5 ms·
There are lots of white South Africans. I believe musk is one. Starlink is majority owned by a South African. The law isn’t about foreign/doneatic. It’s about
by sjducb 3mo ago
There are lots of white South Africans. I believe musk is one. Starlink is majority owned by a South African.
The law isn’t about foreign/doneatic. It’s about black/white.
Increasingly this state authorised racism is now extending to black people. The violent ethnic cleansing against black Milawians by black South Africans is terrifying.
- WhereIsTheTruth 3mo agoAgreed Just like the violent ethnic cleansing against Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians and Jordanians by white Israelis is terrifying
- sjducb 2mo agoAgreed. All racism is wrong. Would you like to take back your “And rightfully so” comment, where you support explicitly racist laws?
- dreambuffer 2mo agoWhy don't you guys ever acknowledge that the law is an attempt to correct the racism of the apartheid government by distributing economic opportunities to those who never had them?
- mothballed 2mo agoEconomic opportunity isnt zero sum. The 'opportunity' the ANC is 'redistributing' is neglect and mismanagement of infrastructure. Kneecapping starlink doesn't do anything for blacks.
- dreambuffer 2mo agoEconomic opportunity for black south africans is close to zero sum when all the profit goes to a foreign entity and white south africans. Separately, kneecapping starlink does a lot for our country by preventing a man who hates us from abusing our laws and spying on our citizens.
- mothballed 2mo agoI might suggest a basic course in economics. The fact someone else gets all the profit of the price paid for a service doesn't mean you dont also gain from what you received. This is the problem of looking at intent in law. Plenty of racist law had the intent to improve the country. But is in fact often economically illiterate for helping the populace.
- dreambuffer 2mo agoAgain, I never said it was zero sum, but thanks for being condescending. I said it was close to zero sum. Black south africans may get some jobs, maybe some internet, but the profit entirely goes to foreign entities and white south africans (in a theoretical model). The law's intent was never to be racist, and while outcomes vary, the effect does not actually harm white south africans on average. So both the intent and the effect is non-racist.
- mothballed 2mo agoOK so it might be positive sum for blacks if South Africans buy internet from South African Musk (even if Musk vacuums the price as profit) but we can't have that because Musk 'hates' them in your estimation and you've decided individual black people can't decide what that they think about that for themselves even if they might be better off? But the law criticized had nothing to do with hate or spying, so really you've done something sly and shifted the posts once we called bullshit as an out for a clearly illiterate policy.
- dreambuffer 2mo agoBlack people decide every few years by voting for representatives who uphold these policies. There has never been a motion supported by the majority of black south africans to get rid of B-BBEE, only foreign people like you seem to have a problem with it and that is because you don't understand what it is trying to do and you (probably) hate the idea of reparations for apartheid. Or at the very least you support aggressive pro-market policies that south africans do not want. Additionally, the owner of Starlink hates South Africa (I never said black south africans, but you know), because he has spread lies about genocide occurring here.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- watwut 2mo ago> The violent ethnic cleansing against black Milawians by black South Africans is terrifying. You will be shocked to discover that most ethic cleansings were among people who looked similar. And that include nazism in Europe which did not divided world into black and white either. It includes arab world and hostilities there too. Like, for christ sake, you could have used the names of those ethnic groups.