Gaga skipping Met Gala due to Jeff Bezos

[AVeryGagaHolyDick 30,822]

No she’s not, she just doesn’t wanna go 

[RaveMonster 540]

3 minutes ago, Economy said:

Of course theres differences. To me in principal the difference is that huge tho. Both groups wanna get as rich as their circumstances allow and benefit from a system that allows huge discrepancy

 

While i have distaste for the gap in general, i think cheering an event for the top 0.1% but then making a stink when its the top 0.01% is kinda... what?????

The main issue is when that 0.1% is openly supporting a fascist regime. 

[Controversiaga 13,546]

Completely baseless “rumor”.

bxllshxt

[50 Ft Queenie 635]

Yeah SHE BETTER. So is Meryl. 
Bless that protest at the MET rn with bottles of fake pee
 

He's one of the cancers in the world. He's sick not allowing breaks and pissing in pee bottles in the job. 

[Ziggy 13,508]

4 minutes ago, Economy said:

Of course theres differences. To me in principal the difference is that huge tho. Both groups wanna get as rich as their circumstances allow and benefit from a system that allows huge discrepancy

 

While i have distaste for the gap in general, i think cheering an event for the top 0.1% but then making a stink when its the top 0.01% is kinda... what?????

I think even in principle it is. It REALLY depends on the scale of wealth. I mean, even a singular millionaire (of whom def attend) compared to a $300m+? Soooo different. Like I said I’m not cheering anyone I just do think there’s such an incredible degree of difference that it warrants acknowledgement in the class discourse not necessarily sympathy but just that nuance bc like…symone from drag race coming with Jeremy Scott is not the same as AOC being there who isn’t the same as Bezos. Different scales of “elite” but a gradation worth acknowledging imo is all!

[Economy 52,271]

31 minutes ago, Ziggy said:

I think even in principle it is. It REALLY depends on the scale of wealth. I mean, even a singular millionaire (of whom def attend) compared to a $300m+? Soooo different. Like I said I’m not cheering anyone I just do think there’s such an incredible degree of difference that it warrants acknowledgement in the class discourse not necessarily sympathy but just that nuance bc like…symone from drag race coming with Jeremy Scott is not the same as AOC being there who isn’t the same as Bezos. Different scales of “elite” but a gradation worth acknowledging imo is all!

The strong Cancelling reactions are more than just acknowledgement tho

 

Anyway, whether its $100M or $10B... both represent a problem of a system that allows disproportionate wealth accomulation that should not exist on any single individual, both a product of the capitalism we have

 

They both represent the exact same problem. Its just that the multi billionaire has even more. Thats what i mean by the principal is the same

 

Imo certain thresholds stop mattering much after a certain point to make any major distinction. To give a very extreme example just to convey what im trying to say... if a serial killer is found to have killed 10 people in cold blood and another person killed 50... im not sure id see the one who killed only 10 as much of a difference or better than the one who killed 50. They reached a threshold where the dispicableness is hard to get any worse and as far as judging their character, 10 or 50 makes little difference at that point.

 

In the case of the rich... $100B and $100M may have differences in how they live. Maybe ultra  expensive things like yachs or private jets might be scalled back among those with 9 figures vs billionaires. But they signify the exact same problem and unfairness in society. At least thats how i see it

Edited May 2 by Economy

[gaganewyork 96]

The odds of her attending dropped to 47% on k*lshi and 66% on p*lymarket

[Ladle Ghoulash 44,696]

20 minutes ago, Economy said:

The strong Cancelling reactions are more than just acknowledgement tho

Ns, but I’m not really sure what you’re getting at here. Ziggy was just noting that you were collapsing the scale of difference between multimillionaires and billionaires/borderline trillionaires (which isn’t an abstract distinction). I don’t think they were really responding to the broader “cancellation” argument you were making. 

But re: the cancellation: it’s not really a question of tax brackets as much as is it a question of ethics and optics. You could, rightfully, argue that someone like Bezos has had to exploit a huge number of people (likely in the millions) in order to accrue his exorbitant wealth (a scale not even comparable to someone worth a couple hundred million). Beyond that, he’s used his influence to buy up press outlets like WaPo and, under Trump, has used them to tamp dissent against the administration and curry favor with Trump in exchange for preferable political treatment. He’s also recently stated he’d like to automate huge swaths of Amazon’s labor with AI and machines, which not only spits in the face of millions and millions of laborers who are in large part responsible for Amazon’s success, it will also put a huge number of people out of work and threaten their livelihood. 

Basically, reducing the conversation to relative tax bracket (which is only so condensed because of the income inequality advocated for by folks like Bezos through lobbying for tax brakes and exemptions) strips the conversation of all of its nuance. By conflating multimillionaires with one of the most influential capitalists in the globe, you’re erasing the value of singling out his uniquely predatory economic and political influence. If anyone deserves to be the target of a pressure campaign, it is absolutely someone like Jeff Bezos. The scale of influence isn’t even remotely the same and I don’t even really think it’s the same in principle, given that multimillionaires wouldn’t have to be anywhere near as ruthless as Bezos to acquire their wealth. Bezos is on a completely different level.

Edited May 2 by Ladle Ghoulash

[LunaUniverse 4,481]

As much as I’d love for her sitting out be a protest against Bezos, I genuinely think she’d rather stay home. I’d imagine she and everyone else is exhausted coming off the tour

But there could be a slight chance I’m wrong, we’ll see I suppose 

[Economy 52,271]

8 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

Ns, but I’m not really sure what you’re getting at here. Ziggy was just noting that you were collapsing the scale of difference between multimillionaires and billionaires/borderline trillionaires (which isn’t an abstract distinction). I don’t think they were really responding to the broader “cancellation” argument you were making. 

But re: the cancellation: it’s not really a question of tax brackets as much as is it a question of ethics and optics. You could, rightfully, argue that someone like Bezos has had to exploit a huge number of people (likely in the millions) in order to accrue his exorbitant wealth (a scale not even comparable to someone worth a couple hundred million). Beyond that, he’s used his influence to buy up press outlets like WaPo and, under Trump, has used them to tamp dissent against the administration and curry favor with Trump in exchange for preferable political treatment. He’s also recently stated he’d like to automate huge swaths of Amazon’s labor with AI and machines, which not only spits in the face of millions and millions of laborers who are in large part responsible for Amazon’s success, it will also put a huge number of people out of work and threaten their livelihood. 

Basically, reducing the conversation to relative tax bracket (which is only so condensed because of the income inequality advocated for by folks like Bezos through lobbying for tax brakes and exemptions) strips the conversation of all of its nuance. By conflating multimillionaires with one of the most influential capitalists in the globe, you’re erasing the value of singling out his uniquely predatory economic and political influence. If anyone deserves to be the target of a pressure campaign, it is absolutely someone like Jeff Bezos. The scale of influence isn’t even remotely the same and I don’t even really think it’s the same in principle, given that multimillionaires wouldn’t have to be anywhere near as ruthless as Bezos to acquire their wealth. Bezos is on a completely different level.

I wont comment on at the AI part cuz I think theres way too much nuance to get into there. My opinons on are a lot more complex than just "its bad dont automate"

 

What ur saying is fine in the context of politics and active lobbying if thats what ur truly getting at

 

Most ppl are often talking about capitalist system as a whole and what it allows for, and in that context at least, imo the difference really just isnt that big

 

 

[Celloo Deng 56,066]

Why is Bezos even co chairing 

[Ladle Ghoulash 44,696]

8 minutes ago, Economy said:

I wont comment on at the AI part cuz I think theres way too much nuance to get into there. My opinons on are a lot more complex than just "its bad dont automate"

 

What ur saying is fine in the context of politics and active lobbying if thats what ur truly getting at

 

Most ppl are often talking about capitalist system as a whole and what it allows for, and in that context at least, imo the difference really just isnt that big

 

 

In the context of the capitalist system, the difference is tremendous. It says a great deal about the extent of income inequality to say that it makes sense that someone worth $6M and someone worth $275B are functionally in the same tax bracket (top 1%) and yet, are worlds apart in terms of wealth, capital, and market influence. IMO, it means the folks in the top fraction of that bracket (0.1%-0.01%) are hoarding so much wealth that the average earner feels equally as far from being a millionaire (wealthy person who lives an often very privileged life) as they do multibillionaires (folks with often enough capital and wealth to exert tremendous political influence and play significant roles shaping markets).

Edited May 2 by Ladle Ghoulash

[PartySick 171,142]

I don't get the need to call out people who are doing something right.

If they're boycotting the gala over Bezos then good for them? Even if it is just for PR's sake, who actually cares? The effect is the same regardless. His name becomes a little more toxic.

[elijahfan 27,327]

1 hour ago, Sexxx said:

Errr are we forgetting Haus Labs was originally an Amazon exclusive?  

Exactly my thoughts.

[Murakami27 7,842]

9 minutes ago, Celloo Deng said:

Why is Bezos even co chairing 

Supposedly they paid at least $10M to cohost. That’s a lot of money for the museum and I guess Anna is willing to sell her soul for it (whatever is left of it). Conde Nast is not exactly doing well and she’s been cozying up with them for sometime now, with Lauren Sanchez getting a digital cover. The billionaires have been buying their way into fashion, which is probably just another way to control more of media.