[–] 20 points 2 weeks ago

A decent human being calls out destructive people because tolerating them only leads to destruction of society. Him being dead doesn't matter, the calling out is to let others know that his actions in life were unacceptable and that they shouldn't be normalized.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago*

    The report won't go viral because it's a 100+ page report. Everyone plays a different role, Gary's role is to raise awareness of the solution of wealth tax and push for an implementation. He's done a great job at that. I have watched the documentary written about in that article and I agree it wasn't good, he didn't push back enough most of the time. His skill was limited in that respect, but his skill at getting clicks is still good to give traction and momentum to the idea of a wealth tax where others can pick up the torch and carry it to the goal.

    Farage does not advocate for a wealth tax and Gary has talked about Farage multiple times on his channel, pointing out that he is taking advantage of the situation where institutions and the elites are indeed corrupt, but will not implement a solution to fix it and will actually do the opposite. I don't see how that messaging benefits Farage. If you make a wealth tax a partisan issue, then you're cutting along party lines rather than class lines and that will mean people in poorer classes not supporting a wealth tax simply because of allegiance to their party of choice.

    Additionally, Gary has talked about working with economists and politicians. He doesn't claim to be the only one with all the answers.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago (2 children)

    You claim it's not about stats and yet their issue is that he didn't want to get dragged into a pointless argument over the minutia of some chart. If these hosts agree that wealth inequality is a problem, then it's an established point that doesn't need to be rehashed through arguments over a chart. Gary knows this, his audience knows this, the hosts know this, and we know this, and many are living through this. What purpose does arguing over a chart do other than to try to distract from the message? If you want a strong message that resonates with people, you have to keep it simple and straightforward.

    Whether he's a grifter or not is a matter of opinion. Dismissing his message by calling him a grifter is a textbook example of ad hominem. His message is simple:

    • There is massive wealth inequality.
    • Wealth inequality tends to get worse since the more assets one owns, the more they can use that as leverage to obtain even more assets.
    • A wealth tax addresses the heart of the problem by taxing wealth directly.

    What is your issue with these key points? That he hasn't spent enough time in the chart mines? That you think he's a grifter? Clearly his method of communication has been effective in drawing attention on the issue while offering a solution and I think that's a great thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 1 point 2 weeks ago

    That's where advertising through AI comes in. People relying on AI suffer from cognitive deterioration which is the perfect opportunity to sneak in advertisements disguised as suggestions through AI responses.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  •  

    I saw this post titled "Scratch a anti-harm reductionist and a fascist bleeds" (https://lemmy.world/post/33320759)

    I commented that "harm reduction" apparently means sending billions in weapons to israel while they commit genocide and shutting down campus protests speaking out against that genocide. I said that seemed pretty fascist to me.

    Within an instant, they downvoted my post and banned me. Guess it's my fault for posting in a circlejerk community, but I'm still scratching my head on how that makes me a tankie. Something tells me this mod would be calling in the tanks to suppress any dissent if they could.

     

    Context: https://lemmy.world/comment/14613536 Screenshotted context just in case:

    A user claims that the killing in Palestine stopped under Biden now. I point out that biden had full-throatedly supported the genocide for over a year. A mod deletes my post and says that biden didn't "state" (keyword here) full-throated support for genocide.

    I counter by saying I consider sending billions in support of genocide counts as full-throated support for genocide. I also point out that I didn't say Biden stated his support for genocide and that he didn't need to outright state it because actions speak louder than words.

    I receive a temp ban for that counter and the mod adds a response where they claim the weapons were "provided for defense from Iran, full stop." which sounds to me like actual misinformation because how the hell does bombing hospitals in Gaza defend Israel from Iran? I'm not bothered by their stupid opinion, but I am bothered that they are enforcing it through moderation.

    I ran into a similar moderation problem on the Political Memes community also on .world, but I didn't bother making a post here for that because that's just a dumb meme community and I was better off just blocking it, but now this is concerning a world news community and it's awful to see something like this happening in a community that's supposed to keep people aware of the news.

    But hey, maybe I'm wrong and it actually is misinformation to say it's full-throated support of genocide to send billions in weapons to a country using those weapons to commit genocide. Please let me know what you think!

    view more: next ›