The Tech Baron Seeking to “Ethnically Cleanse” San Francisco

lemmyreader@lemmy.ml to Technology@lemmy.world – 275 points – The Tech Baron Seeking to “Ethnically Cleanse” San Francisco
newrepublic.com

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/14962209

cross-posted from: https://awful.systems/post/1421688

60

This is one of the more disturbing things I’ve read in a while, and there’s a genocide going on.

It strikes me that this guy and his followers simply never grew up, because they didn’t have to. Instead of being faced with everyday challenges like the rest of us, their money could insulate them from any degree of hardship or friction. When you live a life where literally everything can be solved with your money, and you’re pretty much guaranteed to never run out of it, there’s no motivation for you to empathize with or even understand other people’s points of view, and thus this scary techno-authoritarianism is born.

These are the people who will prevent us from making any socioeconomic progress. They actually want us all to wear colored shirts and be discriminated against based on our color. Their dystopian vision is genuinely the stuff of my nightmares.

It's comical imo compared to the actually dangerous religious fascism that's currently threatening our democracy. Aww, litte baby tech bro wants to do a fascism, how cute.

These tech bros are not going to win over cops. It's a ridiculous fantasy.

Tech bros are just gross. This is a particularly gross one.

By the beard, this is some next-level shit. Imagine listening to his jibber-jabber about Grays and thinking "that sounds like a good idea"?

This new "ruling CEO" class is bloody dangerous.

This new “ruling CEO” class is bloody dangerous.

Definitely!

The speech won roars from the audience at Y Combinator

Starting to get why everyone else in the Bay area hates the tech people

the burgeoise is not new, they just seem to be getting more sheltered and stupid.

Here's an example of a corporation demonstrating positive socio-economic change:

The Basque Country’s Mondragón Corporation is the globe’s largest industrial co-operative, with workers paying for the right to share in its profits – and its losses.

I grew up in Silicon Valley and I can testify what you already know: venture capitalists and tech CEOs are just dumb kids with a lot of money. Many of them landed in their positions by chance alone. We are not obliged to give them more credence than anybody else.

Oh look, it's just fascism again.

Why is it that when these whackos start describing their fascist plans for society, there are people who respond like it's a groundbreaking concept, some bold new vision of the future? None of this is new, it's the same old tired goosestepping shit.

There have been fascist psychopaths arround as long as humans exist. BUT: when a fascist psychopath gets support among important figures of the industrial and financial sector, that is when you should start to panic.

There have been fascist psychopaths arround as long as humans exist.

Well yeah, that's kind of my point. Why does anyone hear this shit and respond like it's something new?

I am not contradicting you, but added my thoughts to your argument. I just started this by summarizing the parts of your argument to which I wanted to add.

Old tired goosestepping shit was called a groundbreaking concept too.

There are mechanisms in human societies where being part of a pack is advantageous. Which is why that shit, openly or not, reemerges all the time.

Being part of a pack even feels right - because that's what human instincts tell you, that you are stronger and better this way. That emotion makes one feel anything fascist as groundbreaking, young, new, strong, and at the same time "not degenerate" and healthy.

Actually the other way around, fascism aimed for that feeling from the very beginning, that's its core.

This guy sounds like he snorted every 60s-70s sci fi at once and now his goal in life is creating the torment nexus. I had no idea that the CEO of Y Combinator(hacker news?) had "friends" like this?

Yeah, I like to read Hacker news from time to time. Since reading this article I will surely remember that friendship.

The quotes in this article were some of the weirdest fucking things I’ve ever read. Is there something in the water in SF?

Privilege and money. When you are that rich you aren't really connected to people and humanity as a whole. No one tells you that what you're proposing is fucking insane and awful. Notice most of San Franciscoans aren't calling for stupid shit; they're just struggling to survive.

Tech bros are gross caricatures of real people. Imagine 35 years of social ineptitude plus billions of dollars.

The good news is they don't have any real power, they just have power fantasies.

There's always people like this in various industries.

What they are more than anything is self-promoters under the guise of ideological groupthink.

They say things that their audience and network want to hear with a hyperbole veneer.

I remember one of these types in my industry who drove me crazy. He was clearly completely full of shit, but the majority of my audience didn't know enough to know he was full of shit, and was too well connected to out as being full of shit without blowback.

The good news is that they have such terrible ideas that they are chronically failures even if they personally fail upwards to the frustration of every critical thinking individual around them.

6 more...

What the fuck psycho-babble bullshit did I just read?! Are there not random sharks, orcas or other wildlife in the SF area that are hungry??

Hey, don't mix orcas in with sharks! They don't attack people. (their boats, close to the mediterranean, have not been as lucly lately though...)

Silicon Valley needs unions yesterday. Curbing these bros' enthusiasm via the ballot box alone would be very difficult given the amount of money they can deploy onto politicians. Without workers, they can't do anything.

After reading, the gist of it seems to be:

  • Vanilla far-right indoctrinated dumbo (his vision: "Reds" welcome, "Blues" not, "Anti-Blue Propaganda" on public view screens)
  • Wants exploitative capitalism on steroids with companies controlling everyone's lives completely
  • Claims current capitalism is only bad because it's "woke capitalism" which he claims the "ruling class" is pushing
  • Wants tech bros to butter up police and give security staff jobs to their children as a favor, i.e. intentional social classism

.

In short, just another out of touch entrepreneur who sells snake oil cures to people suffering in the current system, so that they may invite in the boot that stomps them down for good.

Always good ask him things like "who are they?" or "who is the ruling class?"

The techno-authoritarian Curtis Yarvin-type crowd have been around for a while. We can laugh them off or ignore them, but their biggest believers are billionaire man-children in the Valley and that will undoubtedly come to bear fruit in horrific ways.

Which is the first tech billionaire to go full Ted Faro is anyone's guess.

“Ethnically cleanse,” he said at one point, summing up his idea for a city purged of Blues (this, he says, will prevent Blues from ethnically cleansing the Grays first).

Conservatives are incredibly fucked up. They can't fathom coexisting with people who aren't like them without wanting to "ethnically cleanse" them, so they naturally assume everybody else thinks like this as well

Pretty sure I read this book a few years ago. It was called Jennifer government.

Damn, haven't thought about that book for many years.

The concept behind the story seems a lot less fictional/unlikely than it used to 20yrs ago!

This is pretty unhinged but I do kinda get a giggle imagining him and several other losers walking around in their grey Elon Musk shirts.

Well, their gray musk shirts—or maybe their gray “bitcoin” shirts. Super cool.

Capitalist brain rot is fuckin strong with . He’s gone straight up fuckin out of his mind on capitalism. ODing on it.

I couldn’t read the whole thing because I lost interest around the part where he starts describing Grays and their shirts—it’s all very dull because there is a complete lack of understanding on how different cultures established and evolved mechanisms for self-expression and self-determination. People wanted such mechanisms, which is why democracies formed in the first place, and why medieval societies became a relic of the past.

Even medieval kings needed ideals of honor, chivalry etc. to motivate others to knighthood. I think maybe this person is too convinced of his capacity to charm and believes that he’s capable of starting and leading a cult (which is what he’s describing, essentially). But if he was charming someone who’s never heard of him before would be inclined to find some kind of redeeming quality in his ideas instead of being repulsed by his lack of insight and knowledge. I mean, charming people (cult leaders, for example) have a quality where they just make you stupid by their presence. This person lacks the grace, charisma and any requisite presence for such an effect.

Also, what the fuck he is on about w.r.t MSFT? Look at Coinbase and MSFT, a dumb child can tell you which company is more innovative and valuable. This isn’t even a joke, it’s just sad that people are enabling his narcissism and delusions by letting him believe he’s smart or has good ideas. He’s definitely someone’s useful idiot.

People wanted such mechanisms, which is why democracies formed in the first place, and why medieval societies became a relic of the past.

This is blatantly wrong. First of all, High and Late Middle Ages is when "self-expression and self-determination" really became a thing. Second, oldest democracies formed before those ended by any criterion. Third, a typical modern centralist democracy making citizens equal is hostile to self-expression and self-determination, for the same reason any centralist state is. Fourth, medieval societies became a relic of the past because they couldn't scale as easily as modern ones in terms of state bureaucracy, and thus manpower and firepower.

Even medieval kings needed ideals of honor, chivalry etc. to motivate others to knighthood.

I suggest you read up on that too, because what they called honor and chivalry were pretty specific things, and not "everything good, kind, holy and manly merged".

Now, what this guy is talking about would be a normal political or religious movement in late Antiquity.

First of all, High and Late Middle Ages is when “self-expression and self-determination” really became a thing.

There were medieval scholars in early ("Dark") middle ages who wrote about self-determination in the context of a greater community as part of the development of Christian intellectualism. I would read this part here, but the whole article is quite interesting (https://sites.nd.edu/manuscript-studies/2019/02/08/moral-self-determination-and-the-byzantine-christian-tradition/):

The most well-known literary source providing an exposition of obedience is The Ladder of Divine Ascent, authored by John of Sinai (c.579–659 AD).[3] In the fourth chapter or “step,” John addresses the practice, defining it thusly: “Obedience is absolute renunciation of our own life, clearly expressed in our bodily actions…Obedience is the tomb of the will and the resurrection of humility.”[4] His endorsement of the renunciation of “will” may sound odd to many readers, especially given the Christian emphasis upon moral self-governance. **Nevertheless, John is not denying the concept of free will as such, nor is he suggesting that the volitional faculty must atrophy into non-existence. **Scholarly evidence suggests that the term John uses here for “will,” thelēma or thelēsis, comes to be associated with the volitional faculty in a philosophical sense in the writings of Maximus the Confessor, whose engagement with the Christological controversies of the seventh century provided the impetus for the standardization of the expression.[5] Thus, when John speaks of “will” and its denial, he is arguably referring to what Maximus the Confessor and his theological progeny would call gnomē, which in the idiom of the time refers to a private or particular disposition of will, or even to a personal opinion.[6] John’s monk is not so much denying his own intrinsic freedom of will as he is seeking the co-governance and insight of those who are more advanced in virtue, and, through them, struggling to direct his volitional disposition such that it harmonizes with the other members of the community.

The idea being that one should self-determine, but also then be humble enough to know one's limitations and understand how to harmonize your will with that of the community. The preceding paragraph really brings this idea home:

Maximus discloses a similar approach to moral self-determination by establishing his ethical teaching on “love” or agapē, which figures prominently in his philosophical and dogmatic treatises as well as his ascetic writings.[7] Agapē is no mere private sentiment but constitutes the impetus and ground for moral practice as a whole, thereby suggesting that moral judgment and orientation presuppose an awareness of one’s community and the persistent presence of a real, tangible “other.” In this way, Maximus retools an older Aristotelian paradigm, exchanging justice for love as the central and all-defining virtue.[8] Insofar as agapē is the chief virtue, narcissistic self-love, or filautia, is its inverse and the progenitor of all vice. As he demonstrates in one of his earliest works, The Ascetic Life, ascetic discipline should not be considered a private enterprise intended primarily for the sake of internal moral perfection.[9] Rather, its purpose is the effacement of filautia and the diachronic restoration of temporal and eternal relationships with the creator and one’s fellow creatures. To quote the Confessor directly: “He who is unable to separate himself from the passionate yearning for material things shall neither love God nor his neighbor authentically.”[10]

I am not a proponent of using religious influence to guide one's morality or decision making, but I am just using the above paragraphs to discuss your first point.

Second, oldest democracies formed before those ended by any criterion.

You're right that the history of democracy and democratic societies predates Medieval history, but historical examples of Western governing systems in which middle classes could participate are more well-known in the middle ages

The first parliamentary bodies involving representatives of the urban middle class were summoned in 12th century Spain. In 1187, the Leonese King Alfonso IX summoned representatives of the nobility, the church, and representatives of the 50 most important cities, to a council in San Esteban de Gormaz, Soria. There was another meeting with representatives of the cities in Carrión de los Condes, Palencia, the next year, which institutionalized the Curiae.[23] There had been other meetings previously, such as the Concilium of 1135, but they were exceptional and not leading to a regular attendance of town representatives. According to the UNESCO Memory of the World Programme, this is the earliest documented manifestation of the European parliamentary system with some temporal continuity.[2][24]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_parliamentarism#Early_parliaments_in_the_Middle_Ages

Essentially, people sought a centralization of power so they'd have an easier time dealing with the governing bodies--"one king and his court" vs. many nobles. Here's a nice summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system

Third, a typical modern centralist democracy making citizens equal is hostile to self-expression and self-determination, for the same reason any centralist state is.

By definition, there is no self-determination under the rule of a cult leader or authoritarian as you're subject to define yourself by their will. The democratic tradition, in its various flavors, tends to lend some leeway in enabling anyone to exert their opinion and shape the way the community thinks. In fact, this tech dude wouldn't be able to spout off his nonsense without a democracy of some sort, which is why we're unfortunately exposed to his gibberish and now having this discussion.

Fourth, medieval societies became a relic of the past because they couldn’t scale as easily as modern ones in terms of state bureaucracy, and thus manpower and firepower.

Because the rise of parliamentarism (a type of democracy) helped form more efficient governing bodies.

[...] what they called honor and chivalry were pretty specific things, and not “everything good, kind, holy and manly merged”.

I know :) The point I was making, however, is that people seek some greater purpose or meaning to align their will with that of others.

Oh, thank you. My lazy ass tends to sometimes express arrogant hostility towards people for no good reason at all.

Actually, all I know is some medieval literature read for fun.

But frankly what you say doesn't contradict what I say, even intersects with that. It's just, eh, not as simplistic as my comment.

Essentially, people sought a centralization of power so they’d have an easier time dealing with the governing bodies–“one king and his court” vs. many nobles. Here’s a nice summary:

Frankly from what little I know it seems the other way around - kings succeeded in becoming sufficiently powerful to control their nobles, and then nobles and, yes, the people in general would want some well-defined mechanism of asserting their interests to the monarch without actual rebellion. The nice summary reinforces that too.

The democratic tradition, in its various flavors, tends to lend some leeway in enabling anyone to exert their opinion and shape the way the community thinks.

As compared to, say, Middle Eastern political traditions (as in "lynched for wrong words"), yes.

I meant that some kind of Late Medieval society would be more diverse due to more individual traditional relations between various entities\estates\whatever. Though inside every such entity one, eh, wouldn't have lots of freedom of speech. But again, these were diverse in that too.

And that in centralist (this is important) democracies the "same rules for everyone" fallacy tends to exist, which misses that an abstractly defined rule still may give some groups advantage over others. One can see that in the way religious tolerance, secularism, gun rights etc are points of contention.

The point I was making, however, is that people seek some greater purpose or meaning to align their will with that of others.

Well, my direction of thought was that due to feudal relations being more personal and decentralized, honor as in personal and family reputation was very important, and there were a few criteria less abstract than modern people may imagine affecting those.

The greater purpose was the divine right of the king to rule his land.

It's funny because he thinks that his status as a "gray" would protect him from the "reds." just another useful idiot for fascism.

America desperately needs to enact policies that put restrictions on wealth accumulation. There are lots of ways to do this.

Counter-offer: no.

I'm not a SF native, but from my understanding, the problem with SF is the NIMBYs, and this takes NIMBY to the extreme.

Whats a nimby? Tiny nibblers?

Not In My Back Yard. Basically the people in the community who will reject anything that impacts them in a slightly negative way.

For SF, this means homeowners who don't want to see property values drop due to new construction, or who don't want to sell to make room for new construction. Likewise for homeless shelters, train lines, etc. Those things need to go somewhere, but if everyone says "but not here," it doesn't get built.

While I understand the point on doing that (title) , you can't drown culture. You can influence it tho.

reads article

Nvm. Dude is fucking nuts.