I really wish mitchellh wouldn't take funding from some of these people. Tobias Lutke in particular has chronically been on the wrong side of fundamental issues, and has most recently advocated for a pay-to-play version of democracy where wealth determines your ability to participate (and in particular your "stake" in the democracy).
> Tobias Lutke /../ has most recently advocated for a pay-to-play version of democracy where wealth determines your ability to participate
He’s just looking at america post Citizens United and wishing he could ull the same shenans in Canada. It’s been working very well for the folks and orgs who can afford it
It's really unfortunate that the same traits that make you great at building a business (within capitalism) also often make you have psychopathic tendencies.
Easy to say this when the original commenter incorrectly described Tobias' comments. He suggested that those who pay more in taxes should have a greater say in how the government is spending the money. This is not a crazy idea on its face; you could say that taken to the limit it would not be a good system to live in (the highest taxpayer dictating what gov't does).
But it does make sense that those who are footing the bill for everything might be consulted a little on the plans to spend.
reading "those who pay more in taxes should have a greater say in how the government is spending the money" and NOT taking that to mean what the OP is suggesting it to mean is naive. Everyone knows what Tobias meant when he said that.
I'm sure the people who would have their right to vote stripped from them would consider that malicious, and they would be correct. That's not democracy.
Historical precedent (both recent and not) shows that concentrating wealth and then giving those wealthy few an inordinate amount of political power does not end well for those disenfranchised by this system.
It is not reasonable to give the benefit of the doubt on the basis of Lutke and his ilk maybe being benevolent dictators if given largely unfettered access to the levers of power.
It's also a false equivalence fallacy to compare people to stocks. Historical precedent is a strong predictor of human behaviour.
The wealthy have been using their wealth to consolidate power for essentially as long as the concept of material wealth has existed, and the exceptions to this are far outweighed by the cases which conform to the rule.
I think most people will agree that empowering the edgelord Shopify CEO is not going to improve most people's outcomes. All you need to do is read his tweets to see that he should have less power (much less), not more.
It's not a logical fallacy. You made the unsubstantiated claim that people would want their right to vote stripped from them. I do not think people want guys like this in power: https://xcancel.com/tobi/status/2081155797640171641
I'd start with some German guy calling native Canadians who are actively civically engaged "useful idiots" and his suggestion that the unemployed and retried shouldn't have a voice in their community.
> his suggestion that the unemployed and retried shouldn't have a voice in their community.
I don't see him making that suggestion. It's pithy so it's hard to really pin down a meaning to the tweet but I think he's saying that these town sessions aren't a meaningful expression of democracy because only a specific section of society is in attendance and one that may not understand key issues relevant to working or young people.
In this context, I would call it pithy sure. It's concise and direct. He's not explaining further.
He clearly isn't calling the other categories he listed (the "
Retired, Unemployed, Unemployable") useful idiots, that's why he listed "useful idiots" separately. I don't know to whom he is referring as useful idiots but I don't think it's immoral in itself to use the term "useful idiot."
"I think this guy is dumb and wrong. Oh no, this dumb wrong guy is going to have outsized influence on a project I'm interested in. Oh no, this dumb wrong guy may profit from a project I'm interested in. Oh no, this dumb wrong guy is using his wealth to do dumb wrong things."
