this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2023
676 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
72137 readers
4287 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Another example of a thing I figured 10+ years ago.
Take a headline, strip it of political references. Just the facts in question. Ask yourself, "Will this initiative hurt people?" Doesn't matter if you feel those people deserve to be hurt. Merely ask, "Will people be hurt?"
And now you know who's voting for it! I played this game with myself for years. Never got it wrong.
The cruelty is the point
The problem with this is that with most initiatives, there are winners and losers. Someone is hurt, but someone else (possibly many people) is helped. Even a Robin Hood-like approach hurts the rich, however small and insignificantly.
Can you refine that rule?
You're right and I should refine it!
How about; "Does this initiative hurt more people than it helps?"
Fair question my friend!
(And yes, sometimes the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many in the long term. Rare, but it can happen.)
It cuts both ways though.
In theory one could argue that eliminating ETFs would hurt the company owners and investors, who technically are people.
So it does kind of matter which people are being hurt and if they deserve it or not.
Extremely bad take, lol.
If the company isn't financially sound without charging customers to no longer be customers, the business isn't viable.
What an asinine attempt to justify predatory, anti-consumer behaviour from corporations.
I'm not sure what part of my "technically are people" language (or comment elsewhere in this thread here) made you think I'm justifying it.
But that is the fiscal conservative argument whether either of us thinks it is a good one or not, and thus a broad "it hurts people" needs greater specificity to scope it to main street concerns and not wall street concerns.
and there it is, the double down lol
Gross, dude. Listen to yourself.
The next time you get charged $200 for an early termination, I hope you think "I'm happy the shareholders didn't get hurt".
Fuck's sake.
That's... that's not what they're saying.
Any defense, devils advocate or otherwise, supporting early termination fees is disgusting and unacceptable. It's not really important how they spin it.
No, the point is hurting the aristocracy is good, and I like doing it. This is just intellectual honesty. Taking your opponent's chess pieces is an aggressive behavior, but it's still a good thing if you want to win.
Seriously. Circular during squad moment.
This is some real 'paradox of tolerance' reasoning here. Clearly by 'will people be hurt,' they mean the average person, not the investor class.
Yeah, the "average person" has greater specificity.
Hurt 20 millionaires/billionaires, or 100,000,000 working class people. I'm willing to bet that as a percentage of income, the investors will still lose less than the average customers are currently losing.