The Cult of Progress

[Cognisant]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Do you believe that people are fundamentally good?

The gnostics believe that people are fundamentally divine and that we held back from this divinity by a grand illusion, The Matrix is a good example, once Neo learned to free his mind he became a messiah like figure, unlocking an inherent divine power. There's an interesting parallel to this in the woke view of capitalism, becoming anti-capitalist won't give you superpowers, rather the capitalist world order is seen as a fundamentally exploitative/abusive system, one which creates inequality and damaged people.

The woke believe that people are fundamentally good, or at least they have the potential to be, this potential is taken from them by the inherent cruelty of capitalism. Everyone wants to be a productive member of society, we just don't all get the chance, that meth-head screaming at people on the street isn't a consequence of personal failings but rather a system that let him down. In Gnosticism the material world is evil, an illusion created by the Demiurge to entrap and corrupt us, the more involved you are with it, the more you care about material matters, the more corrupted you become.

Gnosticism is considered heresy by Catholicism, Judaism and Islam.
In their beliefs mankind is not inherently good, certainly not inherently divine, in their theology man (gender neutral) is born into sin and must strive to become better, you must earn your place in heaven.

Gnosticism is considered heresy because it places man above God in that man doesn't need saving but rather is capable of saving his or her self and ascending to an heaven of their own making. This creates an estrangement between man and God and if you need any convincing why that's a bad idea consider all the death cults throughout history, Jonestown is not a strictly modern phenomena, there have been hundreds throughout history and for every cult that was recorded there's likely dozens that weren't.

Now I'm not saying that there's some grand conspiracy and that all these apocalypse/death cults shared the same beliefs or even knew anything about each other, in fact I think it's most likely that they didn't and that the cultural impact of Jonestown has gone a long way towards preventing another apocalypse/death cult occurring.

Getting back to the cult of progress (woke) it's not as overtly spiritual, indeed it's ostensibly irreligious, and rather than an estrangement between man and God it creates an estrangement between man and capitalism, more specifically a grounded understanding of how value is created. This results in economic illiteracy which manifests as socialism which later evolves into communism as power is consolidated, as I've discussed before communism and fascism may be ideologically opposed but when put into practice they're essentially the same thing, totalitarianism, violent oppression and people starving.

Spoiler

Coming soon, part 2 where I go in detail about the pipeline from woke to socialist to communist to people dying.

 

[Puffy]

I'm not sure if it's helpful to equate wokism with socialism and communism. It certainly is more associated with the left, but not everyone in the left is for socialism and communism. Most people will be more centre.

Woke has more to say about specific social issues, that usually are centred around privilege and systemic barriers to the inclusion of certain populations. Woke people want those populations to be treated fairer as a bottom line. There probably are some woke people who propose socialism or communism as a solution. But most woke people you meet in everyday life aren't like that.

I would say the tech company I work for is woke in ethos; everyone at the company is a labour voter and conservative views are much rarer. There's a big emphasis on multiculturalism, diversity, climate sustainability, etc. But we're still a hierarchical profit-seeking company and everyone is on board with that. People are more concerned about redundancy in an uncertain market and making sure the company makes money for their own security than they are overthrowing capitalism and the further uncertainty that brings.

If your open to constructive feedback Cog I think you have a tendency to take a concept to its extreme and then caricature people you associate with it in light of that. Reality is much more fuzzy, and sometimes we need to be reminded that people are people with all their own complexities and are not necessarily who our ideology wants us to see them as. I've probably done the same in the past projecting my views of Christianity onto specific members like OT, etc.

 

[fractalwalrus]

Do you believe that people are fundamentally good?

I believe fundamentally people and their behavioral ranges have been selected for or against over time. Too many destructive individuals in an area would hobble the ability of the groups which tolerated those destructive individuals to compete with groups which had not been as internally destructive. That being said, there are plenty of ways one can be "harmful" and receive no Darwinian retribution. You can pillage a group's resources for yourself so long as you leave its members a bare level of subsistence and are able to mask your behavior with propaganda and a cadre loyal enforcers, who, themselves are rewarded for licking the boot. If this behavior is deemed as evil by one's individual axioms, then, since most people do not do this, they cannot be said to be bad. Would they do this, if given the chance? I find it doubtful, since it seems contrary to the structure of hierarchy for a society to be filled with individuals who refuse to be subordinate and only settle for wielding maximum power themselves. Cooperation often yields a higher chance for mutual rewards than the inherently risk-laden competitive strategy. Sometimes competition yields greater individual rewards, but also a greater chance for destruction.

There's an interesting parallel to this in the woke view of capitalism, becoming anti-capitalist won't give you superpowers, rather the capitalist world order is seen as a fundamentally exploitative/abusive system, one which creates inequality and damaged people.

This is not the 'woke' view of capitalism. This is capitalism. I challenge you to defend the position that it would not be abusive nor exploitative if I were to accrue massive wealth and power from some business I started, then to turn around and use that power and wealth to gain disproportionate influence in the systems that govern us. Woke a smokescreen shorthand term for people who seek to "own the libs" whilst refusing to actually engage in intellectual conversation about individual issues from people who are generally incapable of analyzing nuance.

more specifically a grounded understanding of how value is created. This results in economic illiteracy which manifests as socialism which later evolves into communism as power is consolidated, as I've discussed before communism and fascism may be ideologically opposed but when put into practice they're essentially the same thing, totalitarianism, violent oppression and people starving.

I would challenge you to explain your theory of how value is created. I have heard 2, and they do not appear to be mutually exclusive. 1) People determine that things are valuable (subjective). 2) Energy injected into a system in the form of labor or otherwise lead to an increase or decrease of the total value in a system. As I have said before, let's say a person values a stick, but values a spear more than a stick. Absent intervention from labor, the spear remains a stick and its state remains one of lower value. Refute this. Also, call it semantics, but Communism (stateless) has not been implemented in modern times to my knowledge. Furthermore, regimes that suck, repressive or not, usually face stiff resistance if they fail to deliver SOME tangible result to the populace. And how is it, that under fascism or socialism, that mass starvation and oppression were the rules for so long if people were starving and being oppressed for decades? Wouldn't you expect to see massive population declines if this were true? Look at the graphs, unless you don't trust them, in which case, screw it, let's just fill in the blanks with whatever a random person who looks pretty and taps into my primal emotional makeup says on the internet, because that is bound to be a superior source of truth. Maybe most of the people who post online videos about this stuff on YouTube have never actually studied history and have no idea what they are talking about, little independent thought or critical analysis, and just parrot back points that get them social recognition.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I'm not sure if it's helpful to equate wokism with socialism and communism. It certainly is more associated with the left, but not everyone in the left is for socialism and communism. Most people will be more centre.

In context of common wealth and US it might make sense. In context of larger world it makes zero sense. Guess who never had communism.

 

[Puffy]

I'm not sure if it's helpful to equate wokism with socialism and communism. It certainly is more associated with the left, but not everyone in the left is for socialism and communism. Most people will be more centre.

In context of common wealth and US it might make sense. In context of larger world it makes zero sense. Guess who never had communism.

I’m English, Cornish to be exact, and we’ve never had communism or socialism either. But true socialists are a minority here and I live in London which is one of the most left leaning places in the UK. There’s no threat of socialism taking over here any time soon lol.

 

[dr froyd]

if you think about the contemporary "woke", social-justice movements, and things like communism - even in their brutal stalinist form - it's easy forget that these are values of the Enlightement taken to their extreme utopian conclusion.

but there is an inherent problem (which Alexei Yurchak calls "Lefort's Paradox") which is not very hard to spot; if the ultimate goal of Enlightment values is the absolute liberation of society and the individual, then its implementation - which requires an authority that subjugates its population to the project - must create an authority that is somehow above, or external to its own ideals.

the liberation of society and the individual, creation of "the New Man" was indeed the goal of even stalinist communism. Except the implementation meant that society and individual came under absolute authoritarian control.

this is similar to contemporary liberal movements; the goal is liberation, but the implementation means controlling speech, controlling language, censoring political viewpoints, "canceling" and destroying anyone who disagrees with them, passing vaguely defined hate-speech laws, forcefully injecting the ideology into every part of culture, etc etc

the parallels are quite conspicuous

 

[ZenRaiden]

There’s no threat of socialism taking over here any time soon lol.

Yeah I too doubt it.

 

[ZenRaiden]

the parallels are quite conspicuous

I made a thread about this.

The totalitarian EU.
Something clearly needs to be done about this.
UK and Germany have censorship that is starting to be on par with totalitarian socialism.
There is also narrative control - a sort of ideology where speech is being surgically operated on, by using new phrases and using methods to alter reality.

To put this plainly. You cannot speak your mind, and you cannot write whatever you won't despite constitutional rights saying otherwise.

 

[fluffy]

"Gnosticism"

So you said it was about man saving himself.

Well at face value any time God interacts with a human that is a gnostic encounter.

So it is approved by God as God initiated it.

The problem with the cult per say is that people claim God want you to do this or that action in the real world. Even if they never knew God. The same can be said of any political movement where some dude say to do what he says. Same for anyone talking about Jesus who never met Jesus.

The quorum I have is that if man was not capable of being saved then God would not save him/her - Man needs to share some commonality with God or no interaction would be possible. It was said that God lives in you that we are God's living temple. If so we are not the opposite of God which is evil. That doesn't mean we save ourselves. It means God can commune with us.

Some people cannot follow this simple logic. They say we both are evil and God loves us but that is stupid. God does not love evil so humans cannot be pure evil. We must be somewhere in-between. God loves us so we must be partially divine otherwise no one will ever go to heaven. In heaven everyone will be fully divine like God is. There will be no sin.

 

[Puffy]

the parallels are quite conspicuous

I made a thread about this.

The totalitarian EU.
Something clearly needs to be done about this.
UK and Germany have censorship that is starting to be on par with totalitarian socialism.
There is also narrative control - a sort of ideology where speech is being surgically operated on, by using new phrases and using methods to alter reality.

To put this plainly. You cannot speak your mind, and you cannot write whatever you won't despite constitutional rights saying otherwise.

Can you give examples of what you're referring to?

The only examples I've been given so far by OT was people being arrested for hate speech during recent violent protests, which when I investigated into for him were carried out on a basis that's consistent with UK law of at least the last 20 years.

It's possible I'm too much of a hermit that I don't notice these things living here, but if that's what you're referring to I do wonder if there's an element of people over-reacting and/or basing their opinions on skewed news.

 

[Puffy]

if you think about the contemporary "woke", social-justice movements, and things like communism - even in their brutal stalinist form - it's easy forget that these are values of the Enlightement taken to their extreme utopian conclusion.

but there is an inherent problem (which Alexei Yurchak calls "Lefort's Paradox") which is not very hard to spot; if the ultimate goal of Enlightment values is the absolute liberation of society and the individual, then its implementation - which requires an authority that subjugates its population to the project - must create an authority that is somehow above, or external to its own ideals.

the liberation of society and the individual, creation of "the New Man" was indeed the goal of even stalinist communism. Except the implementation meant that society and individual came under absolute authoritarian control.

this is similar to contemporary liberal movements; the goal is liberation, but the implementation means controlling speech, controlling language, censoring political viewpoints, "canceling" and destroying anyone who disagrees with them, passing vaguely defined hate-speech laws, forcefully injecting the ideology into every part of culture, etc etc

the parallels are quite conspicuous

The problem with this parallel to me is that of extremes similar to what I was trying to say to Cog. Stalinist Russia was f%$king brutal. Up to 9 million people died from starvation alone. In comparison what we're talking about here is debate around whether social media posts are being censored under the guise of hate speech laws. When people make comparisons like this it causes a part of my brain to stop taking it seriously as these things aren't in the same ballpark and makes me feel like over-exaggeration is happening.

 

[ZenRaiden]

This woman got fired simply because she wrote a book. That is Germany.


Glenn Diesen was kicked out of youtube platform for a good while. Now his back, not sure why.

There are several journalist that were de-platformed on youtube, simply because they spoke out about certain issues. Some spoke about Palestine.
I don't remember their names, but they were or still are sometimes featured as guests on Jimmy Dore show, but their channels were wiped.

There is lot more of soft censorship going on too.

I do admit I never investigated whole lot of these, but just by virtue of following these people there was a lot of talk of censorship.

Most censored issue is Ukraine and Palestine.

The only examples I've been given so far by OT was people being arrested for hate speech during recent violent protests, which when I investigated into for him were carried out on a basis that's consistent with UK law of at least the last 20 years.

Interesting. I feel like investigating this stuff myself.
I feel like there could be cases were hate speech is equivocated with free-speech.
However there is definitely pressure to clamp down on free expression nonetheless.

We have for instance seen the pro Palestine protests being smeared and targeted and even shut down. That alone is just pure crap.

I am definitely going to try to broaden my research on this topic, because most channels I follow have had or have issues with free-speech. Though no one channel investigated to detail every instance. So maybe the devil is in details.
From what I can tell there is certainly narrative control that has been pretty consistent and criticized overall.

 

[Cognisant]

I'm not sure if it's helpful to equate wokism with socialism and communism. It certainly is more associated with the left, but not everyone in the left is for socialism and communism. Most people will be more centre.

Woke has more to say about specific social issues, that usually are centred around privilege and systemic barriers to the inclusion of certain populations. Woke people want those populations to be treated fairer as a bottom line. There probably are some woke people who propose socialism or communism as a solution. But most woke people you meet in everyday life aren't like that.

Of course not, nobody wants totalitarianism, nobody wants to have their rights and private property taken from them, nobody wants their society taken over by a cult that believes their ideology somehow supersedes reality.

But progress sounds good, in the name of multiculturalism, diversity, climate sustainability and other moral causes they're willing to accept some sacrifices, it's not the loss of freedom it's just more rules and regulations, it's a good thing that the government is progressively interfering with your personal affairs. You need a license to own chickens and that's a good thing, you can't collect rainwater on your property without approval and that's a good thing, the government is implementing an effectively mandatory digital ID and legally restricting anyone under 16 from accessing the internet and that's a good thing.

The government is giving themselves the exclusive right to sue any social media company 5% of their global revenue if they don't enforce censorship of misinformation and disinformation, the definition of which is decided behind closed doors and can be changed at any time. And that's a good thing.

You don't start with totalitarianism, you start with the consolidation of power, you erode people's freedom and independence and you brainwash them into thinking it's a good thing, that they've always wanted it, that each step is one more in the march to progress.

 

[ZenRaiden]

The problem with this parallel to me is that of extremes similar to what I was trying to say to Cog. Stalinist Russia was f%$king brutal. Up to 9 million people died from starvation alone. In comparison what we're talking about here is debate around whether social media posts are being censored under the guise of hate speech laws. When people make comparisons like this it causes a part of my brain to stop taking it seriously as these things aren't in the same ballpark and makes me feel like over-exaggeration is happening.

I think this is absolutely wrong take.
Stalinist Russia was brutal but 1989 was not Stalinist and people still had to fight for freedom.
I would argue the censorship is on par or similar to Communist countries.
For comparison sake I had to follow million un official channels just to learn basic facts about Ukraine war. Its very reminiscent of times when people used to listen to western radio station in order to learn about the west.
You cannot get straight and proper information on this topic in mainstream media.
And there is a lot of other stuff including Palestine that is very dramatically curtailed.
Stalin did not live that long. But in 1989 main issue was censorship during Velvet revolution.
The issue of socialism were multifaceted. There were secret services privacy issues, the running through barbed wire to the west, and of course other issues, but censorship and ability to speak your mind are issues even now.
Socialism was very particular about what could be said and not said.
Many things could be said freely like today. It was not the issue. The issue was many things that were politically charged could not be said.
We could very well be going down a pretty slipper and short slope here, and end up right in socialism type censoreship. Id argue with Ukraine we are already there.

 

[Hadoblado]

if you think about the contemporary "woke", social-justice movements, and things like communism - even in their brutal stalinist form - it's easy forget that these are values of the Enlightement taken to their extreme utopian conclusion.

but there is an inherent problem (which Alexei Yurchak calls "Lefort's Paradox") which is not very hard to spot; if the ultimate goal of Enlightment values is the absolute liberation of society and the individual, then its implementation - which requires an authority that subjugates its population to the project - must create an authority that is somehow above, or external to its own ideals.

the liberation of society and the individual, creation of "the New Man" was indeed the goal of even stalinist communism. Except the implementation meant that society and individual came under absolute authoritarian control.

this is similar to contemporary liberal movements; the goal is liberation, but the implementation means controlling speech, controlling language, censoring political viewpoints, "canceling" and destroying anyone who disagrees with them, passing vaguely defined hate-speech laws, forcefully injecting the ideology into every part of culture, etc etc

the parallels are quite conspicuous

The problem with this parallel to me is that of extremes similar to what I was trying to say to Cog. Stalinist Russia was f%$king brutal. Up to 9 million people died from starvation alone. In comparison what we're talking about here is debate around whether social media posts are being censored under the guise of hate speech laws. When people make comparisons like this it causes a part of my brain to stop taking it seriously as these things aren't in the same ballpark and makes me feel like over-exaggeration is happening.

While I don't think it's as clear-cut as Froyd says, it's a lot closer to some sort of middle ground than say, "progressivism is an economically illiterate deathcult who believe in original sinlessness suppressed only by capitalism".

Societies don't just flip to fascist overnight, there's a granular adjustment year over year until the original intention is no longer recognisable. Hitler didn't start with deathcamps, he started . People are right to be concerned when governments exercise unilateral control over speech, even if well-intentioned at first. While we don't experience it as particularly menacing, legislation becomes precedent and precedent informs future laws which may be written by people with nefarious intent.

My contention with this line of thinking is that the information environment has changed and demands regulation, even if it's also correct to be concerned about it. People can literally purchase and manipulate information environments which has the potential to essentially dictate (hyper)reality for populations. This isn't speculative or a slippery slope, it's happening right now.

Silencing the people can be holding their mouth shut, but it can also be shouting down the real signal with a false one, and this is trivially easy to do through algorithm manipulation and bot farms. The result is the same, disenfranchised or manipulated people beholden to the interests of the powerful.

I think we should absolutely be terrified of governments creating vague legislation allowing them to control speech. But leaving speech entirely unregulated in the age of botfarms, deepfakes, and algorithmic manipulation is even more certain to lead to dystopia. We need good, clear, bipartisan regulation not to censor the hard R or to preserve pronouns, but to stop the literal end of truth and history. There needs to be some mechanism in place to stop billionaires and governments from absolute power over narrative. The free market won't work for this one.

 

[Cognisant]

Hitler didn't start with deathcamps, he started .

Missing some words there bud.

There needs to be some mechanism in place to stop billionaires and governments from absolute power over narrative. The free market won't work for this one.

I think a decentralized democratized media is the best outcome we can hope for, social commentators like Joe Rogan rely upon a personal brand of authenticity, which is not to say he's right, rather that he believes he is and shares his reasoning. Other commentators then comment upon his beliefs/reasoning and those who are insightful, who are able to explain why they're correct and Rogan is wrong, they gain a following at Rogan's expense.

Doomcock and the Critical Drinker have built careers on calling out Disney for pushing agendas at the expense of the quality of their content, Jordan Peterson has become a household name by challenging the biases of the mental health system and how it overlaps with politics.

I fail to see how we get something closer to a peer-reviewed meritocracy, and if that's not the goal then what is?

Imo it's impossible to create any kind of reliable central authority on truth, the solution to who watches the watchers isn't another yet further elevated group of watchers, it's everybody.

 

[Hadoblado]

...he started by piecemeal legislation. The first deathcamp wasn't until 1941.

Re: What to do about media
I don't think these people work. Joe Rogan couldn't even push back on Terrance Howard's "1x1=2". He is just a megaphone for entertaining ideas. I like Joe Rogan as a person, I don't think he represents a good way forward for how to preserve modernity. I'm obviously not going to be super excited by the people who inform you representing the way forward for our information economy.

I agree there are difficulties surrounding a central authority. I think distributed power and independence are key. I don't want a ministry of truth, but the free speech absolutists need to acknowledge the problem and be prepared to compromise in the face of considerations for the modern information environment. Doing nothing is not an option anymore. If you do nothing, the elites win 100%.

 

[fluffy]

I see what @dr froyd is saying but at a pivotal disjoint. We cannot program humans the way we thought possible before. That is in the blank slate fashion. Old science was not capable of using electricity to raise the dead ala Frankenstein. Nor could we brainwash people to be more intelligent without understanding genetics. But I doubt people can say nothing of what does work today.

Elites exist and plan society. The Free Masons as example mapping the earth from the Egyptian technology. And computers today doing crazy shit. It makes sense they know things 20 years in advance. It is the dumb people that believe they can make utopia by being hippies. But indeed a great number of people exist that need help, only they cannot make computers and nanotech. It is a stratification. The lizard people are doing this lol and we need to stop them with crystal healing rituals. Otherwise we lose free speech. See my point? Let's meet at the McDonald's on Tuesday.

 

[Cognisant]

I agree there are difficulties surrounding a central authority. I think distributed power and independence are key. I don't want a ministry of truth, but the free speech absolutists need to acknowledge the problem and be prepared to compromise in the face of considerations for the modern information environment. Doing nothing is not an option anymore. If you do nothing, the elites win 100%.

I'm certain by the "elites" you mean Trump, Vance, Elon, etc, and not Biden and Harris who had the clear backing of the mainstream (legacy) media and a slew of celebrity endorsements, heck even Google's Gemini and Amazon's Alexa were busted for refusing to speak about Trump while giving glowing endorsements of Harris.

And yet Trump won in a landslide victory.*

When Elon took over X he unbanned Trump, who was banned unjustly during the January 6th riots, clearly to shut him up as he was telling people to stand down, and Elon hasn't retaliated. Biden and Harris have X accounts, they're free to say whatever they want and be fact checked, likewise Trump and Elon get fact checked by the X community all the time.

Elon understands that X as a social media platform has value as a means for people to talk to each other, even if they disagree, especially if they disagree, my worst nightmare is coming to this forum someday to discover everyone agrees with me because what is there to talk about?

Nobody's obligated to use X, other platforms are created all the time with the stated intention of being X killers and there is a precedent for this, many social media platforms that were THE platform of their time have collapsed into irrelevancy and I think it coincides with them "curating" their membership. Once a social media platform becomes a curated club for like minded people, the conversation dies and there's no longer much point to posting there, especially if you want to be heard by the people who disagree with you.

*: This is proof that what we have now is working and keep in mind if you think Trump won because he has undue influence over social, so you want to give more power to the government to regulate that media, well he's the one in government now, so do you want to give that power to him or do you only want to give it to the side you agree with?

Personally I don't think anyone should be regulating social media other than the owners of the platforms and they enact censorship at their own peril.

 

[Hadoblado]

You're certain, but wrong.

I do mean them, but I also mean others. I don't want Harris or Soros or Obama or anyone having that sort of power. I don't like these people, I don't want them turning into Gods on the DL.

I said:

I think distributed power and independence are key. I don't want a ministry of truth, but the free speech absolutists need to acknowledge the problem and be prepared to compromise in the face of considerations for the modern information environment.

You heard:

Whatever tf you wanted again.

 

[Cognisant]

I don't want a ministry of truth, but the free speech absolutists need to acknowledge the problem and be prepared to compromise in the face of considerations for the modern information environment. Doing nothing is not an option anymore. If you do nothing, the elites win 100%.

Ok so let's break this down.

1. You want free speech absolutists to be open to acknowledge the problem.
2. You want free speech absolutists to be open to compromise.
3. Doing nothing is not an option.
4. If we do nothing the elites win 100%.

First, what is the problem? Because from where I'm standing there isn't a problem, as I've just explained Trump had the legacy media stacked against him and he still won which demonstrates that the legacy media cannot play proverbial kingmaker.

Nobody's stopping the political left from engaging in new media, indeed given that young people are more engaged in the new media and young people are predominantly left aligned you'd think this would be home turf for the left.

To me that they lost and Trump won is concrete proof that we don't have a problem with misinformation or disinformation, rather it appears to me that the new media is becoming an excellent meritocratic processor of information, that Harris lost and Trump won based on a sober assessment of their policies (or lack thereof for Harris).

Second, what compromise? It sounds like you have a compromise in mind (a solution to the problem) but you're not sharing it with us, and surely you have something in mind. Because if you're saying you want compromise but you have no idea what that compromise ought to be, that's not constructive criticism, that's just whining.

Four and five, ok so we don't know what the problem is or what your proposed solution is but apparently it has something to do with "the elites" and something must be done to stop the elites from... I don't know, I'm not even sure who the elites are.

This is my problem with you, that you don't explain anything, you just throw shit at us and expect us to accept it at face value and of course being a fucking idiot I try to use my intuition to fill in the gaps, and then you accuse me of misinterpreting you.

How can I not misinterpret you when you're so vague?

I suppose I can continuously ask you to clarify everything, oh wait I did ask you a question:

I fail to see how we get something closer to a peer-reviewed meritocracy, and if that's not the goal then what is?

And then you didn't answer it because you're allergic to clarity.

 

[dr froyd]

The problem with this parallel to me is that of extremes similar to what I was trying to say to Cog. Stalinist Russia was f%$king brutal. Up to 9 million people died from starvation alone. In comparison what we're talking about here is debate around whether social media posts are being censored under the guise of hate speech laws. When people make comparisons like this it causes a part of my brain to stop taking it seriously as these things aren't in the same ballpark and makes me feel like over-exaggeration is happening.

i don't think this really touches upon the point of my post, but a question to what you just wrote:

at what point would you start worrying about these things... when you're shackled up on a train to the gulag?

or do you imagine that lenin took the stage in 1921 and declared: "folks, we abolished the monarchy, but unfortunately we will now ban free speech, set up concentration camps, and enslave all of you"

 

[dr froyd]

My contention with this line of thinking is that the information environment has changed and demands regulation, even if it's also correct to be concerned about it. People can literally purchase and manipulate information environments which has the potential to essentially dictate (hyper)reality for populations. This isn't speculative or a slippery slope, it's happening right now.

when news media was limited to a handful of TV stations and newspapers, do you assume it was less susceptible to manipulation?

let's assume that these bots is the real problem that is supposed to be tackled here. Why is there a need for bots in the first place? Well because you're dealing with a de-centralized environment that is hard to manipulate by sole individuals.

so it's a bit of a poorly designed rhetorical trick to say: when media was centralized everything was fine and dandy, but because we have bots in a decentralized setup, that's a severe issue and we need government to control these platforms.

 

[Puffy]

The problem with this parallel to me is that of extremes similar to what I was trying to say to Cog. Stalinist Russia was f%$king brutal. Up to 9 million people died from starvation alone. In comparison what we're talking about here is debate around whether social media posts are being censored under the guise of hate speech laws. When people make comparisons like this it causes a part of my brain to stop taking it seriously as these things aren't in the same ballpark and makes me feel like over-exaggeration is happening.

i don't think this really touches upon the point of my post, but a question to what you just wrote:

at what point would you start worrying about these things... when you're shackled up on a train to the gulag?

or do you imagine that lenin took the stage in 1921 and declared: "folks, we abolished the monarchy, but unfortunately we will now ban free speech, set up concentration camps, and enslave all of you"

When the weight of evidence points towards it. I do look into alternative claims when they’re presented to me but often it feels like there’s more to it and that it’s more complicated than presented. The example of the hate speech arrests in the UK riots this year being an example of that.

It’s a trite example but think of all the times people on this forum have claimed censorship and authoritarianism over mod behaviors here. I’ve been in that modbox and can assure you mods have no interest in gulags, they were more concerned about creating an inclusive environment here for people who might be put off by certain types of messages. So it’s a well intended behavior that has a side effect of inhibiting absolute free speech. But it’s not necessarily a sign that concentration camps are around the corner.

 

[dr froyd]

they were more concerned about creating an inclusive environment here for people who might be put off by certain types of messages. So it’s a well intended behavior that has a side effect of inhibiting absolute free speech.

well on a very microscopic scale, that's the beginnings of the paradox i was describing in my post.

i think the ending of that post made it sound like my main goal was equating stalinist communism with modern liberals. That was a side point lol, it's more about the inherent problem of trying to create a liberal utopia by means of authority.

look, in UK you have "non-crime hate incidents" where the police just show up at your house for stuff you said on social media - not for the purpose of charging you with anything but just intimidation, like mafia goons, or how the KGB would break into people's homes when they're not at home and re-arrange furniture just to let people know they are on the government's radar. There's people who can see the longer-term progression of that kind of thing, because guess what: authorities who seek control over its people don't tend to relinquish it out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

[Puffy]

they were more concerned about creating an inclusive environment here for people who might be put off by certain types of messages. So it’s a well intended behavior that has a side effect of inhibiting absolute free speech.

well on a very microscopic scale, that's the beginnings of the paradox i was describing in my post.

i think the ending of that post made it sound like my main goal was equating stalinist communism with modern liberals. That was a side point lol, it's more about the inherent problem of trying to create a liberal utopia by means of authority.

look, in UK you have "non-crime hate incidents" where the police just show up at your house for stuff you said on social media - not for the purpose of charging you with anything but just intimidation, like mafia goons, or how the KGB would break into people's homes when they're not at home and re-arrange furniture just to let people know they are on the government's radar. There's people who can see the longer-term progression of that kind of thing, because guess what: authorities who seek control over its people don't tend to relinquish it out of the goodness of their hearts.

I'm hoping we might find some common ground in agreeing that Keir Starmer is probably too incompetent to organise a gulag.

I went through a hard-left phase in my mid-20s and was at some of the same parties as Jeremy Corbyn and his mates. Then one day I went to an AGM with the grand vision of "overthrowing capitalism" only to be met with 3 days of arguing over what colour the logo should be. I achieved the enlightenment that they were all fucking idiots who couldn't get laid in a brothel and - surprise, surprise - Corbyn lost the election.

 

[fluffy]

It is not about the top politicians that makes a gulag. But the system created before hand.

You expect the government will be good with the powers it has but in reality such powers need to be bound by more than good faith.

By this I mean that technology to control the population must not exceed certain limits. If it does then absolute tyranny ensues.

And when it does what will the people do.

They revolt.

 

[fluffy]

Google won't tell you the truth, but in the 1950s in Britain, 10% of the population were put in housing according to their status as dysgenic.

As I cannot verify it to you, all I can say is that before the algorithm changed, I saw a documentary where they said this.

 

[Hadoblado]

I don't want a ministry of truth, but the free speech absolutists need to acknowledge the problem and be prepared to compromise in the face of considerations for the modern information environment. Doing nothing is not an option anymore. If you do nothing, the elites win 100%.

Ok so let's break this down.

1. You want free speech absolutists to be open to acknowledge the problem.
2. You want free speech absolutists to be open to compromise.
3. Doing nothing is not an option.
4. If we do nothing the elites win 100%.

First, what is the problem? Because from where I'm standing there isn't a problem, as I've just explained Trump had the legacy media stacked against him and he still won which demonstrates that the legacy media cannot play proverbial kingmaker.

Nobody's stopping the political left from engaging in new media, indeed given that young people are more engaged in the new media and young people are predominantly left aligned you'd think this would be home turf for the left.

To me that they lost and Trump won is concrete proof that we don't have a problem with misinformation or disinformation, rather it appears to me that the new media is becoming an excellent meritocratic processor of information, that Harris lost and Trump won based on a sober assessment of their policies (or lack thereof for Harris).

Second, what compromise? It sounds like you have a compromise in mind (a solution to the problem) but you're not sharing it with us, and surely you have something in mind. Because if you're saying you want compromise but you have no idea what that compromise ought to be, that's not constructive criticism, that's just whining.

Four and five, ok so we don't know what the problem is or what your proposed solution is but apparently it has something to do with "the elites" and something must be done to stop the elites from... I don't know, I'm not even sure who the elites are.

This is my problem with you, that you don't explain anything, you just throw shit at us and expect us to accept it at face value and of course being a fucking idiot I try to use my intuition to fill in the gaps, and then you accuse me of misinterpreting you.

How can I not misinterpret you when you're so vague?

I suppose I can continuously ask you to clarify everything, oh wait I did ask you a question:

I fail to see how we get something closer to a peer-reviewed meritocracy, and if that's not the goal then what is?

And then you didn't answer it because you're allergic to clarity.

This is your last warning. I said I won't ban you without other mods, but I was talking about permabans. If you a) attack someone while b) misrepresenting their views I will temp ban you. It will start as a wrist slap one day ban (+1 day if your misrepresentation directly contradicts something they've recently said as is so often the case). Ban length is cumulative. So your second ban will be at least two days etcetc.

 

[Puffy]

I don't want a ministry of truth, but the free speech absolutists need to acknowledge the problem and be prepared to compromise in the face of considerations for the modern information environment. Doing nothing is not an option anymore. If you do nothing, the elites win 100%.

Ok so let's break this down.

1. You want free speech absolutists to be open to acknowledge the problem.
2. You want free speech absolutists to be open to compromise.
3. Doing nothing is not an option.
4. If we do nothing the elites win 100%.

First, what is the problem? Because from where I'm standing there isn't a problem, as I've just explained Trump had the legacy media stacked against him and he still won which demonstrates that the legacy media cannot play proverbial kingmaker.

Nobody's stopping the political left from engaging in new media, indeed given that young people are more engaged in the new media and young people are predominantly left aligned you'd think this would be home turf for the left.

To me that they lost and Trump won is concrete proof that we don't have a problem with misinformation or disinformation, rather it appears to me that the new media is becoming an excellent meritocratic processor of information, that Harris lost and Trump won based on a sober assessment of their policies (or lack thereof for Harris).

Second, what compromise? It sounds like you have a compromise in mind (a solution to the problem) but you're not sharing it with us, and surely you have something in mind. Because if you're saying you want compromise but you have no idea what that compromise ought to be, that's not constructive criticism, that's just whining.

Four and five, ok so we don't know what the problem is or what your proposed solution is but apparently it has something to do with "the elites" and something must be done to stop the elites from... I don't know, I'm not even sure who the elites are.

This is my problem with you, that you don't explain anything, you just throw shit at us and expect us to accept it at face value and of course being a fucking idiot I try to use my intuition to fill in the gaps, and then you accuse me of misinterpreting you.

How can I not misinterpret you when you're so vague?

I suppose I can continuously ask you to clarify everything, oh wait I did ask you a question:

I fail to see how we get something closer to a peer-reviewed meritocracy, and if that's not the goal then what is?

And then you didn't answer it because you're allergic to clarity.

This is your last warning. I said I won't ban you without other mods, but I was talking about permabans. If you a) attack someone while b) misrepresenting their views I will temp ban you. It will start as a wrist slap one day ban (+1 day if your misrepresentation directly contradicts something they've recently said as is so often the case). Ban length is cumulative. So your second ban will be at least two days etcetc.

Goddamn it, Hado. I was using modding here as an example and now dr froyd will use this as a demonstration that his slippery slope arguments are correct. You have undermined me XD

 

[Hadoblado]

It's just a visit to the gulag no biggie.

Timing was never my strong suit ^-^

 

[dr froyd]

I'm hoping we might find some common ground in agreeing that Keir Starmer is probably too incompetent to organise a gulag.

very true lol

 

[Puffy]

It's just a visit to the gulag no biggie.

Timing was never my strong suit ^-^

You could banish him back to Siberia, just saying.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Civilization is good I think.

The difference between foolish and naive is pretty clear to me.

I would agree that it would not be foolish: for one to look at the authority and influence the government commands, with great suspicion.

Ultimately who is this "entity" accountable to?

Does some document or piece of paper determine that? Does it really alter the fabric of reality? Or does it just trying to make it clear to humans who we are going to blame when something goes wrong?

Government, in it's most essential function, is that. Just a chain of liability.

Not to say that when you get to the end of that chain, someone will be held accountable of course. Very important. Probably the second most essential function after liability chain.

I find it hard to not see most people's Political prescriptions as a naive encounter with a low resolution problem they rarely demonstrate they can understand.

There are limitless times in history where lots of people were slaughtered, overnight. The most common factor there wasn't "socialist policies".

Super hard quotes on socialist policies. Wokism, whatever.

Though, I will say, that most of those times the people that were being slaughtered, were completely self sustaining, having a small economy where they traded with only each other.

I can guarantee that this is because in such an economy, a PRO-SOCIAL one, there is no need for violence, because resources are rationed and or in excess.

Violence wouldn't be encouraged (a lot) because the people want to live in a civil society, they sometimes trade with other parties, so they can usually buy peace with trade or other currency. Why bother having a defense strategy? A military?

Which is why they would be perfect targets to get pillaged by vikings or whatever.

Now, thanks to civilization, the energy it takes to orchestrate the mass murder of people outweighs the effort of just becoming a rich fucking CEO.

The techno-class atomizes the population is as many sub-cultures as it can, so that people whos opportunity cost favors raping and pillaging cant attain the Human Resources to do such atrocities, because everyone would rather have a 9-5 than die or go to jail for some dude who wants to be the government but differently and a probably a shit salary.

If we're lucky we might actual make a dyson sphere one day. I bet my quality of life would still be shit.

 

[ZenRaiden]

a sign that concentration camps are around the corner.

Do you think a policeman or security guard or for that matter law enforcement as such really is full aware of the effect they have on population.

I think this is the case of being cog in the machine type of thing.
Hence most things seem OK, because everything is divided, but when you put them together the result is something unexpected.

It worked just liked that in socialism. If you slice up socialism into parts in and of it self its a perfectly viable system. It has very few flaws really.

Its the issue that government overall when you put all things together results in problems.

Or otherwise, if we were fully aware of just how problematic the thing were then there would be no need to deal with it, because it would be readily obvious.
Well with things like this its not always obvious.

 

[Puffy]

a sign that concentration camps are around the corner.

Do you think a policeman or security guard or for that matter law enforcement as such really is full aware of the effect they have on population.

I think this is the case of being cog in the machine type of thing.
Hence most things seem OK, because everything is divided, but when you put them together the result is something unexpected.

It worked just liked that in socialism. If you slice up socialism into parts in and of it self its a perfectly viable system. It has very few flaws really.

Its the issue that government overall when you put all things together results in problems.

Or otherwise, if we were fully aware of just how problematic the thing were then there would be no need to deal with it, because it would be readily obvious.
Well with things like this its not always obvious.

I might be biased in that I keep thinking of the UK where I'm from. But the labour/progressive government here is hated and something of a joke. They're not like Stalinist Russia where Stalin can keep making the public ride his dick as long as he wants. Starmer doesn't even have the authority over his own dick to make it stand up. That's what I'm joking with dr froyd about. A slippery slope into socialism takes longevity and I sincerely doubt they will be able to keep it up that long. I wouldn't be surprised at all, as much as a weaselley mole man that he is, if Nigel Farage takes over in the next election playing a similar play as what Trump has just done.

Any notion this isn't the case is just a bunch of people on X catastrophising like some 'they took mah job' mob on South Park.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Any notion this isn't the case is just a bunch of people on X catastrophising like some mob on South Park.

NO I understand your skepticism. Hence my post.
What I mean is that politicians themselves are too dumb.
I mean politicians are cogs in the wheel house as well.
They are not on top of food chain by any means.
Trump is not on top of food chain either.
There are people above that that influence politics and we know that.
They are implementing changes.
If we can agree on that, its easy to see some Starmer guy as mere part of a bigger whole.
During Stalins time, Stalin was top of food chain. There was no one above him.
Today you have trillion-airs that run the world.
I mean the best way to explain this is like this:
If Trump is rich, there is probably 1000 000 other people that are waaay richer than him. Trump is realistically a small fish.
Lobby in US however can pay money to play for policies and outcomes of policies.
Same thing with UK> If a guy that works in politics works there he is payed woefully little money. Only way he makes money is he gets payed by someone who has money.
Its not the government money these people live of off.
I then doubt that people as such have biggest say in what goes on.

Now obviously most people still don't think government cannot be payed out by rich people and think government works for them and their vote.
But it sure as hell does not seem that people in government are the ones calling the shots.

Therefore the whole idea that some guy Starmer has some master plan is silly.
Does not mean there cannot be people above them who actually do have plans.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

See, there is this idea of some Sauron type character. I'm exagerating but yeah.

Trump is definitely high on the hierarchy. There is a hierarchy, but that only exists so long as there are people to do someone's bidding.

Trump is defacto at the top.

He might have less "stock" than certain collections of people, but there isn't much more capital a single person can influence when they are president. Unless of course maybe Elon Musk was president?

 

[Cognisant]

My contention with this line of thinking is that the information environment has changed and demands regulation, even if it's also correct to be concerned about it. People can literally purchase and manipulate information environments which has the potential to essentially dictate (hyper)reality for populations. This isn't speculative or a slippery slope, it's happening right now.

when news media was limited to a handful of TV stations and newspapers, do you assume it was less susceptible to manipulation?

let's assume that these bots is the real problem that is supposed to be tackled here. Why is there a need for bots in the first place? Well because you're dealing with a de-centralized environment that is hard to manipulate by sole individuals.

so it's a bit of a poorly designed rhetorical trick to say: when media was centralized everything was fine and dandy, but because we have bots in a decentralized setup, that's a severe issue and we need government to control these platforms.

This is what matters to me, what is the problem that needs to be solved and what is the solution to solving it?

Again I don't think there's a problem and I don't want the "solution".

This is how governments become totalitarian, they create find or make up problems that need to be solved and then use that as an excuse to implement a solution nobody wants. Nobody in Australia was crying out for a digital ID and age restrictions on internet access, but that's what the government wants to do so they came up with a paper thin excuse and now they're trying to force this blatant violation of our liberties upon us. The mis/dis-information bill is nothing but a grab for power from a government that already has far too much.

This is your last warning. I said I won't ban you without other mods, but I was talking about permabans. If you a) attack someone while b) misrepresenting their views I will temp ban you. It will start as a wrist slap one day ban (+1 day if your misrepresentation directly contradicts something they've recently said as is so often the case). Ban length is cumulative. So your second ban will be at least two days etcetc.

Do it, censor me.

I fail to see how we get something closer to a peer-reviewed meritocracy, and if that's not the goal then what is?

Or answer my question.

1. You want free speech absolutists to acknowledge the problem.
What's the problem?

2. You want free speech absolutists to be open to compromise.
What compromise?

These are fair questions Hado, I'm asking you to clarify your assertions, I'm not taking this "misinterpreting" bullshit from you while you're being so evasive and refusing to answer questions to clarify your position.

It's not my failure to understand if you're failing to communicate.

 

[Old Things]

Do you believe that people are fundamentally good?

Not in the least bit. People lie to spare someone's feelings all the time, and this is considered a "good" thing to do. The moral depravity of even the best among us would put us to utter shame if we actually saw how bad we really were.

Gnosticism was condemned by all Christians, not just Catholics.

Also, everyone is religious about something. There's no escaping it. We all have ideals for which we will fight red in tooth and claw about. But you could say the more aware a person is about their religious sentiments, the more fruit that will come from it (whether good or bad, like a pendulum).

Spoiler: Devotion

Lyrics:

[Verse 1]
I can feel the fire
Raining down its weight upon my days
I feel its solace washing over me in waves
This is a fight
A wake to idle sight
I found my way inside its ever-guiding light

[Pre-Chorus]
Some will say
Completion lives inside of me
I avow
I gave with all my heart is allowed
Avow

[Chorus]
Devotion frees the few
Devotion draws away the dead of night
Devotion waits for you
Heals a hollow mind

[Bridge]
Hail, hail, hail
Hail Devotion
Hail, hail, hail
Hail Devotion
https://genius.com/Demon-hunter-heaven-dont-cry-lyrics
[Verse 2]
I will rise before my shadow here
Is cast upon its grave
I will inherit every scar before I cave
This is my cause
A plea to end the dark
To be a witness to redemption 'til we part

[Pre-Chorus]
Some will say
Completion lives inside of me
I avow
I gave with all my heart is allowed
Avow

[Chorus]
Devotion frees the few
Devotion draws away the dead of night
Devotion waits for you
Heals a hollow mind

[Bridge]
Hail, hail, hail
Hail Devotion
Hail, hail, hail
Hail Devotion
Hail, hail, hail
Hail Devotion
Hail, hail, hail
Hail Devotion

[Verse 3]
Now I know my way
Don't look back
I will obey
Give me breath
Give me a name
Let me lead
Thy will be done
Here on earth
Until it's won
In Your just name

[Chorus]
Devotion frees the few
Devotion draws away the night
Devotion waits for you
Heals a hollow mind

Devotion frees the few
Devotion draws away the dead of night
Devotion waits for you
Heals a hollow mind

[Outro]
Hail, hail, hail
Hail Devotion
Hail, hail, hail
Hail Devotion
Hail, hail, hail
Hail Devotion
Hail, hail, hail
Hail Devotion

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Right, free speech matters. It matters more than the actual "subject" civil violation of minority groups quality of life.

Self righteousness, hate to see it. really disappointed in you Cog. The road to hell is paved with good intentions........

Don't I sound like a fucking idiot? How would fucking roads get built, if you on principle are not allowed to want to build roads in order to actually build a road.

Almost like that term means something else than what it used to. Hmmmm.

Well, the court of public opinion is out on the issue (trans stuff as you mention) I think, which is why there are so few people who staunchly laud that position with their own business interests on the line.

Still, just because socially acceptable bullying (of minority groups) is a thing, shouldn't stop others from having conviction that contradict society.

Someone like Habaldabado

The illusion of WWW3.0 is that it makez it easy to always identify with counter coulter. No matter who you are.

All the chad highschool sports jocks can get together in their safe space, as an example. Share relatable memes.

I agree with OT, everyone has a religion. People take advantage of this.

It's like a magnet for cultish enablement in the brain. Probably a survival instinct. It's unfortunate that fear mongering is free speech.

We should really get on quantifying what shit people say we should excuse because freedom of expression.

It's like, you can say whatever you want, realistically little harm besides getting banned would come to you.

If you want to cherry pick or consider fringe examples of mobs ruining someones life or a businesses profit, well I wouldn't say that this is a partisan one sided issue.

I'm sure if we took a poll, ask 100 people, random: Is it okay to harass people based on a lifestyle they chose that doesn't harm anyone else?

I think that most people would be reasonable and say not. But what the fuck to do I know about the outcome of that vote apparently.

You aren't making completely incorrect statements Cog, it's just that I'm not seeing the threat you vaguely gesture at.

There are consequences of speech. There is a cost to freedom. You bare that cost is what it becomes ultimately. Pick your battles.

 

[fluffy]

Cog makes thread on the left blocking free speech or something

Hado says free speech needs rules

Cog says he doesn't see a problem anymore

/End Thread lol

 

[Cognisant]

Right, free speech matters. It matters more than the actual "subject" civil violation of minority groups quality of life.

Oh fuck off with that "you can't talk about X because it doesn't matter more than Y" one does not affect the other and we all know that's just a shitty tactic progressives use to shut people up.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

It's not even a matter of my whims.

That's just how most people who have coherent morals see the issue.

If you want to argue contrary, that we should all bend over because a couple- because you keep saying "I'm right because this is do or die" then you are part of a very big club.

You don't deny that it's state sanctioned public bullying then? When Asian people aren't protected from harassment because of the "Wuhan" virus?

I don't even have to cite how much emotional destress of that level can affect someone?

I'm trigger happy to call you a straight white male tbh. Let's do this

 

[Cognisant]

I can't argue with you because you haven't got a point.

Rather than making vague insinuations, how about you put some cement in your coffee and harden up.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

There is no point to argue if you agree with what I've written

 

[Puffy]

Any notion this isn't the case is just a bunch of people on X catastrophising like some mob on South Park.

NO I understand your skepticism. Hence my post.
What I mean is that politicians themselves are too dumb.
I mean politicians are cogs in the wheel house as well.
They are not on top of food chain by any means.
Trump is not on top of food chain either.
There are people above that that influence politics and we know that.
They are implementing changes.
If we can agree on that, its easy to see some Starmer guy as mere part of a bigger whole.
During Stalins time, Stalin was top of food chain. There was no one above him.
Today you have trillion-airs that run the world.
I mean the best way to explain this is like this:
If Trump is rich, there is probably 1000 000 other people that are waaay richer than him. Trump is realistically a small fish.
Lobby in US however can pay money to play for policies and outcomes of policies.
Same thing with UK> If a guy that works in politics works there he is payed woefully little money. Only way he makes money is he gets payed by someone who has money.
Its not the government money these people live of off.
I then doubt that people as such have biggest say in what goes on.

Now obviously most people still don't think government cannot be payed out by rich people and think government works for them and their vote.
But it sure as hell does not seem that people in government are the ones calling the shots.

Therefore the whole idea that some guy Starmer has some master plan is silly.
Does not mean there cannot be people above them who actually do have plans.

Sure no worries, I get where you're coming from. I intended my tone to be tongue in cheek.

I'm happy to have this kind of conversation but I'm not interested if it's purely theoretical or based on joining the dots of an invisible entity. I'm only interested in discussing evidence really. So for example who are these trillionaires in question, what's their agenda, and what's the evidence for the existence of it?

For example, Musk is known to have $300 billion in wealth and a reasonable claim could be made for him trying to influence USA politics given his recent appointment in public office. Can you give me similar evidence of the people you're referring to?

 

[ZenRaiden]

So for example who are these trillionaires in question

I doubt they are visible.

I'm only interested in discussing evidence really.

That is cool.

For example, Musk is known to have $300 billion in wealth and a reasonable claim could be made for him trying to influence USA politics given his recent appointment in public office. Can you give me similar evidence of the people you're referring to?

There is plenty evidence. One needs to look for it.
That said I am not spoon feeding people evidence they aren't willing to accept.
There are obvious reasons for why this sort of stuff is not advertised and mainstream.

 

[fluffy]

People richer than Elon musk seems implausible. I mean only 3 companies in the world have over a trillion dollars? And the CEOs don't own that money.

 

[ZenRaiden]

People richer than Elon musk seems implausible.

If you think peoples wealth is measured by how much zeros they have on bank accounts think again.
I can have 5 dollars on back account and still be the richest guy in country.
Wealth can be spread around and its very hard to account for it.
Elon Musk is poor guy comparably to rich people.
Elon does not own that much.