.

[–] MellowYellow13@lemmy.world 26 points 2 weeks ago

If you have billions there are no excuses, dont defend this shit.

[–] sparr@lemmy.world 25 points 2 weeks ago

That person was already evil before they became a billionaire.

The amount of evilness from being a billionaire, separate from how they got there, is approximately the same for both of them.

Nobody "works for" a billion dollars.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 20 points 2 weeks ago (19 children)

Getting some Pol Pot vibes from this. Ideology can lead to some really weird conclusions.

Somone like Taylor Swift isn't destroying people's lives and she's not overworking other people to make that money.

Sure she has too much money, but that can be solved by having more sensible tax policies. Show me where she's bribing congress and donating to the GOP to keep her taxes low.

These kinds of memes only exist to prove how edgy people are but they don't accomplish anything. Saying "I'm so hardcore I even hate the billionaires people like" doesn't do anything other than push people away from whatever movement you claim to support.

But congratulations, you're the edgiest socialist edge lord on the internet. That sound you hear is the Swifties (who might otherwise care about the issues you care about) heading towards the door.

People like Elon Musk and Donald Trump divide people so they don't think about what they're doing. You're helping them.

[–] xaxyg@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
[–] return2ozma@lemmy.world 18 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'll share it again...

That time Oprah and Ellen cosplayed as poor people by going to the bank...

https://youtu.be/HbwARJNjI3M

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

I wouldn't call her a good billionaire, but I think she's as benign as billionaires get. At least she does things like pay her employees a good wage and gets people involved in the political process.

And, as far as I know, she isn't responsible for anyone's deaths.

I'm sure she still stepped on a lot of necks up the pyramid, but compared to a shit ton of other billionaires out there...

[–] DontRedditMyLemmy@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Billionaires can't be benign. It's impossible to make a billion dollars in a lifetime without taking more than you deserve. Someone overpaid for the product or someone was underpaid for the work (probably both). Billionaires prey on that loss, and it's not as if they are Robin Hood giving back to the poor. If that's not malignant, I don't know what is.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago (17 children)

You could also argue there are no good millionaires by the same logic.

The existence of billionaires is a systemic problem, largely not a personal failing.

I'm not a swiftie, but the message here should be "We need better redistributive institutions" or "We need a new economic system", not "Artist being an unexceptional artist (in terms of industry behavior) is BAD because she is one of the more successful ones"

load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›