I feel like this is only going to get worse in the near future. These parasites have essentially been given carte blanche to be their most terrible selves. Apparently all of the dollars in the world doesn't shield their fragile little egos against some criticism and jabs from a comedian. Maybe they should talk to a therapist, rather than to their legions of drooling toadies, might be a better return on their money, since that means so much to them.
Getting knowledge from comedians is worse than having leaders who are reality tv hosts and failed casino owners? The leader in question is trashing the world economy, deporting people, without trial or due process, to concentration camps in El Salvador, and ignoring judicial orders.
I’ve seen very little cost cutting that matters in that $35 trillion dollar debt. But I’ve seen plenty of cutting social programs that will result in much misery. And trashing of long standing allies and economic partners.
For fun go and look at the history of the ups and downs of that $35 trillion dollar debt, and which administrations it shrank and grew under.
As for “billionaire businessman”, I’ll go with real estate swindler and gangster. And insurrectionist too.
Because wit is good proxy for intelligence and an ability to take alternate perspectives. (Not all commedians are actually using wit, some lean on other kinds of humor, practised learned jokes and rebuttals, rousing a crowd against scapegoats)
Two actors have been Governor of California. One has been president.
The current president is a reality TV star.
We've already had a professional comedian as a US Senator.
I'm sure I'm missing a bunch, but I think we've established that there's a show-biz-to-politics pipeline. Is that a good thing? Maybe, maybe not, but I don't think you can call it disqualifying.
Electing a comic may sound like a joke, but I'm willing to consider anyone who can demonstrate intellect and empathy. Frankly, I don't think our current crop of politicians tend to come from backgrounds that are somehow more noble.
> Frankly, I don't think our current crop of politicians tend to come from backgrounds that are somehow more noble.
Cue the reddit meme about how the sword in the stone method of choosing a king might actually be a better way of going about choosing leadership, as current politicians are the results of decades of compromise and ruthless chasing of power.
Certainly there are some who are more in touch with the people than others, but it's not hard to see people like Fetterman take a hard turn and become another political creature.
Sure, practically any joker off the streets would have better policies for the United States than Trump's Great Leap Backwards. At least Mao was trying to move his country forwards - at this rate it won't be long until we're backyard smelting pig iron out of necessity.
Yes, a national default on debt would be a terrible thing. Most American debt is denominated in USD. The US is monetarily sovereign, meaning it can always create more USD at will. This means that the US can only default on its debt voluntarily, which is exactly the type of economic catastrophe that Trump is doing his best to cause.
As a student of Austrian economics and a proponent of actual fiscal conservatism, correct. The United States is monetarily sovereign and controls the world reserve currency. The biggest threat to our country is a loss of faith in the United States as a world leader, which Trump is doing his damnedest to facilitate.
Title: "Seth Rogen Speaks Truth to Billionaires, Gets Censored for It "
Actual quote: "And it’s amazing that others [who have been] in this room underwrote electing a man who, in the last week, single-handedly destroyed all of American science. It’s amazing how much good science you can destroy with $320 million and RFK Jr, very fast."
"single-handedly destroyed all of American science" is hyperbolic and hardly "truth". At best it's a subjective statement. I agree that he's directionally correct in the sense that Trump is doing massive harm to American science, but the article is trying to prove too much. Even something restrained like "Trump is doing massive harm to American science" is arguably subjective, because Musk and co would argue they're just defunding useless programs like DEI or whatever.
If you've read this far: no, don't take this as implying I support Trump or his actions.
I'm not defending it, but I'm pretty sure it's using the expression "truth to power", tweaked - "truth to billionaires". It's not meant to be literal 'truth' in the dictionary sense. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaking_truth_to_power
the important bit of information is that this is yet another institution that self-censors
regarding the claims, a constitutional crisis can easily lead to unimaginable destruction of things that are upstream from US science, so ... it doesn't seem that big of a hyperbole unfortunately.
Even if we pretended Seth Rogen's wealth and influence are in the same league as Bezos and Zuckerberg, why would you ignore the discourse between the people who pull the strings?
I feel like this is only going to get worse in the near future. These parasites have essentially been given carte blanche to be their most terrible selves. Apparently all of the dollars in the world doesn't shield their fragile little egos against some criticism and jabs from a comedian. Maybe they should talk to a therapist, rather than to their legions of drooling toadies, might be a better return on their money, since that means so much to them.
I think they're more concerned about political retaliation from the Trump regime than having their feelings hurt.
Are you thinking the "parasites" the previous poster mentioned were the comedians? They meant the billionaires.
[flagged]
[flagged]
i’d vote for seth rogen
his new show The Studio on Apple TV is phenomenal
You can't have him. He's ours (Canada).
Look man we’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel here… help us out.
To do what? Write funny jokes and star in his own election?
Far too many get their knowledge from comedians, actors and rock stars.
Getting knowledge from comedians is worse than having leaders who are reality tv hosts and failed casino owners? The leader in question is trashing the world economy, deporting people, without trial or due process, to concentration camps in El Salvador, and ignoring judicial orders.
You conveniently forgot billionaire businessman.
So you have no problem with the US $35 trillion dollar debt but Trump's cost cutting is an issue?
The cost cutting is vaporware. The rising costs on all of us are not.
I’ve seen very little cost cutting that matters in that $35 trillion dollar debt. But I’ve seen plenty of cutting social programs that will result in much misery. And trashing of long standing allies and economic partners.
For fun go and look at the history of the ups and downs of that $35 trillion dollar debt, and which administrations it shrank and grew under.
As for “billionaire businessman”, I’ll go with real estate swindler and gangster. And insurrectionist too.
The “billionaire businessman” who inherited a fortune and who would have done better putting his money in an investment fund?
Because wit is good proxy for intelligence and an ability to take alternate perspectives. (Not all commedians are actually using wit, some lean on other kinds of humor, practised learned jokes and rebuttals, rousing a crowd against scapegoats)
Zelensky actually was a comedian and actor just right before getting elected iirc
He run a successful company. He was not just actor.
If he just goes President Camacho and listens to some smart people that would be an improvement.
yeah, that sounds good! but really, i meant it in a light-hearted show of support for speaking the truth.
> “Far too many get their knowledge from comedians, actors and rock stars.”
It’s not knowledge. It’s the zingers.
The poets craft ideas into expressions of how we feel.
I think it’s a mistake to put them in government, but as my dad would say, if you think it’s so easy you try.
Two actors have been Governor of California. One has been president. The current president is a reality TV star. We've already had a professional comedian as a US Senator.
I'm sure I'm missing a bunch, but I think we've established that there's a show-biz-to-politics pipeline. Is that a good thing? Maybe, maybe not, but I don't think you can call it disqualifying.
Electing a comic may sound like a joke, but I'm willing to consider anyone who can demonstrate intellect and empathy. Frankly, I don't think our current crop of politicians tend to come from backgrounds that are somehow more noble.
Reagan was an actor but you don't mention he was heavily involved in politics and the labor movement before being elected governor.
Lots of actors are involved in politics or activism. Including Seth Rogen.
> Frankly, I don't think our current crop of politicians tend to come from backgrounds that are somehow more noble.
Cue the reddit meme about how the sword in the stone method of choosing a king might actually be a better way of going about choosing leadership, as current politicians are the results of decades of compromise and ruthless chasing of power.
Certainly there are some who are more in touch with the people than others, but it's not hard to see people like Fetterman take a hard turn and become another political creature.
> Electing a comic may sound like a joke, but I'm willing to consider anyone who can demonstrate intellect and empathy.
yea, Zelenskyy immediately comes to mind.
That's a pretty solid point.
I too would like intelligent and qualified people to be president, but alas.
Counterpoint: Zelensky.
Case in point.
you talking about current President here? that can get you deported :)
Sure, practically any joker off the streets would have better policies for the United States than Trump's Great Leap Backwards. At least Mao was trying to move his country forwards - at this rate it won't be long until we're backyard smelting pig iron out of necessity.
So you think the US $35 trillion debt is not a problem and Trump's cost cutting is?
Well, the first thing is, he actually needs to cut costs. Which he has not.
Who is going to make America pay when it is dominant?
Alternatively, what is America going to do when nobody respects it anymore?
The US is in a much better position with debt and power than it will be net zero and ostracized
If American defaults on its debt it would absolutely destroy the economy. This is a really weird take
I'm not saying the US should default on the debt, just that it never, in practice, actually has to pay it back.
Yes, a national default on debt would be a terrible thing. Most American debt is denominated in USD. The US is monetarily sovereign, meaning it can always create more USD at will. This means that the US can only default on its debt voluntarily, which is exactly the type of economic catastrophe that Trump is doing his best to cause.
Trump has added 7.1 trillion in debt, more debt than any other president in history.
Source: https://www.investopedia.com/democrats-vs-republicans-who-ha...
As a student of Austrian economics and a proponent of actual fiscal conservatism, correct. The United States is monetarily sovereign and controls the world reserve currency. The biggest threat to our country is a loss of faith in the United States as a world leader, which Trump is doing his damnedest to facilitate.
Don’t forget that President Zelenskyy was a comedian…
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Scientists should talk in defense of science, not artists.
Movies, comedians and the entertainment industry always mocked and despised scientists and reason.
Title: "Seth Rogen Speaks Truth to Billionaires, Gets Censored for It "
Actual quote: "And it’s amazing that others [who have been] in this room underwrote electing a man who, in the last week, single-handedly destroyed all of American science. It’s amazing how much good science you can destroy with $320 million and RFK Jr, very fast."
"single-handedly destroyed all of American science" is hyperbolic and hardly "truth". At best it's a subjective statement. I agree that he's directionally correct in the sense that Trump is doing massive harm to American science, but the article is trying to prove too much. Even something restrained like "Trump is doing massive harm to American science" is arguably subjective, because Musk and co would argue they're just defunding useless programs like DEI or whatever.
If you've read this far: no, don't take this as implying I support Trump or his actions.
I'm not defending it, but I'm pretty sure it's using the expression "truth to power", tweaked - "truth to billionaires". It's not meant to be literal 'truth' in the dictionary sense. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaking_truth_to_power
the important bit of information is that this is yet another institution that self-censors
regarding the claims, a constitutional crisis can easily lead to unimaginable destruction of things that are upstream from US science, so ... it doesn't seem that big of a hyperbole unfortunately.
He's a comedian, his only task is to be directionally correct.
That's fine, I'm not blaming him, I'm blaming the publication for stretching the truth to get more outrage/clicks.
You mean he didn't get censored?
I never made that claim.
A rich and powerful person talking crap about other rich and powerful people. Excuse me if I don't pay attention.
Even if we pretended Seth Rogen's wealth and influence are in the same league as Bezos and Zuckerberg, why would you ignore the discourse between the people who pull the strings?