Hatred often makes you want to hurt people, but people hurt peope in the name of greed more often, and not only with less potential for guilt, but is often the cause of delusional accolades and reassurance both from within oneself and from others.
Hypothetical:
A CEO lays off 10,000 employees that helped that company succeed, solely to increase earnings and not because the company is hurting, not only seriously hurting 9,997 people, but causing 3 to commit suicide.
A bumpkin gets in a fight with someone he hates the melanin of because he’s a moron and kills them.
Who did more damage to humanity that day? They’re both, I want to say evil but evil is subjective, they’re both highly antisocial, knowingly harmful behaviors, yet one correctly sends you to prison for a long time if not forever, while the other, far more premeditated and quite literally calculated act, is literally rewarded and partied about. Jim Kramer gives you a shout out on tv, good fucking times amirite!
Edit: and this felt relevant to post after someone tried to lecture me about equating layoffs to murder.
“Coca-Cola killed trade unionists in Latin America. General Motors built vehicles known to catch fire. Tobacco companies suppressed cancer research. And Boeing knew that its planes were dangerous. Corporations don’t care if they kill people — as long as it’s profitable.”
https://jacobin.com/2020/01/corporations-profit-values-murder-culture-boeing
When I hoard it’s a mental illness.
When billionaire hoards he’s just successful.
Bullshit
Hoards newspapers
People harmed: themselves
Society’s Verdict: Mentally ill
Hoards capital
People harmed: innumerable exploited employees deprived of receiving most of the value they produce.
Society’s Verdict: virtuous job creator, titan of industry, esteemed member of the business community, role model
Capital cannot be hoarded, or it loses value. The entire existence of capital is tied to its use.
Jeff Bezos does not have a vault full of money
everything you’ve said is incorrect.
Lmao it really isn’t. You have been lied to.
If Bezos had a vault full of cash, he would be poor. His wealth is tied to his assets, and his biggest asset is the best logistics company in human history.
Hate Bezos all ya want, but his wealth is not in cash or gold or any other hoardable thing.
Oh wow. Indoctrinated much? That’s literally all wrong. In fact the dictionary defines Capital as…
wealth in the form of money or other assets owned by a person or organization or available or contributed for a particular purpose such as starting a company or investing.
Bezos is found is literally in a lot of those horrible things. Granted there is a lot of perceived value in his company. But even if that went belly up today he would still be a wealthy man.
I think this will be a pretty popular opinion here, but in society at large it’s definitely unpopular.
not sure if related but a lot of ancient cultures have many rules to hold back envy for a more stable society. they can be very exterme leading to say the recent mask protest in iran but current culture might be the other extreme so to speak.
As much as it is necessary, greed is something very abstract and extremely difficult to prove in courts.
Not really. If there’s a known defect in a product that has the potential to severely impact the quality of a person’s life… and the company decides it’s cheaper to pay the lawsuits than proceed with a recall… that’s greed.
Any time profit takes precedence over the customers health and well-being… that’s fucking greed.
deleted by creator
I’d argue greed is a hate crime. A crime against humanity too.
Greed is a form of hate
I disagree, that implies that greedy people care about the people they hurt when that isn’t the case, and in fact the opposite is true.
Someone who hates another or others is emotional and passionate about them. They care about how those people are doing, in that they care if they’re suffering and want it to be so.
Capitalists don’t tend to operate on the basis of hatred at all, it’s worse in my opinion, they operate on the absense of caring about how their actions affect others, which is sociopathy. They either are or work hard to conduct themselves as sociopaths, only concerned with themselves, and only sees others as disposable means to facilitate their material desires, with their only fears being personal repurcussians for their antisocial acts, not the actual harm they inflict.
A Nazi that hates Jewish people sees the Jewish people’s torment or destruction as their desired goal, their endgame.
A capitalist that kills people through negligence did so to increase profits by cutting safety corners hoping not to get caught, their focus is on getting more money, they likely have no strong emotions whatsoever for the peope they killed, those people’s deaths were a “just business” means to the goal of pocketing more money.
Greed’s destructiveness comes out of apathy/indifference of the effect ones greedy actions have on others, the opposite of where hatred’s destructiveness comes from, hyperfixation on the suffering of others as the goal.
Well, agreed, but you can’t reform greed out of capitalism.
As of roughly 24 hours past, I’d say an over 500 more likes to dislikes ratio doesn’t, to me at least, count as an unpopular opinion. Especially when it’s only around 35 dislikes.
You like it when you think it is unpopular
Why not. We already have lust crimes too
they’re bothsupposedly “deadly sins”; i’m just not sure if it isn’t people other than the sinners who get the death part of the deal.
That’s actually a fantastic way to word what I’ve been thinking about for years. Greed crimes.
I don’t know where you’re from, but as an American, I’d rally for that to be an amendment.
What if CEO doesn’t fire people, company goes bankrupt, 20,000 ppl lose their jobs, thousands more lose a lot of money on stock market? There’s no way to account for everything, not to mention enforcement of this would be biased, so big companies would probably ending up benefitting from that somehow…
Except the CEO still walks away with millions because they were being paid a ridiculous salary. If they took a pay cut the company would still be standing.
deleted by creator
So in your hypothetical, the best choice is for the CEO to continue paying 10,000 people for doing work that is apparently no longer necessary, basically as charity?
Look at it from the other direction: Those 10000 did nothing wrong. And yet some of them lost their livelihoods, some lost lives. The CEO, assuming he is the guy who started the company, and not someone else who came in, could not create the company without them, yet the CEO is the only one who gets rich.
Again, the company does not need to fire them, they can be routed to other divisions to other workflows, they can take some responsibility from other workers, but they were not, they were fired, simply to enrich someone who already got richer from their work, while giving them a small sliver of the reward.
And if they are valuable contributors they will find new opportunities.
Again, paying people based on past contributions is not healthy for anyone. Take sports teams for illustration. It would be like a sports team continuing to pay athletes long after their prime and into older ages regardless of value. This means these athletes no longer find new ventures (coaching, scouting, business avenues) and the team sputters taking the whole organization down.
