The Invisible Hand
-
@Copper said in The Invisible Hand:
@Aqua-Letifer said in The Invisible Hand:
He didn't mean what you're implying
He meant what the songwriter was implying.
No, I'm talking about the songwriter. Chris Lunsford.
The line is an indictment against what is and is not covered by government assistance, not fat people. He's said literally that when asked about it.
You're quoting something you don't understand.
-
So we decided to watch a Christmas Movie on Disney+ last night called Naughty Nine. Think Ocean’s Eleven with kids trying to break into Santa’s workshop. We figured that it would be fun for Finley. We made it 10 minutes before we shut it off.
Right off the bat one of the main characters introduced her two dads who were very physical. Then they introduced the gay 12-13 year old boy that was the worst frigging stereotype of a flamboyant gay man, who was flirting with adult men.
I don’t think they got the message about messaging.
-
@George-K said in The Invisible Hand:
The interesting thing is that some are interpreting Musk's comment this way:
"You think your dollars can influence what I display/say on MY platform? Go fuck yourself, you just admitted that. Spare me the sanctimony."
He's a lot blunter with Disney than he is with the CCP, but he makes his real money from selling cars.
-
@George-K said in The Invisible Hand:
The interesting thing is that some are interpreting Musk's comment this way:
"You think your dollars can influence what I display/say on MY platform? Go fuck yourself, you just admitted that. Spare me the sanctimony."
I'm not sure how that interpretation differs from the obvious one, but the fuller context of what he said was "do you think you can blackmail me with money? GFY...". The obvious interpretation being that the richest person in the world can't be influenced by money.
He goes on to say that advertiser boycotts could kill the company, though. And if X died, that would affect even Musk's money.
Somehow he considered it important that the public would decide whether the advertisers would be considered at fault for the destruction of X. I didn't quite track the meaning of that. I don't think the advertisers have anything at stake if X dies. Something else will spring up to take its place, and the diffuse responsibility for X's demise would not land heavily on any one company.