Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Cyborg)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

CIRCLE WITH A DOT

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. Even if rich people were no more likely to believe stupid shit than you or me, it'd still be a problem.

Even if rich people were no more likely to believe stupid shit than you or me, it'd still be a problem.

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
72 Posts 27 Posters 45 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
    pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
    pluralistic@mamot.fr
    wrote last edited by
    #1

    Even if rich people were no more likely to believe stupid shit than you or me, it'd still be a problem. After all, I believe my share of stupid shit (and if you think that none of the shit you believe in is stupid, then I'm afraid we've just identified at least one kind of stupid shit you believe in).

    --

    If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this thread to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

    favicon

    (pluralistic.net)

    1/

    Link Preview Image
    pluralistic@mamot.frP enema_cowboy@dotnet.socialE thriftwicker@mastodon.socialT wsa@rebel.arW craigduncan@mastodon.auC 7 Replies Last reply
    4
    0
    • pluralistic@mamot.frP pluralistic@mamot.fr

      Even if rich people were no more likely to believe stupid shit than you or me, it'd still be a problem. After all, I believe my share of stupid shit (and if you think that none of the shit you believe in is stupid, then I'm afraid we've just identified at least one kind of stupid shit you believe in).

      --

      If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this thread to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

      favicon

      (pluralistic.net)

      1/

      Link Preview Image
      pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
      pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
      pluralistic@mamot.fr
      wrote last edited by
      #2

      The problem isn't whether rich people believe stupid shit; it's the fact that when a rich person believes something stupid, that belief can turn into torment for dozens, thousands, or millions of people.

      Here's a historical example that I think about a *lot*. In 1928, Henry Ford got worried about the rubber supply chain.

      2/

      pluralistic@mamot.frP madengineering@mastodon.cloudM ridetheory@mastodon.socialR 3 Replies Last reply
      0
      • pluralistic@mamot.frP pluralistic@mamot.fr

        The problem isn't whether rich people believe stupid shit; it's the fact that when a rich person believes something stupid, that belief can turn into torment for dozens, thousands, or millions of people.

        Here's a historical example that I think about a *lot*. In 1928, Henry Ford got worried about the rubber supply chain.

        2/

        pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
        pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
        pluralistic@mamot.fr
        wrote last edited by
        #3

        All the world's rubber came from plantations in countries that he had limited leverage over and he was worried that these countries could kneecap his operation by cutting off the supply. So Ford decided he would start cultivating rubber in the Brazilian jungles, judging that Brazil's politicians were biddable, bribeable or bludgeonable and thus not a risk.

        3/

        pluralistic@mamot.frP 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • pluralistic@mamot.frP pluralistic@mamot.fr

          All the world's rubber came from plantations in countries that he had limited leverage over and he was worried that these countries could kneecap his operation by cutting off the supply. So Ford decided he would start cultivating rubber in the Brazilian jungles, judging that Brazil's politicians were biddable, bribeable or bludgeonable and thus not a risk.

          3/

          pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
          pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
          pluralistic@mamot.fr
          wrote last edited by
          #4

          Ford took over a large area of old-growth jungle in Brazil and decreed that a town be built there. But not just any town: Ford decreed that the town of Fordlandia would be a replica of Dearborn, the company town he controlled in Michigan. Now, leaving aside the colonialism and other ethical considerations, there are plenty of *practical* reasons not to replicate Dearborn, MI on the banks of the Rio Tapajós.

          4/

          pluralistic@mamot.frP 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • pluralistic@mamot.frP pluralistic@mamot.fr

            Ford took over a large area of old-growth jungle in Brazil and decreed that a town be built there. But not just any town: Ford decreed that the town of Fordlandia would be a replica of Dearborn, the company town he controlled in Michigan. Now, leaving aside the colonialism and other ethical considerations, there are plenty of *practical* reasons not to replicate Dearborn, MI on the banks of the Rio Tapajós.

            4/

            pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
            pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
            pluralistic@mamot.fr
            wrote last edited by
            #5

            For one thing, Brazil is in the southern hemisphere, and Dearborn is in the northern hemisphere. The prefab houses that Ford ordered for Fordlandia had windows optimized for southern exposure, which is the normal way of designing a dwelling in the northern hemisphere. In the southern hemisphere, you try and put your windows on the *other side* of the building.

            5/

            pluralistic@mamot.frP 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • pluralistic@mamot.frP pluralistic@mamot.fr

              For one thing, Brazil is in the southern hemisphere, and Dearborn is in the northern hemisphere. The prefab houses that Ford ordered for Fordlandia had windows optimized for southern exposure, which is the normal way of designing a dwelling in the northern hemisphere. In the southern hemisphere, you try and put your windows on the *other side* of the building.

              5/

              pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
              pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
              pluralistic@mamot.fr
              wrote last edited by
              #6

              Ford's architects told him this, and proposed having the factory flip the houses' orientation. But Ford was adamant: he'd had a vision for a replica of his beloved Dearborn plunked down smack in the middle of the Amazon jungle, and by God, that was what he would get:

              Link Preview Image
              Fordlandia: novelistic history of Henry Ford’s doomed midwestern town in the Amazon jungle – Cory Doctorow's MEMEX

              favicon

              (memex.craphound.com)

              Fordlandia was a catastrophe for *so many* reasons, and the windows are just a little footnote, but it's a detail that really stuck with me because it's just *so stupid*.

              6/

              pluralistic@mamot.frP 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • pluralistic@mamot.frP pluralistic@mamot.fr

                Ford's architects told him this, and proposed having the factory flip the houses' orientation. But Ford was adamant: he'd had a vision for a replica of his beloved Dearborn plunked down smack in the middle of the Amazon jungle, and by God, that was what he would get:

                Link Preview Image
                Fordlandia: novelistic history of Henry Ford’s doomed midwestern town in the Amazon jungle – Cory Doctorow's MEMEX

                favicon

                (memex.craphound.com)

                Fordlandia was a catastrophe for *so many* reasons, and the windows are just a little footnote, but it's a detail that really stuck with me because it's just *so stupid*.

                6/

                pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
                pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
                pluralistic@mamot.fr
                wrote last edited by
                #7

                Ford was a vicious antisemite, a bigot, a union-buster and an all-round piece of shit, but also, he believed that his opinions trumped the axial tilt of the planet Earth.

                In other words, Henry Ford wasn't merely evil - he was also periodically as thick as pigshit. Ford's cherished stupidities didn't just affect him, they also meant that a whole city full of people in the Amazon had windows facing the wrong direction.

                7/

                pluralistic@mamot.frP damonwakes@mastodon.sdf.orgD 2 Replies Last reply
                0
                • pluralistic@mamot.frP pluralistic@mamot.fr

                  Ford was a vicious antisemite, a bigot, a union-buster and an all-round piece of shit, but also, he believed that his opinions trumped the axial tilt of the planet Earth.

                  In other words, Henry Ford wasn't merely evil - he was also periodically as thick as pigshit. Ford's cherished stupidities didn't just affect him, they also meant that a whole city full of people in the Amazon had windows facing the wrong direction.

                  7/

                  pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
                  pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
                  pluralistic@mamot.fr
                  wrote last edited by
                  #8

                  Like I said, I sometimes believe stupid things, but those stupid things aren't *consequential* the way that rich people's cherished stupidities are.

                  This would be bad enough if rich people were no more prone to stupid beliefs than the rest of us, but it's actually worse than that. When I believe something stupid, it tends to get *me* in trouble, which means that (at least some of the time), I get to learn from my mistakes.

                  8/

                  pluralistic@mamot.frP 1 Reply Last reply
                  1
                  0
                  • pluralistic@mamot.frP pluralistic@mamot.fr

                    Like I said, I sometimes believe stupid things, but those stupid things aren't *consequential* the way that rich people's cherished stupidities are.

                    This would be bad enough if rich people were no more prone to stupid beliefs than the rest of us, but it's actually worse than that. When I believe something stupid, it tends to get *me* in trouble, which means that (at least some of the time), I get to learn from my mistakes.

                    8/

                    pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
                    pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
                    pluralistic@mamot.fr
                    wrote last edited by
                    #9

                    But if you're a rich person, you can surround yourself with people who will tell you that you are right even when you are *so wrong*, with the result that you get progressively *more* wrong, until you literally kill yourself:

                    Link Preview Image
                    Did Alternative Medicine Extend or Abbreviate Steve Jobs's Life?

                    The biomedical evidence for alternative or complementary treatments for cancer, beyond acupuncture, remains thin, although it probably didn't harm Jobs

                    favicon

                    Scientific American (www.scientificamerican.com)

                    A rich person *could* surround themselves with people who tell them that they're being stupid, but in practice, this almost never happens.

                    9/

                    pluralistic@mamot.frP 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • pluralistic@mamot.frP pluralistic@mamot.fr

                      But if you're a rich person, you can surround yourself with people who will tell you that you are right even when you are *so wrong*, with the result that you get progressively *more* wrong, until you literally kill yourself:

                      Link Preview Image
                      Did Alternative Medicine Extend or Abbreviate Steve Jobs's Life?

                      The biomedical evidence for alternative or complementary treatments for cancer, beyond acupuncture, remains thin, although it probably didn't harm Jobs

                      favicon

                      Scientific American (www.scientificamerican.com)

                      A rich person *could* surround themselves with people who tell them that they're being stupid, but in practice, this almost never happens.

                      9/

                      pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
                      pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
                      pluralistic@mamot.fr
                      wrote last edited by
                      #10

                      After all, the prime advantage to accumulating as much money as possible is freedom from having to listen to other people. The richer you are, the fewer people there are who can thwart your will. Get rich enough and you can be found guilty of 34 felonies and *still* become President of the United States of America.

                      But wait, it gets even worse! Hurting other people is often a great way to get even more rich.

                      10/

                      pluralistic@mamot.frP 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • pluralistic@mamot.frP pluralistic@mamot.fr

                        After all, the prime advantage to accumulating as much money as possible is freedom from having to listen to other people. The richer you are, the fewer people there are who can thwart your will. Get rich enough and you can be found guilty of 34 felonies and *still* become President of the United States of America.

                        But wait, it gets even worse! Hurting other people is often a great way to get even more rich.

                        10/

                        pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
                        pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
                        pluralistic@mamot.fr
                        wrote last edited by
                        #11

                        So the richer you get, the more insulated you are from consequences for hurting other people, and the more you hurt other people, the richer you get.

                        What a world! The people whose wrong beliefs have the widest blast-radius and inflict the most collateral damage *also* have the fewest sources of external discipline that help them improve their beliefs, and often, that collateral damage is a feature, not a bug.

                        11/

                        pluralistic@mamot.frP 1 Reply Last reply
                        1
                        0
                        • pluralistic@mamot.frP pluralistic@mamot.fr

                          So the richer you get, the more insulated you are from consequences for hurting other people, and the more you hurt other people, the richer you get.

                          What a world! The people whose wrong beliefs have the widest blast-radius and inflict the most collateral damage *also* have the fewest sources of external discipline that help them improve their beliefs, and often, that collateral damage is a feature, not a bug.

                          11/

                          pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
                          pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
                          pluralistic@mamot.fr
                          wrote last edited by
                          #12

                          Billionaires are a danger to themselves and (especially) to the rest of us. They are wronger than the median person, and the consequences of their wrongness are exponentially worse than the consequences of the median person's mistake.

                          This has been on my mind lately because of a very local phenomenon.

                          I live around the corner from Burbank airport, a great little regional airport on the edge of Hollywood.

                          12/

                          pluralistic@mamot.frP 1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • pluralistic@mamot.frP pluralistic@mamot.fr

                            Billionaires are a danger to themselves and (especially) to the rest of us. They are wronger than the median person, and the consequences of their wrongness are exponentially worse than the consequences of the median person's mistake.

                            This has been on my mind lately because of a very local phenomenon.

                            I live around the corner from Burbank airport, a great little regional airport on the edge of Hollywood.

                            12/

                            pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
                            pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
                            pluralistic@mamot.fr
                            wrote last edited by
                            #13

                            It was never brought up to code, so the gates are *really* close together, which means the planes park really close together, and there's no room for jetways, so they park right up against the terminal. The ground crews wheel staircase/ramps to both the front and back of the plane. That means that you can walk the entire length of the terminal in about five minutes, and boarding and debarking takes less than half the time of any other airport.

                            13/

                            pluralistic@mamot.frP 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • pluralistic@mamot.frP pluralistic@mamot.fr

                              It was never brought up to code, so the gates are *really* close together, which means the planes park really close together, and there's no room for jetways, so they park right up against the terminal. The ground crews wheel staircase/ramps to both the front and back of the plane. That means that you can walk the entire length of the terminal in about five minutes, and boarding and debarking takes less than half the time of any other airport.

                              13/

                              pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
                              pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
                              pluralistic@mamot.fr
                              wrote last edited by
                              #14

                              Sure, if one of those planes ever catches fire, every other plane is gonna go boom, and everyone in the terminal is toast, but my sofa-to-gate time is like *15 minutes*.

                              Best of all, Burbank is a Southwest hub. When we moved here a decade ago, this was *great*. Southwest, after all, has free bag-check, open seating, a great app, friendly crews, and a generous policy for canceling or changing reservations.

                              14/

                              pluralistic@mamot.frP 1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • pluralistic@mamot.frP pluralistic@mamot.fr

                                Sure, if one of those planes ever catches fire, every other plane is gonna go boom, and everyone in the terminal is toast, but my sofa-to-gate time is like *15 minutes*.

                                Best of all, Burbank is a Southwest hub. When we moved here a decade ago, this was *great*. Southwest, after all, has free bag-check, open seating, a great app, friendly crews, and a generous policy for canceling or changing reservations.

                                14/

                                pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
                                pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
                                pluralistic@mamot.fr
                                wrote last edited by
                                #15

                                If you fly in the US, you know what's coming next. In 2024, a hedge fund called Elliott Investment Management acquired an 11% stake in SWA, forced a boardroom coup that saw it replace five of the company's six directors, and then instituted a top to bottom change in airline policies. The company eliminated *literally everything* that Southwest fliers loved about the airline, from the free bags to the open seating:

                                Link Preview Image

                                favicon

                                (www.reddit.com)

                                15/

                                pluralistic@mamot.frP 1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • pluralistic@mamot.frP pluralistic@mamot.fr

                                  If you fly in the US, you know what's coming next. In 2024, a hedge fund called Elliott Investment Management acquired an 11% stake in SWA, forced a boardroom coup that saw it replace five of the company's six directors, and then instituted a top to bottom change in airline policies. The company eliminated *literally everything* that Southwest fliers loved about the airline, from the free bags to the open seating:

                                  Link Preview Image

                                  favicon

                                  (www.reddit.com)

                                  15/

                                  pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
                                  pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
                                  pluralistic@mamot.fr
                                  wrote last edited by
                                  #16

                                  The airline went from being the *least* enshittified airline in America to the *most*. Southwest is now worse than Spirit airlines - no, really. Southwest doesn't just merely charge for seat selection, but if you refuse to pay for seat selection, *they preferentially place you in a middle seat even on a half-empty flight*, as a way of pressuring you to pay the sky-high junk fee for seat selection:

                                  Link Preview Image

                                  favicon

                                  (www.reddit.com)

                                  16/

                                  pluralistic@mamot.frP huntingdon@mstdn.socialH 2 Replies Last reply
                                  0
                                  • pluralistic@mamot.frP pluralistic@mamot.fr

                                    The airline went from being the *least* enshittified airline in America to the *most*. Southwest is now worse than Spirit airlines - no, really. Southwest doesn't just merely charge for seat selection, but if you refuse to pay for seat selection, *they preferentially place you in a middle seat even on a half-empty flight*, as a way of pressuring you to pay the sky-high junk fee for seat selection:

                                    Link Preview Image

                                    favicon

                                    (www.reddit.com)

                                    16/

                                    pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
                                    pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
                                    pluralistic@mamot.fr
                                    wrote last edited by
                                    #17

                                    Obviously, passengers who are given middle seats (and the passengers around them, who paid for window or aisle seats) don't like this, so they try to change seats. So SWA now makes its flight attendants order passengers not to switch seats, and they've resorted to making up nonsense about "weight balancing":

                                    Link Preview Image

                                    favicon

                                    (www.reddit.com)

                                    17/

                                    pluralistic@mamot.frP 1 Reply Last reply
                                    0
                                    • pluralistic@mamot.frP pluralistic@mamot.fr

                                      Obviously, passengers who are given middle seats (and the passengers around them, who paid for window or aisle seats) don't like this, so they try to change seats. So SWA now makes its flight attendants order passengers not to switch seats, and they've resorted to making up nonsense about "weight balancing":

                                      Link Preview Image

                                      favicon

                                      (www.reddit.com)

                                      17/

                                      pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
                                      pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
                                      pluralistic@mamot.fr
                                      wrote last edited by
                                      #18

                                      Even without junk fees, SWA's fares are now higher than their rivals. I'm flying to San Francisco tomorrow to host EFF executive director Cindy Cohn's book launch at City Lights:

                                      You are being redirected...

                                      favicon

                                      (citylights.com)

                                      Normally, I would have just booked a SWA flight from Burbank to SFO or Oakland (which gets less fog and is more reliable). But the SWA fare - even without junk fees - was higher than a United ticket out of the same airport, even including a checked bag, seat selection, etc.

                                      18/

                                      pluralistic@mamot.frP 1 Reply Last reply
                                      0
                                      • pluralistic@mamot.frP pluralistic@mamot.fr

                                        Even without junk fees, SWA's fares are now higher than their rivals. I'm flying to San Francisco tomorrow to host EFF executive director Cindy Cohn's book launch at City Lights:

                                        You are being redirected...

                                        favicon

                                        (citylights.com)

                                        Normally, I would have just booked a SWA flight from Burbank to SFO or Oakland (which gets less fog and is more reliable). But the SWA fare - even without junk fees - was higher than a United ticket out of the same airport, even including a checked bag, seat selection, etc.

                                        18/

                                        pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
                                        pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
                                        pluralistic@mamot.fr
                                        wrote last edited by
                                        #19

                                        Southwest is *genuinely* worse than Spirit now: not only does it have worse policies (forcing occupancy of middle seats!), and more frustrated, angrier flight crew (flight attendants are palpably sick of arguing with passengers), but SWA is now more expensive than United!

                                        All of this is the fault of *one billionaire*: Elliott Investment Management CEO Peter Singer, one of America's most guillotineable plutes.

                                        19/

                                        pluralistic@mamot.frP 1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • pluralistic@mamot.frP pluralistic@mamot.fr

                                          Southwest is *genuinely* worse than Spirit now: not only does it have worse policies (forcing occupancy of middle seats!), and more frustrated, angrier flight crew (flight attendants are palpably sick of arguing with passengers), but SWA is now more expensive than United!

                                          All of this is the fault of *one billionaire*: Elliott Investment Management CEO Peter Singer, one of America's most guillotineable plutes.

                                          19/

                                          pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
                                          pluralistic@mamot.frP This user is from outside of this forum
                                          pluralistic@mamot.fr
                                          wrote last edited by
                                          #20

                                          This one guy *personally* enshittified Southwest Airlines, along with many other businesses in America and abroad. Because of this *one guy*, millions of people are made miserable *every single day*. Singer flogged off his shares and made a tidy profit. He's long gone. But SWA will never recover, and every day until its collapse, millions of passengers and flight attendants will have a shitty day because of this *one guy*:

                                          https://www.wfaa.com/article/money/business/southwest-airlines-activist-investor-elliott-lower-ownership-stake/287-470b5131-ef1a-4648-a8ec-4cc017f7914c

                                          20/

                                          pluralistic@mamot.frP 1 Reply Last reply
                                          0
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • World
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups