Marianne Williamson

Rank 18 of 47

Score 65

@AlliedStatesOA @GunnelsWarren I don’t see that as a correct analogy at all. The personal computer represented progress not only economically but also socially. It clearly created more jobs for masses of people.
A shift that represents nothing but further consolidation of wealth into the hands of a tiny

11/18/2025, 8:07:34 AM

In reply to:

League of Friendship

@AlliedStatesOA

37d

@marwilliamson @GunnelsWarren Just like the personal computer eliminated typewriter jobs. 🤣

Marianne Williamson

@marwilliamson

37d

@GunnelsWarren Their business model isn’t job creation; it’s job elimination. And over the last few years those three and quite a few more have been radicalized into a feudalistic vision of corporate authoritarianism. This makes the billionaire Tech Bros a danger to more than the economy. That

Warren Gunnels

@GunnelsWarren

37d

Musk, worth $470 billion, plans to become a trillionaire by replacing workers with robots.

Bezos, worth $256 billion, plans to replace 600,000 jobs with robots.

Zuckerberg, worth $216 billion, laid off 17,000 workers.

Billionaires aren’t job creators. They’re job destroyers.

The statement engages in a public discourse about the economic and social impacts of technological advancements and wealth distribution. It challenges the analogy comparing personal computers to current technological shifts, arguing that the former led to job creation and social progress, while the latter may lead to wealth consolidation.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement does not use harmful language and focuses on critiquing the analogy rather than individuals. [+1]
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
The statement promotes understanding by providing a counterpoint to the analogy, encouraging a deeper analysis of economic impacts. [+1]
Principle 4:
I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
The statement engages in constructive criticism by addressing the content of the analogy rather than attacking the individuals involved. [+1]