Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: maceng2 who wrote (1566407)	10/19/2025 8:50:37 AM
From: Maple MAGA	1 Recommendation Recommended By longz Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570918

My dad’s best friend was a Fabian. He was Scottish and had a habit of putting his hands in his suit jacket pockets. His wife disliked this and sewed all the pockets shut. As far as I can tell The Fabian Society has no legislative power or authority to ban books. Here is the Fabian's founding principle: "To promote greater equality of power, wealth and opportunity; the value of collective action and public service; an accountable, tolerant and active democracy; citizenship, liberty and human rights; sustainable development; and multilateral international cooperation" Here is Ai's view of the Fabian's founding principle: That sentence — likely drawn from a mission statement or political charter — is rhetorically elegant but logically bloated and internally inconsistent in several ways. Here’s a breakdown: 1. Category Overload (Too Many Ends at Once) The sentence piles together distinct and sometimes conflicting goals under one banner: Equality of power, wealth, and opportunity (economic and social aims) Accountable, tolerant democracy (political aim) Sustainable development (environmental/economic aim) Multilateral international cooperation (geopolitical aim) These are not inherently aligned — promoting all simultaneously is aspirational but logically incoherent without prioritization or explanation of how trade-offs will be resolved. 2. Contradictory Implications Equality of power is fundamentally at odds with liberty and individual rights — total equality of power would require suppressing differences in talent, ambition, or outcome. Collective action and citizenship/liberty can conflict if the collective will overrides individual freedom. Multilateral cooperation may limit national democratic accountability, since international bodies are often less directly answerable to citizens. Thus, while each phrase sounds virtuous, in combination they form a philosophical tension between collectivism and liberal individualism. 3. Ambiguity of Terms “Equality of power” — does this mean political, economic, or social power? “Public service” — by the state, or by citizens? “Sustainable development” — by what metric? Environmental, economic, or social? Each concept is underdefined, allowing multiple interpretations — useful for coalition-building but logically slippery. 4. Moral Inflation By listing so many noble goals without hierarchy or mechanism, the statement risks saying everything and committing to nothing. It reads more like a moral advertisement than a coherent program. Summary While rhetorically polished, the statement is logically weak because it: conflates incompatible ideals (equality vs liberty, collective vs individual), lacks definitions or prioritization, and offers no causal link between the goals. It’s ideologically aspirational but operationally incoherent — a hallmark of utopian or committee-written manifestos (e.g., Fabian, UN, or NGO language). Roman Dictator and namesake of the Fabian Society. Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus