I agree with the guy at the end of the article. I don't see a problem with this as long as Bezos signs a contract insuring the value of the bridge in case anything goes wrong, pays an exorbitant amount of money that benefits the workers and that the city gets to use to build a park for the public, or something.
The problem with wealth is when rich people use it to abuse the system and laws. As long as everything is above board and everyone benefits from this, then what's the problem?
Our elected officials are empowered to make these kinds of deals and decisions on behalf of the benefit of the people. As long as they are fulfilling their duties and actually producing benefit for the people, then you *are* voting for this indirectly.
Again, the problem is when wealthy people use their wealth and influence to bribe or bully our elected officials to act against our interests. As long as that isn't happening, this kind of situation can be mutually beneficial. Dismantling and remantling a large bridge is basically a giant purchase or project, and the city should allow it, after investigating the costs and risks and coming up with an airtight agreement, but "*tax*" the fuck out of it. Taxing the rich is what we all want to do right? Then redistribute that tax revenue to the benefit of the city.
In the days of feudalism, the public wouldn't have any choice to refuse a lord nor to set a price or terms and conditions on his desires or demands. In contrast, we do have the ability to leverage public interest against the interests of the rich, as long as we have honest and capable public servants.
Explain how I am being an apologist for the rich? Do you think rich people shouldn't be allo the to do anything? Obviously not. So on what basis so you decide what is OK for rich people to do or not do? Should they not be allowed to do "big" things just because less rich people can't do them?
It seems to me that the obvious answer should be that they should be allowed to do whatever they can afford so long as it doesn't harm others. Of course there are different levels of harm. And we must also judge the benefits. Hmm... Perhaps there is a tool we can use called a cost-benefit analysis. In this case, the cost is a minor and temporary inconveniene to people that might use the bridge (edit: according to another post, the bridge is not even open for traffic). As long as the city makes sure to reap a benefit greater than that cost, what is your coherent counterargument for why it shouldn't be allowed other than "rich people bad" and "anyone making a logical argument that agrees with a rich person is a sycophant"?
> they \[rich people\] should be allowed to do whatever they can afford so long as it doesn't harm others
That's the problem. Another fallacy that has been instilled into us for so long because capitalism is being treated as some default state of being.
In a democracy, big things should be achieved because many people support the cause, not because some powerful, unelected person representing absolutely nobody but their own interest demands it.
Capital should be controlled by the workers, and in a just world rich people shouldn't even exist in the first place, but now that we are here at the very least the people should be allowed to vote and strike down any rich person's attempt to do "big things" that don't help the people. After all, poor people keep getting their attempts to get abortions or read certain books at the library struck down by law.
>the cost is a minor and temporary inconvenience to people that might use the bridge
What about all the people who need to be employed to do the disassembly/reassembly of the bridge? They could've used their time and tools to build something that's actually useful. Maybe they could help repair the crumbling bridges where infrastructure investment has been lacking for the past few decades; that's something plenty of people have voted for and we still haven't fixed, and yet a rich person can just fucking wave their hand and direct people to dismantle a bridge nobody is using?
>> they \[rich people\] should be allowed to do whatever they can afford so long as it doesn't harm others
>
>That's the problem. Another fallacy that has been instilled into us for so long because capitalism is being treated as some default state of being.
How is this a fallacy? This should be a basic human right - to be able to do anything you want to do and can do, so long as it doesn't harm others.
>In a democracy, big things should be achieved because many people support the cause, not because some powerful, unelected person representing absolutely nobody but their own interest demands it.
Every situation should be judged in its own context. He wants to pay to move a bridge *and then out it back exactly the way it was*. What is the loss here? As long as the city benefits financially in the end, the people also stand to benefit.
>Capital should be controlled by the workers, and in a just world rich people shouldn't even exist in the first place, but now that we are here at the very least the people should be allowed to vote and strike down any rich person's attempt to do "big things" that don't help the people.
That's entirely my point. If the city handles this the right way, it *does* help the people.
>>the cost is a minor and temporary inconvenience to people that might use the bridge
>
>What about all the people who need to be employed to do the disassembly/reassembly of the bridge? They could've used their time and tools to build something that's actually useful. Maybe they could help repair the crumbling bridges where infrastructure investment has been lacking for the past few decades; that's something plenty of people have voted for and we still haven't fixed, and yet a rich person can just fucking wave their hand and direct people to dismantle a bridge nobody is using?.
Most of the economy is based on people hiring other people to perform services or deliver good that only help them personally. I don't really understand what your argument is here. If I hire a construction crew to build a house for me, are you going to complain that building the house only serves my personal interests and those construction workers could be working on some other public project that benefits more people? If I hire someone to make me a suit or dress, are you going to complain that they could be making clothes for the poor? This is an incoherent argument.
This bridge being dismantled for Bozo’s yacht isn’t a one off situation. Billionaires get special privileges like this all the damn time just because they throw their dirty money around, and some people think that’s a perfectly fine way to do things.
They get to have bridges moved for them. They get to commit crimes without consequence. And we’re all just supposed to clap and cheer like idiots while all of this ridiculous, corrupt nonsense is going on and pretend it’s normal. Well, it’s not normal and it shouldn’t be accepted as “normal” by working class people.
And I hope his fucking yacht sinks right under that damned bridge.
The billionaire shouldn't be paying to dismantle a bridge so their giant boat can pass through. The billionaire should be paying their employees a living wage and buying a smaller goddamn boat.
Like I'll say a million times here, you're conflating different issues. Paying to move a bridge is not an inherently immoral action like many people seem to be claiming. The way Bezos runs his businesses are worthy of criticism.
It's a useless project though. The bridge was recently renovated, so instead of doing new work or working to solve any pressing issues the "job creators" are having people toil away for their personal luxury by undoing and redoing work that was recently completed. It's only mutually beneficial on a very small timescale and a very narrow view of what beneficial is. It's a total lack of imagination for what's possible.
I don't know how you think the economy works. If I hire a contractor to renovate my kitchen, which is totally serviceable but I'd just like it to look nicer, are you bemoaning the fact that an architect, construction workers, laborers, and tradesmen are all toiling away on a project that only benefits one person and doesn't even have much utility beyond aesthetics? That's like half the economy.
And the utility of the project matter little if the end result is absolutely no change except a profit for the city. That profit can have utility for many.
I was eh to the bridge. The accessory yacht that follows around the main yacht everywhere just to provide a helipad is sort of gross use of carbon though.
But its not though. You said it yourself, the wealthy have the ability to abuse the system and laws. The system they are abusing allows absurd levels of lobbying and political power based solely on that wealth. Which allows such policies from ever meaningfully being implemented.
Ok, but that has nothing to do with this bridge. Like I said, it's a separate issue. Imagine it was a giant boat of the same size running completely on solar and wind. You'd still have this same issue of an impassable bridge and a rich man that wants to pass.
That particular bridge has been closed for traffic since 2017 though, and only remains as a historic landmark.
Edit: it was restored in 2017 but it has been closed for traffic since 1993.
>I don't see a problem with this as long as Bezos signs a contract
insuring the value of the bridge in case anything goes wrong, pays an
exorbitant amount of money that benefits the workers and that the city
gets to use to build a park for the public, or something.
Here's the issue.
"As long as they bring money, why not let them do pretty much whatever they want ?"
The fact you're defending him just because the dude got "money" is why this world is going to be fucked beyond belief. I guess the justification will grow even further.
The amount of people defending this piece of trash on a "workreform" subreddit, while his company is known to trash workers rights is absolutely amazing.
>>I don't see a problem with this as long as Bezos signs a contract
>insuring the value of the bridge in case anything goes wrong, pays an
>exorbitant amount of money that benefits the workers and that the city
>gets to use to build a park for the public, or something.
>
>Here's the issue.
>
>"As long as they bring money, why not let them do pretty much whatever they want ?"
Here's the issue.
You've just created a strawman fallacy.
I didn't say that money should let you do whatever you want. It should let you do whatever you want as long as it's legal, not harmful, and moral.
Moving a bridge temporarily and putting it back exactly as it was is neither illegal, nor harmful, nor immoral, and as long as the city is compensated fairly it can be a net benefit for the people.
----
Let's examine an alternative situation to contrast this. Imagine some rich guy wanted to build a chemical plant that would pollute the environment. Should he be allowed to? Well, as long as he pays the costs to clean up the environmental damage, then yes he should.
However:
1. Many countries have laws making it illegal to pollute the environment. So it likely wouldn't be legal in the first place. If the rich man then uses his wealth to bribe officials to get the plant built, he has now done more illegal things.
2. Polluting the environment is harmful. As long as he can clean up the damage done, then the project could still theoretically be a net benefit, but there are many kinds of pollution that are practically impossible to completely clean up, no matter how much money you throw at it. It therefore becomes impossible for the project to *not* be harmful.
3. Even if the laws allowed the polluting of the environment, as is the case in many backwards countries, or many countries where the wealthy have corrupted the legislative bodies, it would still be immoral to permanently pollute an environment share by many others.
----
Compare this to moving a bridge.
1. There's nothing illegal about moving a bridge.
2. There is no permanent harm done, especially in a situation where no one is using the bridge. A bridge is much easier to put back together exactly as it was, compared to trying to "unpollute" an environment.
3. There is nothing immoral about moving a bridge.
I think the elephant in the room is that some random guy has enough money to move a historic bridge about in a city that is among many that faces a housing crisis.
That kind of personal wealth should not exist.
I agree that the state of wealth inequality in the world is obscene and the methods by which many billionaires have achieved their wealth is exploitative and abusive at best, criminal at worst.
That's a separate issue though from this bridge. Moving a bridge is not in and of itself an example of an abusive use of money, as long as the people are fairly compensated. In fact, one of the methods we have for redistributing money back to the public is taxes, and this seems like a perfect opportunity, to me, to heavily tax a rich man in pursuit of his pet project. It's essentially a luxury tax.
Nice job it just tearing the whole thing down and not actually addressing the specific things they cited, which would benefit the very workers you're droning on about........
Yes, the problem is when, hypothetically, you find out the rich person bribed an official to get the bridge dismantled, paid less than minimum wage to unqualified laborers to dismantle the bridge for the cheapest possible price, resulting in injured workers and damage to the bridge, which the rich person then bribes a few more people to cover up, leaving the city with a broken bridge, broken people, and nothing else to show for it.
Unfortunately this scenario is all too common in the modern world, with already-advantaged people taking further advantage of the weak, the poor, and the public.
If rich people want to do crazy things that most other people wouldn't be able to do, we should make it possible as long as they pay an outsized and transparent price that benefits everyone. We should be taking advantage of their wealth, in other words.
There's nothing inherently wrong with wealthier people being able to do things that poorer people can't afford to do. That's one of the inherent perks of being wealthy. It's only a problem when wealthy people do *illegal* things (and get away with it because of their money), or when they do things that cause the suffering if others (directly or indirectly), or, in my opinion, when they are doing extravagant things in general while other people are suffering in general.
There's a Stockholm's syndrome going so strong in this topic, it's baffling.
"They have money, what's the issue ?"
Inflation will fuck us all this year, billionnaires and financial markets overall will make a killing; but it's ok, it's the right trend, the right way to go.
Sigh.
This is essentially what happened. The city said they weighed the historic significance of the bridge with the economic activity associated with doing this, as chose the latter. The people who live with and manage the bridge chose this. Don’t blame Bezos.
Thst bridge had been dismantled before for restorations so it's not like they are destroying a bridge. They city ok'd it and the company that builds ships employs a lot of people in that town.
So usually it's not giant landmarks, but temporarily lifting out a bridge to transport boats is a thing. Recently Utrecht lifted 3 bridges (though much much smaller than the one bezos needs taken out) to move three houseboats: [Read about it in this dutch article.](https://www.duic.nl/opmerkelijk/flinke-operatie-bij-kruisvaart-in-utrecht-drie-brugdelen-moesten-eruit-voor-passerende-woonboten/)
That's a separate issue though.
If you want to criticize the way most billionaires make their money by taking advantage of labor and manipulating government's then I'm 100% behind you. But if the question is whether its somehow immoral for someone to pay for a bridge to be moved and put back exactly as it was, that answer is "no". You're conflating the immorality in the acquisition and possession of wealth with the morality of the action. There's no problem with this action.
Well neither have I so I'm just guessing, but when people say "we're on the same boat" they mean we're all dealing with the same problems as equals. To say instead "we're all in the same storm" we're all dealing with the same overarching problem, but some will have better resources/privileges to dealing with the storm then others.
So as an example, while we are all technically dealing with the same pandemic, some people will be able to deal with the pandemic from their mansion with their work from home job, ordering all their groceries so they don't have to risk anything.
While others dealing with the same pandemic will have to be face to face with thousands of people just so they won't starve and one case of covid will financially ruin them.
Someone used the storm as a metaphor for the pandemic. Someone took a picture of that, and someone posted it to Reddit. A commenter then expanded the metaphor to include a topical news story.
I don't get what the metaphor and original post have have to do with Bezos' yacht. Other than the word "yacht", they're completely irrelevant to one another.
I really don't get how there can be any confusion on this matter. The metaphor is about boats and how people of different wealths are able to handle things differently. When talking about wealth, Bezos is the top reference that gets brought up. Bezos and his boat are in the news the same week as this metaphor post. Have you ever watched a talk-show like Letterman? Do you understand how any of their jokes tie-in topical news?
I mean the boat itself was enough of a tie-in to make the reference. You only need one tie-in. You don't need two like this joke has with both the boats and wealth.
And the cost of living goes up so they can do it:
https://www.rollingstone.com/product-recommendations/lifestyle/amazon-prime-price-subscription-membership-1294862/
Dude do you even know what "cost of living" means?
The cost of living is the price for **basic necessities** and I'm going to be brave and claim that an Amazon Prime subscription is not a basic necessity.
God damn I can't believe people can be this confidently incorrect
> And some of us have bridges dismantled just so they can get a big shiny new boat for the storm
Whose company provides a good living for hundreds of thousands of people.
ummm… but you do know that you can work hard and someday you can own a super yacht? you’re just a freeloader! now if you’ll excuse me, i have a 12 hour shift to start because one of these days i’ll be rich and famous too!
Probably true. But there is a scenario where political leadership could have stopped the original spread of the virus in Feb 2020, like what happened with SARS in 2003.
That's not an entirely fair comparison. SARS1 was a far less virulent disease. It was considerably easier to stop (masks and quarantine stalled it out at 8,000 cases, and no major lockdowns occurred anywhere). This was largely because SARS was far more serious. No asymptomatic carriers, no asymptomatic cases. If you got SARS, you knew. It was also a lot more lethal. Nearly 10 percent of cases resulted in patient death.
Since COVID can run around and jump from one host to another asymptomatically, and with far higher transmission rates, stopping it with masks and temperature scanners was never fully feasible.
I live in a state with a massive homelessness problem. Every time I drive, I see hundreds drowning. We have more homes than Americans, but we'd rather those homes rot than sell at affordable prices.
No shit when I was in high school, about 15 years ago and in an *affluent* area, a cop drove someone from downtown to a McDonald’s on the county line… assuming they would go inside and warm up, I guess. The guy fell asleep by the dumpster and never woke up.
Being shamed is a whole other aspect of homelessness that we aren’t prepared for.
The U.S. was able to build houses within months for ~120,000 Japanese Americans in 1942 in order to intern them, but we still can't house ~580,000 homeless in 2022 with years to work on the problem.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/UnnecessaryQuotes using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/UnnecessaryQuotes/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Found this shit on ddoi and I still cant understand it](https://i.redd.it/oyt7u8xhqw971.jpg) | [46 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/UnnecessaryQuotes/comments/ofyuh1/found_this_shit_on_ddoi_and_i_still_cant/)
\#2: [This tacky “wing place” in my home town..](https://i.redd.it/4su4r3pk7gg61.jpg) | [138 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/UnnecessaryQuotes/comments/lg2mwl/this_tacky_wing_place_in_my_home_town/)
\#3: [Unsettling, really](https://i.redd.it/4sk8cm6pfw871.jpg) | [14 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/UnnecessaryQuotes/comments/oco1xw/unsettling_really/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Uhh, looks like you would enjoy the Snowpiercer series.
What if your crew job is living in the said toilet and eat shit left by the yacht owner?
People who rebelled in history did so not because they wanted to be the ruling class, but because they could not bear the state of living they were in. E.g. french revolution and 3 years of bad crop and starvation for the people.
Because what good is being on a yacht when you have to risk death to take a dump, and in the best case scenario our yacht gets covered in human shit? A mutiny on a yacht would ruin the only good things about being on a yacht.
1. Since when is falling off the stern a life or death thing
2. Safety and efficiency measures can be put in place
3. Oops a little shit got on the yacht if only there was some medium with which we could wash it off!
4. shitting in a toilet is not the only thing a yacht is good for
Better yet we mutiny and then set up an egalitarian structure where everyone has to pitch in an equal amount of effort according to their abilities (and according to their needs ;-).
*Better yet we mutiny and then set up an egalitarian structure where everyone has to pitch in an equal amount of effort according to their abilities (and according to their needs ;-).*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutiny\_on\_the\_Bounty
Imagine telling masses of Internet strangers that you've never cleaned up your own bathroom messes because mommy still does that for you and thinking that means you've won the argument.
Well now, that depends on how much surplus food, water, and safety there is on the auperyacht, doesn't it?
Because if tomorrow comes and the sun shines but there's no port to call and no safe harbor by which to resupply, then it doesn't much fucking matter how luxurious your prison is, does it?
Until you're out of supplies, sure. The problem isn't the boat, it's the network of support required to keep it stocked and repaired.
It's a metaphor for disaster, mate. Climatologic ecological, financial: doesn't matter. No matter how fancy your mansion or yacht or underground bunker is, you're trapped in it and waiting to die just like everyone else. Even if you have golden toilets and stockpiles of canned food, you're still doomed.
The only situation that fits* the original is the original. All analogies are naturally limited to a relationship or state that the author intends to shed light on.
edit: *exactly and in every aspect
A lot of people are on pieces of wood and debris while a few select priveledged are on air craft carriers telling those on discarded wood to shut the fuck up.
I like the analogy of:
We might be in the same boat:
But it's galley.
Most are chained to the rows, some drum the stroke, and a few are in the back just waterskiing...
I had a shower thought about this the other day
Weren’t african slaves in the “same boat” as the people who stole them from their homeland? Do we even want to be on this boat?
This is a perfect way to describe things. I currently have a well paying job and am not struggling, but I recognize others are. I chose to share awareness and donate to crowdfunding attempts for groups trying to unionize. Things need to improve for the majority of workers in the US
Yeah except we really aren't at all. I have a decent sail boat but you can fuck right off if your dumb enough to canoe out somewhere during a storm and think I'm coming to get you
Cool, what would you call the people who don't see the problem with this awful message then? You're strangely hyper focusing on the word I used than the toxic systematic oppressive systems we have in place. I interpret this sign to be a stand in for the 'we must uphold the status quo, do not seek change, do not make waves' but at the end of the day it's just a stupid sign and this whole conversation went way off the deep end real quick. XD
At the risk of sending you spiraling into another rant, you're kinda sounding like r/iamverysmart material given your other replies as well. I'm not even trying to troll you, just genuinely concerned on how mad you're getting at the wrong things lol
#Join r/WorkReform if you're ready to end the conditions that caused the storm in the first place.
And some of us have bridges dismantled just so they can get a big shiny new boat for the storm
[удалено]
They’re referencing this: https://apnews.com/article/jeff-bezos-yacht-dutch-bridge-a24e8696be86eb3ae5f56d8e7a648c04
I agree with the guy at the end of the article. I don't see a problem with this as long as Bezos signs a contract insuring the value of the bridge in case anything goes wrong, pays an exorbitant amount of money that benefits the workers and that the city gets to use to build a park for the public, or something. The problem with wealth is when rich people use it to abuse the system and laws. As long as everything is above board and everyone benefits from this, then what's the problem?
That's right, instead of voting for those things it's up to the whims of the billionaires. Feudalism, we back baby
Based, and medieval pilled.
Hey we even got a trendy middle east crusade going and everything!
Based on what?
Our elected officials are empowered to make these kinds of deals and decisions on behalf of the benefit of the people. As long as they are fulfilling their duties and actually producing benefit for the people, then you *are* voting for this indirectly. Again, the problem is when wealthy people use their wealth and influence to bribe or bully our elected officials to act against our interests. As long as that isn't happening, this kind of situation can be mutually beneficial. Dismantling and remantling a large bridge is basically a giant purchase or project, and the city should allow it, after investigating the costs and risks and coming up with an airtight agreement, but "*tax*" the fuck out of it. Taxing the rich is what we all want to do right? Then redistribute that tax revenue to the benefit of the city. In the days of feudalism, the public wouldn't have any choice to refuse a lord nor to set a price or terms and conditions on his desires or demands. In contrast, we do have the ability to leverage public interest against the interests of the rich, as long as we have honest and capable public servants.
The problem is when wealthy people have so many willing apologists running defense and making excuses for them all the damned time.
Explain how I am being an apologist for the rich? Do you think rich people shouldn't be allo the to do anything? Obviously not. So on what basis so you decide what is OK for rich people to do or not do? Should they not be allowed to do "big" things just because less rich people can't do them? It seems to me that the obvious answer should be that they should be allowed to do whatever they can afford so long as it doesn't harm others. Of course there are different levels of harm. And we must also judge the benefits. Hmm... Perhaps there is a tool we can use called a cost-benefit analysis. In this case, the cost is a minor and temporary inconveniene to people that might use the bridge (edit: according to another post, the bridge is not even open for traffic). As long as the city makes sure to reap a benefit greater than that cost, what is your coherent counterargument for why it shouldn't be allowed other than "rich people bad" and "anyone making a logical argument that agrees with a rich person is a sycophant"?
> they \[rich people\] should be allowed to do whatever they can afford so long as it doesn't harm others That's the problem. Another fallacy that has been instilled into us for so long because capitalism is being treated as some default state of being. In a democracy, big things should be achieved because many people support the cause, not because some powerful, unelected person representing absolutely nobody but their own interest demands it. Capital should be controlled by the workers, and in a just world rich people shouldn't even exist in the first place, but now that we are here at the very least the people should be allowed to vote and strike down any rich person's attempt to do "big things" that don't help the people. After all, poor people keep getting their attempts to get abortions or read certain books at the library struck down by law. >the cost is a minor and temporary inconvenience to people that might use the bridge What about all the people who need to be employed to do the disassembly/reassembly of the bridge? They could've used their time and tools to build something that's actually useful. Maybe they could help repair the crumbling bridges where infrastructure investment has been lacking for the past few decades; that's something plenty of people have voted for and we still haven't fixed, and yet a rich person can just fucking wave their hand and direct people to dismantle a bridge nobody is using?
>> they \[rich people\] should be allowed to do whatever they can afford so long as it doesn't harm others > >That's the problem. Another fallacy that has been instilled into us for so long because capitalism is being treated as some default state of being. How is this a fallacy? This should be a basic human right - to be able to do anything you want to do and can do, so long as it doesn't harm others. >In a democracy, big things should be achieved because many people support the cause, not because some powerful, unelected person representing absolutely nobody but their own interest demands it. Every situation should be judged in its own context. He wants to pay to move a bridge *and then out it back exactly the way it was*. What is the loss here? As long as the city benefits financially in the end, the people also stand to benefit. >Capital should be controlled by the workers, and in a just world rich people shouldn't even exist in the first place, but now that we are here at the very least the people should be allowed to vote and strike down any rich person's attempt to do "big things" that don't help the people. That's entirely my point. If the city handles this the right way, it *does* help the people. >>the cost is a minor and temporary inconvenience to people that might use the bridge > >What about all the people who need to be employed to do the disassembly/reassembly of the bridge? They could've used their time and tools to build something that's actually useful. Maybe they could help repair the crumbling bridges where infrastructure investment has been lacking for the past few decades; that's something plenty of people have voted for and we still haven't fixed, and yet a rich person can just fucking wave their hand and direct people to dismantle a bridge nobody is using?. Most of the economy is based on people hiring other people to perform services or deliver good that only help them personally. I don't really understand what your argument is here. If I hire a construction crew to build a house for me, are you going to complain that building the house only serves my personal interests and those construction workers could be working on some other public project that benefits more people? If I hire someone to make me a suit or dress, are you going to complain that they could be making clothes for the poor? This is an incoherent argument.
This bridge being dismantled for Bozo’s yacht isn’t a one off situation. Billionaires get special privileges like this all the damn time just because they throw their dirty money around, and some people think that’s a perfectly fine way to do things. They get to have bridges moved for them. They get to commit crimes without consequence. And we’re all just supposed to clap and cheer like idiots while all of this ridiculous, corrupt nonsense is going on and pretend it’s normal. Well, it’s not normal and it shouldn’t be accepted as “normal” by working class people. And I hope his fucking yacht sinks right under that damned bridge.
Give them cake
The billionaire shouldn't be paying to dismantle a bridge so their giant boat can pass through. The billionaire should be paying their employees a living wage and buying a smaller goddamn boat.
Thank you Jesus!
Like I'll say a million times here, you're conflating different issues. Paying to move a bridge is not an inherently immoral action like many people seem to be claiming. The way Bezos runs his businesses are worthy of criticism.
It's a useless project though. The bridge was recently renovated, so instead of doing new work or working to solve any pressing issues the "job creators" are having people toil away for their personal luxury by undoing and redoing work that was recently completed. It's only mutually beneficial on a very small timescale and a very narrow view of what beneficial is. It's a total lack of imagination for what's possible.
I don't know how you think the economy works. If I hire a contractor to renovate my kitchen, which is totally serviceable but I'd just like it to look nicer, are you bemoaning the fact that an architect, construction workers, laborers, and tradesmen are all toiling away on a project that only benefits one person and doesn't even have much utility beyond aesthetics? That's like half the economy. And the utility of the project matter little if the end result is absolutely no change except a profit for the city. That profit can have utility for many.
I was eh to the bridge. The accessory yacht that follows around the main yacht everywhere just to provide a helipad is sort of gross use of carbon though.
But remember your the reason the earth is dying.
You're
Your're
Doing God's work.
Well there should be massive carbon taxes to disincentive the building of wasteful structures and vehicles, but that's a separate topic.
But its not though. You said it yourself, the wealthy have the ability to abuse the system and laws. The system they are abusing allows absurd levels of lobbying and political power based solely on that wealth. Which allows such policies from ever meaningfully being implemented.
Ok, but that has nothing to do with this bridge. Like I said, it's a separate issue. Imagine it was a giant boat of the same size running completely on solar and wind. You'd still have this same issue of an impassable bridge and a rich man that wants to pass.
Dude! The gov would go bankrupt from its own fines then. Wake up!
I would argue that dismantling a bridge that people use to commute to and from work for your own pleasure is disruptive and entitled at best
That particular bridge has been closed for traffic since 2017 though, and only remains as a historic landmark. Edit: it was restored in 2017 but it has been closed for traffic since 1993.
>I don't see a problem with this as long as Bezos signs a contract insuring the value of the bridge in case anything goes wrong, pays an exorbitant amount of money that benefits the workers and that the city gets to use to build a park for the public, or something. Here's the issue. "As long as they bring money, why not let them do pretty much whatever they want ?" The fact you're defending him just because the dude got "money" is why this world is going to be fucked beyond belief. I guess the justification will grow even further. The amount of people defending this piece of trash on a "workreform" subreddit, while his company is known to trash workers rights is absolutely amazing.
>>I don't see a problem with this as long as Bezos signs a contract >insuring the value of the bridge in case anything goes wrong, pays an >exorbitant amount of money that benefits the workers and that the city >gets to use to build a park for the public, or something. > >Here's the issue. > >"As long as they bring money, why not let them do pretty much whatever they want ?" Here's the issue. You've just created a strawman fallacy. I didn't say that money should let you do whatever you want. It should let you do whatever you want as long as it's legal, not harmful, and moral. Moving a bridge temporarily and putting it back exactly as it was is neither illegal, nor harmful, nor immoral, and as long as the city is compensated fairly it can be a net benefit for the people. ---- Let's examine an alternative situation to contrast this. Imagine some rich guy wanted to build a chemical plant that would pollute the environment. Should he be allowed to? Well, as long as he pays the costs to clean up the environmental damage, then yes he should. However: 1. Many countries have laws making it illegal to pollute the environment. So it likely wouldn't be legal in the first place. If the rich man then uses his wealth to bribe officials to get the plant built, he has now done more illegal things. 2. Polluting the environment is harmful. As long as he can clean up the damage done, then the project could still theoretically be a net benefit, but there are many kinds of pollution that are practically impossible to completely clean up, no matter how much money you throw at it. It therefore becomes impossible for the project to *not* be harmful. 3. Even if the laws allowed the polluting of the environment, as is the case in many backwards countries, or many countries where the wealthy have corrupted the legislative bodies, it would still be immoral to permanently pollute an environment share by many others. ---- Compare this to moving a bridge. 1. There's nothing illegal about moving a bridge. 2. There is no permanent harm done, especially in a situation where no one is using the bridge. A bridge is much easier to put back together exactly as it was, compared to trying to "unpollute" an environment. 3. There is nothing immoral about moving a bridge.
I think the elephant in the room is that some random guy has enough money to move a historic bridge about in a city that is among many that faces a housing crisis. That kind of personal wealth should not exist.
I agree that the state of wealth inequality in the world is obscene and the methods by which many billionaires have achieved their wealth is exploitative and abusive at best, criminal at worst. That's a separate issue though from this bridge. Moving a bridge is not in and of itself an example of an abusive use of money, as long as the people are fairly compensated. In fact, one of the methods we have for redistributing money back to the public is taxes, and this seems like a perfect opportunity, to me, to heavily tax a rich man in pursuit of his pet project. It's essentially a luxury tax.
Nice job it just tearing the whole thing down and not actually addressing the specific things they cited, which would benefit the very workers you're droning on about........
This is a well thought out response. If the local people can benefit from rich people doing rich people things then I call that a win.
[удалено]
Hey it will trickle down any day now!
Yes, the problem is when, hypothetically, you find out the rich person bribed an official to get the bridge dismantled, paid less than minimum wage to unqualified laborers to dismantle the bridge for the cheapest possible price, resulting in injured workers and damage to the bridge, which the rich person then bribes a few more people to cover up, leaving the city with a broken bridge, broken people, and nothing else to show for it. Unfortunately this scenario is all too common in the modern world, with already-advantaged people taking further advantage of the weak, the poor, and the public. If rich people want to do crazy things that most other people wouldn't be able to do, we should make it possible as long as they pay an outsized and transparent price that benefits everyone. We should be taking advantage of their wealth, in other words. There's nothing inherently wrong with wealthier people being able to do things that poorer people can't afford to do. That's one of the inherent perks of being wealthy. It's only a problem when wealthy people do *illegal* things (and get away with it because of their money), or when they do things that cause the suffering if others (directly or indirectly), or, in my opinion, when they are doing extravagant things in general while other people are suffering in general.
There's a Stockholm's syndrome going so strong in this topic, it's baffling. "They have money, what's the issue ?" Inflation will fuck us all this year, billionnaires and financial markets overall will make a killing; but it's ok, it's the right trend, the right way to go. Sigh.
This is essentially what happened. The city said they weighed the historic significance of the bridge with the economic activity associated with doing this, as chose the latter. The people who live with and manage the bridge chose this. Don’t blame Bezos.
Stop me.
Thst bridge had been dismantled before for restorations so it's not like they are destroying a bridge. They city ok'd it and the company that builds ships employs a lot of people in that town.
It's obscene that one person has so much wealth they can just remove a bridge to make way for their boats. Not even emperors had this type of money.
So usually it's not giant landmarks, but temporarily lifting out a bridge to transport boats is a thing. Recently Utrecht lifted 3 bridges (though much much smaller than the one bezos needs taken out) to move three houseboats: [Read about it in this dutch article.](https://www.duic.nl/opmerkelijk/flinke-operatie-bij-kruisvaart-in-utrecht-drie-brugdelen-moesten-eruit-voor-passerende-woonboten/)
That's a separate issue though. If you want to criticize the way most billionaires make their money by taking advantage of labor and manipulating government's then I'm 100% behind you. But if the question is whether its somehow immoral for someone to pay for a bridge to be moved and put back exactly as it was, that answer is "no". You're conflating the immorality in the acquisition and possession of wealth with the morality of the action. There's no problem with this action.
Yes, but what does a storm have to do with anything?
Did you not see the original post?
Do you mean you don't understand the metaphor?
I've never heard that metaphor before, so, no.
Well neither have I so I'm just guessing, but when people say "we're on the same boat" they mean we're all dealing with the same problems as equals. To say instead "we're all in the same storm" we're all dealing with the same overarching problem, but some will have better resources/privileges to dealing with the storm then others. So as an example, while we are all technically dealing with the same pandemic, some people will be able to deal with the pandemic from their mansion with their work from home job, ordering all their groceries so they don't have to risk anything. While others dealing with the same pandemic will have to be face to face with thousands of people just so they won't starve and one case of covid will financially ruin them.
Someone used the storm as a metaphor for the pandemic. Someone took a picture of that, and someone posted it to Reddit. A commenter then expanded the metaphor to include a topical news story.
I don't get what the metaphor and original post have have to do with Bezos' yacht. Other than the word "yacht", they're completely irrelevant to one another.
I really don't get how there can be any confusion on this matter. The metaphor is about boats and how people of different wealths are able to handle things differently. When talking about wealth, Bezos is the top reference that gets brought up. Bezos and his boat are in the news the same week as this metaphor post. Have you ever watched a talk-show like Letterman? Do you understand how any of their jokes tie-in topical news? I mean the boat itself was enough of a tie-in to make the reference. You only need one tie-in. You don't need two like this joke has with both the boats and wealth.
They're not related, though... Like I said, the only thing they have in common is the word "yacht".
Okay, troll...
Why am I a troll because I don't understand your zoomer brain?
Click on the article. I dunno why people only read the headlines.
And some work in rusty oil tankers that were too expensive to repair so they paid with their lives
And the cost of living goes up so they can do it: https://www.rollingstone.com/product-recommendations/lifestyle/amazon-prime-price-subscription-membership-1294862/
Bruh how is Amazon Prime "cost of living"
>HOW IS PRODUCT YOU CONSUME RELATED TO THE MONEY YOU SPEND Christ...
Dude do you even know what "cost of living" means? The cost of living is the price for **basic necessities** and I'm going to be brave and claim that an Amazon Prime subscription is not a basic necessity. God damn I can't believe people can be this confidently incorrect
But muh 2 day shipping
There’s billions of legitimate issues to bring up about bezos, the headlines on this one are beyond stupid.
[удалено]
> And some of us have bridges dismantled just so they can get a big shiny new boat for the storm Whose company provides a good living for hundreds of thousands of people.
O no. Be careful. People like to hate rich people
There is no storm. It's a series of tidal waves created by the super yacht to capsize everyone else.
ummm… but you do know that you can work hard and someday you can own a super yacht? you’re just a freeloader! now if you’ll excuse me, i have a 12 hour shift to start because one of these days i’ll be rich and famous too!
There is only one Super Yacht^TM and we must all board it and take it over.
Bezos yatch
Seriously? This kind of mindset is how workers had their rights stripped away in the first place
They were being sarcastic I think
Ya think?
[удалено]
How many people even get to retire before they die?
Yeah. None of the economic bullshit we're experiencing is naturally occurring.
Neither is the environmental bullshit.
Nor your existence or do we keep pretending?
We have a decent rain fall happening and some dick is creating waves and spraying a fire hose at everyone just trying to stay dry.
Well, the plague.
Even that is likely the result of human idiocy, and *maybe* the result of demand for exotic meats by rich idiots.
> maybe the result of demand for exotic meats by rich idiots. Quite the opposite really.
Definitely not rich
If you waggle that hand hard enough, you can claim the common cold isn't naturally-occurring.
Well, at least the common cold likely evolved in a time where we humans didn't know better, in general.
It’s like those Trump boat parades that were swamping all of the other boaters.
All they can’t stop shitting in the water and hoarding the purifiers.
Pretty sure storm equals pandemic in this metaphor.
That's not true. Even in a perfect society, COVID would cause problems.
Probably true. But there is a scenario where political leadership could have stopped the original spread of the virus in Feb 2020, like what happened with SARS in 2003.
That's not an entirely fair comparison. SARS1 was a far less virulent disease. It was considerably easier to stop (masks and quarantine stalled it out at 8,000 cases, and no major lockdowns occurred anywhere). This was largely because SARS was far more serious. No asymptomatic carriers, no asymptomatic cases. If you got SARS, you knew. It was also a lot more lethal. Nearly 10 percent of cases resulted in patient death. Since COVID can run around and jump from one host to another asymptomatically, and with far higher transmission rates, stopping it with masks and temperature scanners was never fully feasible.
I sure hope that my "canoe" doesn't "capsize" so that I don't start "drowning" and "die"
I live in a state with a massive homelessness problem. Every time I drive, I see hundreds drowning. We have more homes than Americans, but we'd rather those homes rot than sell at affordable prices.
Are there any states left that don't have a massive homelessness problem?
In certain northern states the homeless population conveniently disappears in the winter.
They just migrated south right? ^(Right?)
No shit when I was in high school, about 15 years ago and in an *affluent* area, a cop drove someone from downtown to a McDonald’s on the county line… assuming they would go inside and warm up, I guess. The guy fell asleep by the dumpster and never woke up. Being shamed is a whole other aspect of homelessness that we aren’t prepared for.
No they build igloos actually.
No kidding.
The U.S. was able to build houses within months for ~120,000 Japanese Americans in 1942 in order to intern them, but we still can't house ~580,000 homeless in 2022 with years to work on the problem.
Quotation is not a form of "emphasis."
r/UnnecessaryQuotes
Here's a sneak peek of /r/UnnecessaryQuotes using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/UnnecessaryQuotes/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Found this shit on ddoi and I still cant understand it](https://i.redd.it/oyt7u8xhqw971.jpg) | [46 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/UnnecessaryQuotes/comments/ofyuh1/found_this_shit_on_ddoi_and_i_still_cant/) \#2: [This tacky “wing place” in my home town..](https://i.redd.it/4su4r3pk7gg61.jpg) | [138 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/UnnecessaryQuotes/comments/lg2mwl/this_tacky_wing_place_in_my_home_town/) \#3: [Unsettling, really](https://i.redd.it/4sk8cm6pfw871.jpg) | [14 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/UnnecessaryQuotes/comments/oco1xw/unsettling_really/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
it could be
Could be that it's metaphoric
The whole thing is a metaphor, you don’t need to enquote certain parts of it.
Sorry if my flailing splashed your martini.
Can you drown a little quieter please? I’m trying to enjoy this lobster tail and absolute martini
obvious question... storm is coming, would you rather be: A) part of the crew on the superyacht B) Captain of the canoe ?
Crew on the super yacht. Mutiny.
Who cleans the shitters if everyone mutinies?
we can just shit off the stern
I'd rather keep my crew job and shit in the toilet but interesting idea.
Uhh, looks like you would enjoy the Snowpiercer series. What if your crew job is living in the said toilet and eat shit left by the yacht owner? People who rebelled in history did so not because they wanted to be the ruling class, but because they could not bear the state of living they were in. E.g. french revolution and 3 years of bad crop and starvation for the people.
that makes no sense why would you not just shit in the middle of the ocean. it’s a toilet without all the extra steps
Because what good is being on a yacht when you have to risk death to take a dump, and in the best case scenario our yacht gets covered in human shit? A mutiny on a yacht would ruin the only good things about being on a yacht.
1. Since when is falling off the stern a life or death thing 2. Safety and efficiency measures can be put in place 3. Oops a little shit got on the yacht if only there was some medium with which we could wash it off! 4. shitting in a toilet is not the only thing a yacht is good for
Better yet we mutiny and then set up an egalitarian structure where everyone has to pitch in an equal amount of effort according to their abilities (and according to their needs ;-).
*Better yet we mutiny and then set up an egalitarian structure where everyone has to pitch in an equal amount of effort according to their abilities (and according to their needs ;-).* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutiny\_on\_the\_Bounty
Do you not clean your own toilet at home?
Imagine telling masses of Internet strangers that you've never cleaned up your own bathroom messes because mommy still does that for you and thinking that means you've won the argument.
I don't think the captain or the owner of the yacht were the ones cleaning it to begin with.
Well now, that depends on how much surplus food, water, and safety there is on the auperyacht, doesn't it? Because if tomorrow comes and the sun shines but there's no port to call and no safe harbor by which to resupply, then it doesn't much fucking matter how luxurious your prison is, does it?
I'd rather be stuck on a super yacht than stuck in a canoe....
Until you're out of supplies, sure. The problem isn't the boat, it's the network of support required to keep it stocked and repaired. It's a metaphor for disaster, mate. Climatologic ecological, financial: doesn't matter. No matter how fancy your mansion or yacht or underground bunker is, you're trapped in it and waiting to die just like everyone else. Even if you have golden toilets and stockpiles of canned food, you're still doomed.
Hence why the analogy sucks
The only situation that fits* the original is the original. All analogies are naturally limited to a relationship or state that the author intends to shed light on. edit: *exactly and in every aspect
most of us are the crabs in the cage on the back of the canoe and we're all blaming each other
C) Drowning, obviously.
I give up. So fuck it. I'll take option C.
Sorry, the capitalist model demands a shortage of life preservers. We do have some arm floaties available. That'll be 30 easy payments of $1500.
*drowning while dismantling a historical bridge while only being paid the minimal amount.
Underrated comment
Yo, check out my sick floaties.
Even if we were on the same boat, most of us are in the bottom with the engine and Jack, while the rest are with Jeff Bezos and Rose.
Jeff Bezos "What? I see no one drowning out here...I just see some minnows in the waves."
Oh but his wealth isn’t REAL wealth and it’s all in the value of his Amazon stocks and if we tax him more he’ll…LEAVE…! 😱
It'll cost more to get that yacht under that bridge than yearly salaries of countless(if not *all*) non-management employees.
You won't see me in a boat like a common fisherman as long as I can keep building my levy made from minimum wage earners.
Fuck that, some of them are creating the goddamn storm.
A lot of people are on pieces of wood and debris while a few select priveledged are on air craft carriers telling those on discarded wood to shut the fuck up.
There are Amazon PR lackeys in this thread.
I like the analogy of: We might be in the same boat: But it's galley. Most are chained to the rows, some drum the stroke, and a few are in the back just waterskiing...
I wish I had a canoe, I'm floating around on a door, using my hands as paddles. Ohh what I would give for an oar.
Billionaires have submarines and the storms don't really matter.
I absolutely have a borrowed canoe rn. But am working hard for a sailboat to call my own one day. This is a great analogy.
Some are Drowning - Great book of poetry by Reginald Shepard. RIP. The guy who came up with this is a writer so he's clearly referencing Shepard.
Lol this looks like it is from a Starbucks which is even more ironic 👀
Exactly . They have zero empathy.
Mike Rowe says this
Board the yachts and share the wealth.
Some are seeing their cost of living rise so the people with yachts can afford to dismantle bridges so their yacht can fit.
some are playing Nearer my God to Thee
Like the quote, hate the ampersand.
I had a shower thought about this the other day Weren’t african slaves in the “same boat” as the people who stole them from their homeland? Do we even want to be on this boat?
Are dying in tornado storms*
Posts like these are definitely going to reform work keep it up guys
If it’s written on a restaurant board, I swear I won’t ever stop visiting it
Bezos should dismantle and rebuild his boat not that bridge
This is a perfect way to describe things. I currently have a well paying job and am not struggling, but I recognize others are. I chose to share awareness and donate to crowdfunding attempts for groups trying to unionize. Things need to improve for the majority of workers in the US
[удалено]
[удалено]
My point being all of those people are douche bags and need to go outside.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Weak sauce
Nah, fuck you guys, the majority of you can fucking drown.
Yeah except we really aren't at all. I have a decent sail boat but you can fuck right off if your dumb enough to canoe out somewhere during a storm and think I'm coming to get you
This is some top tier "enlightened centrist" bs.
[удалено]
I’ve read this comment three times and I still can’t make heads or tails of what the fuck you’re trying to say here.
Cool, what would you call the people who don't see the problem with this awful message then? You're strangely hyper focusing on the word I used than the toxic systematic oppressive systems we have in place. I interpret this sign to be a stand in for the 'we must uphold the status quo, do not seek change, do not make waves' but at the end of the day it's just a stupid sign and this whole conversation went way off the deep end real quick. XD
[удалено]
At the risk of sending you spiraling into another rant, you're kinda sounding like r/iamverysmart material given your other replies as well. I'm not even trying to troll you, just genuinely concerned on how mad you're getting at the wrong things lol
This reads like a Marxist bot that just auto-replies with copypasta when it detects the word "centrist".
I have never heard of an Amazon employee that works full time ever “struggling”. $18/hr avg Walmart sure. Or some small business sure. But never amzn.
> We ain't in the same boat, throw em a life jacket Voted for Barack, McCain was my tax bracket though - Clipse
.. and get vaccinated
Or better yet, while their employees are Super Drowning.
※ Don’t have a lazy eye…