[test098]

> People advocating for their interests isn't warfare.

When those interests come at the expense/lives of other people, it is [1] [2].

> I assure you there are virtually no rich people cackling, monocles and cigars in place, over the fate of the poor.

Correct, their theatrics are even dumber than that [3].

---

[1] "House Republicans Push Forward Plan to Cut Taxes, Medicaid and Food Aid" - https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/14/us/politics/congress-tax-...

[2] "Sanders on GOP Medicaid cuts: ‘Thousands and thousands of low-income and working people will die’" - https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5302085-bernie-sanders-r...

[3] "Musk waves a chainsaw and charms conservatives talking up Trump’s cost-cutting efforts" - https://apnews.com/article/musk-chainsaw-trump-doge-6568e9e0...

[FredPret]

Musk waving a chainsaw is one out of many hundreds of millions of rich people. And there's reason to believe that he believes he's doing something that's good for society in the long run, even if you disagree with him.

[uoaei]

It's not often I come across someone who so clearly identifies as a temporarily embarrassed millionaire.

By definition, 1% of the world's population is 80MM people, so your "hundreds of millions" statement bares your ideological slant more than you may realize.

[FredPret]

Your comment has two lines but manages to be very puzzling indeed.

"temporarily embarrassed millionaire" is a term that bares your ideological slant, which I hope and I'm sure you realize. But that you pose our ideological differences as a problem is bizarre. You do realize the world contains left- and right-wingers, and that probably 90% of the population is somewhere in the middle, right? And that this is OK? Or do you insist that everyone see things 100% as you do?

Also, who said only the 1% is rich? If I say it's the top 2% then we're well into the hundreds of millions, no? And what about all the rich people who were alive in the past, can we not use their attitudes for our discussion too? And what if we pick a numeric cutoff to be considered rich, or a qualitative one?

[uoaei]

> "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" is a term that bares your ideological slant

It's a relatively common term in discussions around inequality and the ways we conceive of its moral qualities. John Steinbeck, the famous American author, coined the term to describe a widespread phenomenon in how people justify their advocacy for pro-oligarch policies despite not having the same levels of wealth themselves. It's not ideological so much as it's an explication of the implicit aspects of ideologies expressed by others.

> You do realize the world contains left- and right-wingers, and that probably 90% of the population is somewhere in the middle...

Politics is not a one-dimensional spectrum, and no one believes it is except those whose view of politics is exclusively derived from American media conglomerates who reinforce the illusions that prop up the two-party system. Further, refusing to have opinions by first drawing a false dichotomy and then rejecting both fictitious poles is cowardly.

> Also, who said only the 1% is rich?

We live in a society that's based on certain conceptual scaffolds. One of them is the base-10 system. Divining these assumptions and using them to discuss these ideas with others is just how society works with respect to communication and discourse, it's not some massive conspiracy designed to make you look foolish. That appears to be your prerogative regardless.

[wqaatwt]

> that he believes he's doing something that's good

That seems entirely irrelevant? Pretty sure Napoleon, Stalin etc. did too.

> one out of many hundreds of millions

That’s like saying that the president of the US is one out of many millions of politicians..

[yndoendo]

Empathy is intelligence, a void of empathy is lack of intelligence. Empathy is the only means to "put your self in someone else's shoes".

I would also classify narcissism as a void of intelligence, they cannot be honest with others and themselves. They always must be right and know everything when they are wrong and know nothing about the subject.

Lacking empathy and being a narcissist does not benefit society, only one's self interests. That is billionaire, not millionaire, Elon Musk. He is just selling the idea of "doing something good" to improve his self interests.

How many charities does he fund? How much of with wealth goes to studying the eradication of disease like cancer or parkinson's?

But don't worry, his statement from 2014 about full self driving cars are just around the corner and will help humanity reach it's peak. Just like traveling to Mars. /s

His actions actually harm society. Hungry children have reduced mental capabilities to advance in school and their futures. He choose to actively harm future generations and those he doesn't deem worthy.