This supports my belief that when being a finance bro was the only way to Croesus-level wealth, sociopaths tended to go into finance, so they could transcend societal norms with their wealth. Then, tech came along, making finance bro-level wealth seem quaint. Where did all the sociopaths go...well, you saw for yourself.
I agree, this could strongly be the case. Especially since now the most elite in finance are either working in quant roles and /or megafund private equity, both of which are extremely selective compared to tech. Megafund PE was always and still remains a bastion of conservatism, but quant shops still select for more objective skillsets meritocratically.
Most of the "tech" CEO people we're admiring? as movers and shakers... very few of them actually come from an engineering background.
They're mostly just people attracted to the tech industry as a focus of dynamic high profit capitalism. The technology is only the background buzz.
Many of these businesses (Shopify especially!) -- in particular SaaS businesses -- actually have very weak "tech" innovation, it's really just the deployment of pre-existing engineering solutions (solved by other people usually) at scale in order to run a commercial business that just happens to use a lot of computers.
By finance bros, I meant people who continue to work in finance in some capacity. True, there is often some migration from finance to tech, which is usually composed of characters like the ones you talk of.
I guess if you are really serious about saving the planet from airplanes, you could start a network of similar-feeling folks and begin randomly bombing enough flights to terrify the world into not flying.
Give yourself an edgy name, like the Children of Kali, to make it stick.
Honestly, if you think the stakes are that high then you implicate yourself with anything but fully committed action. Anything less, and you just seem preachy and screechy.
PS: It's a book called The Ministry of the Future. Try reading once in a while. Whoosh.
I recently read Days of Rage about the various groups committing political violence during the 60s and 70s. Weatherman, Black Panthers, Black Liberation Army, etc.
I don't know if there was really a 'message' more than just reporting what 'happened'. But, I have to say I came away with the idea that that kind of political violence is futile. Non-violent political action seemed to have MUCH more beneficial action than any bomb. (of course it wasn't as clear-cut between non-violent groups and revolutionary groups at the time)
Maybe thats only because I just read the ONE book.
A famous paper argued that, from 1960 to 2006, nonviolent resistance was twice as likely as violent resistance to achieve its goal: it's a paper that most activists I've ever met had heard of. The reasons are largely the perception of violent resistance by the bystanders, meaning the population.
However, there have been a number of criticisms to the paper about data coding, methodology, and interpretation/motivated reasoning. Recently, the author has also acknowledged that governments have adapted since 2006: her data says nonviolent resistance is still more effective, but that the success rate has cratered.
I tried to find some of the criticisms, but it's recent, so all AI generated, so I won't link before reading, but the criticisms I'm aware of I think are robust. All this to say, the idea that nonviolent resistance is more effective is comfortable and feels better, and there is a paper that says so, but your examples and those of a child comment are not about resistance to armed colonial oppression and it's not enough to form a blanket opinion about violent resistance.
The general impression from talking to people who live then (I was a baby in the 1970s so I knew/know a fair number). The violent groups were looked on as weird or kids who needed to grow up - they were ignored for the most part other than cheering on what the police did.
There is a reason Rosa Parks was chosen to start the bus boycott - she comes off as "just like me" to the average person. Thus when she couldn't take it anymore the rest of America didn't write her off.
Different periods have seen different modes of action.
There was a tremendous amount of violence in the labour movement from the late 18th through mid-20th centuries, including numerous armed conflicts. This was perpetrated by both sides, though my sense is that capital was somewhat more prone to exacting violence on labour than vice versa.
The ANTIFA movement of the 1930s--1940s was a worldwide violent struggle, which ultimately proved effective. Nonviolent movements (say, the White Rose resistance in Germany) proved utterly ineffectual. It's useful to remember Gandhi's observation that ahimsa is predicated on an opponent with a conscience which can be shamed. That wasn't the case against Nazi Germany.
Civil rights, across multiple jurisdictions, has seen both violent and non-violent movements. The US civil rights movement of the 1960s is often seen as offering White America a choice between MLK's non-violent movement and the far more radical path pursued by the Nation of Islam, Black Panthers, and others.
That is a terrible way to get the necessary support for climate action and would be actively harmful to the cause.
This argument has been made so often and in so much detail that I’m surprised to still see people suggest climate terrorism in, presumably, good faith.
Unlikely, because of your priors; you already think we are odious so it isn't like you are looking for the best in (or of) us, and second why would they want to meet you if you assume the worst of them? I don't support this Administration's behavior, but I'd rather meet an American who did and have a discussion with them about it than try to convince some dude who already decided I was an asshole, based on the country I'm from.
I had to look up the word to double-check as a non-native English speaker. A quick definition I'm working with is "Arousing or meriting strong dislike, aversion, or intense displeasure." The synonyms assumed are: evil, cruel, hostile, nasty, wicked (all from Grammarly).
The experience of "you" - Americans - for non-Americans is shaped by cultural exports, personal contacts, and interactions with available American institutions. The last of these is likely to start with the immigration policy and its execution in the form of an embassy visit to apply for a visa and later with the officers at the airport. How confident are you that these interactions cannot be described as "odious" in a significant percentage (maybe even the majority) of cases? I've never experienced it myself, but in my social circle, almost all who tried were pretty bitter about it, even when successful. There were some outright Kafkaesque situations as well. Does it come as a surprise that a completely ruined "first impression" ended up biasing them to some extent?
I think that's rather expected. I'm pretty sure the same is true for a portion of people who want to visit or immigrate to my country. I can hope it's maybe less prevalent - we're not as sure of our greatness here (still better than those others around, obviously! /s) - but I wouldn't count on it to be an entirely positive experience, either. Admitting this and trying to fix it (including, unfortunately, convincing that dude who had to deal with his fair share of assholes to get here that not everybody is an asshole) would probably be a better course of action than isolationism you seem to favor, but to each their own.
If the commenter to whom I was responded made his points about American policy or institutions (rather than all Americans), I'd wholeheartedly agree, but that isn't what was written.
I, personally, don't favor isolationism. I am a US-EU dual citizen, and support strong ties between the two. I think the world is a better place when we work together. But people like me are erased with the dumb comments about "all Americans." Honestly, this feels like one place where modern society is falling apart: the "if you're not with me 100% then you are against me 100%" attitude that social media "engagement" metrics reward.
>If one's beliefs align with those who wish to strip civil rights from citizens who are different than one's own, then one is an asshole and doesn't deserve the time of day.
Who are you talking about here? This isn't even half of voting Americans, who probably represent about 20-25% of the American population. Your argument is analogous to saying that all men are rapists, because many men have committed an act of sexual harassment. It's so shockingly Manichean that it wouldn't pass a middle-school composition assigment.
You claimed twice in as many sentences that all americans are to blame for the way that (some) foreign nationals and undocumented immigrants are treated by the current American government.
Does that include the people who are out protesting at various protests against the administration?
Does that include Renee Good, who was murdered by ICE?
Does that include the Democratic members of congress?
Does that include my children, who are not yet old enough to vote?
Does that include felons who are disqualified from voting?
You said "all" americans. All. (Even using that one word construction.)
Now consider my analogy: "All men are rapists" was a hallmark of some second-wave feminist theory who used that framing to indict the facets of a patriarchal culture that contributes to rapey-ness. Here's [1] an actual reddit thread where people are talking about how the "not all men [commit sexual violence]" framing enables sexual violence. (To be absolutely, I think that conversation is nuts, just as I thought your comment was nuts.)
>1.) The c-suite is like 6 people, reducing their salary isn't going to make much of a dent.
It makes much more than a dent to the ~20 people not laid off, and a likely morale boost to everyone remaining.
Edit: who are the sociopaths who downvote this? You don't think that someone not being laid off isn't going to have a much better outcome than had the been laid off? At least make an argument to the contrary...
There's a large contingent of HN users that are all too happy to brown nose their corporate overlords.
Also, this is still a ycombinator forum, it wouldn't be surprising if some people around are the ones that lay people off. You know, the sociopaths themselves.
reply