ObjectivityIncarnate

It’s the cloudflare one for me, yeah. The bit where it says how many things are blocked on the page you’re currently on seems to always say “2”.

Honestly didn’t even notice until this thread, lol.

I sometimes forget that there are no ads on the Fediverse to begin with.

Just glanced up to uBlock Origin and that number’s not zero, so…maybe not visual ads, but there isn’t nothing.

Smugness and delusion in equal proportion, it seems.

I’m simply not equivocating protecting one’s person and protecting one’s assets, since it makes no sense to equivocate them.

It’s seriously absurd to call that “bootlicking”, and you’re only calling it “euphemistic” because you failed to grasp what was a very simply-stated statement.

If you Internet Tough Guys were ever going to do anything, you would have already. This is nothing more than an impotent circlejerk, not to mention it also violates Rules 3 and 4 of this community.

The thing that annoys me the most is the amount of money it takes to protect their wealth…the money paid for private guards and security alone is in the hundreds of millions.

Considering the above “protecting your wealth” instead of simply protecting yourself from hostile third parties is extremely disingenuous.

another group that has contributed nothing at all

This is what you’ve arbitrarily decided is the case, though, not the reality.

Yet your argument is: It’s wrong because it would be against the law (“theft”)

No, your assumption is apparently that the word “theft” has an inextricably law-based definition. It doesn’t—stealing’s immoral, that’s all there is to it.

it’s not theft to take back something that belongs to you.

Agreed, but irrelevant, as you’re talking about taking, not taking back. It doesn’t belong to you just because you decided it does.

Value is always and exclusively derived from labor.

That’s a ridiculous statement (re “exclusively”). As an extremely simple/obvious example that refutes this: the best cashier in the world’s skills are worthless unless a store already exists for them to cashier in.

It’s absurd to think the worker is entitled to 100% of the value their labor produces. Both employer and employee come together for that value creation to be possible. Neither entity alone can create that value, so they both deserve a portion of the result of their symbiosis; neither side deserves 100%.

“Profit = theft” is a moronic notion.

this argument is roughly on the same level as “drugs are illegal because they are prohibited.”

No, it isn’t, at all. I’m talking about morality, not legality. Total straw man on your part.

A full audit every year, and then you simply tax any wealth over the 500M mark. It’s that easy.

If, hypothetically, those audits ended up costing more than the additional tax revenue they yield, resulting in overall tax revenue decreasing, would you still want to do it?

why it would be wrong to take everything from the rich except, say, 500 million.

It’s wrong because theft is wrong. Just because the thing you’re stealing is something the victim can do without, doesn’t magically make it not theft.

So theft it remains, and wrong it remains, because theft is wrong.

Pretty simple, really.

Can you show a single example of someone actually expressing this sentiment, though? I’ve seen “quotes” like this hundreds of times, but never anyone on the ‘other side’ ever actually make this argument.

Holy false dichotomy.

When Firefox started recording key strokes

Source? That’s news to me, and when I tried finding a source myself, all I found were extensions etc. to add that to the browser.

EDIT: Both the comment I replied to, and a comment replying to me by the same person, have been deleted…were they caught in a lie/mistake and not brave enough to admit it? lol

I’m confused, didn’t you answer your own question?

No, there is a difference in motivation between doing whatever you want because you believe it’s hopeless re ‘consuming ethically’, and doing whatever you want because you’ve never given a single thought to the matter of ‘ethical consumption’ at all.

My contention is simply that the vast majority of people who ‘do whatever’ are in the latter category, that’s all.

people who interpret “no ethical consumption under capitalism” as a license to do whatever they want, because it’s all unethical.

Have you actually encountered someone who did this? Everyone I’ve ever known of who was in the ‘do whatever they want’ mindset, certainly wasn’t because of how they interpreted that ‘slogan’, it was just because they don’t give a shit to begin with—they almost certainly had never even heard it before.

I remember the joke that Microsoft called it that deliberately so that if people wrote “I hate ME” it wouldn’t sound like they were trashing the OS.

You thought that because the headline is pretty deliberately misleading. Clickbait trash.

The article is clear the broken update effects a specific subset of enterprise users, on a specific mix of base versions and cumulative updates.

So you admit the headline is lying, then? The headline doesn’t even try to use weasel words to say “some users”, it just straight-up says that the update removes things, heavily implying both that it’s a global change, and that it’s deliberate.

You mean the same Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) that Trump and Musk killed the enforcement of after a tweet? (Both billionaires, btw.)

Goalpost move, you said billionaires prevent those laws from passing. They passed. You lied. The end.

Are you arguing that a 1% excise tax limited to stock buybacks (even lower than the 2 and 3% I already argued won’t change the status quo) in any way counters [anything]?

Nope. A new tax that applies only to the wealthiest demographic successfully passing is just another refutation of your assertion that billionaires prevent legislation that affects them negatively from passing, and that’s the only reason I mentioned it. More desperate goalpost moves.

For every legal loophole that is closed

So you admit they do get closed. I thought billionaires never let detrimental legislation pass?

It would be convenient for you, if I were to suggest that, or any other argument you try to put in my mouth.

Behold, your words, verbatim:

When those policies conflict with the interests of billionaires, the billionaires stop them from passing.