this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2025
113 points (100.0% liked)

Games

21182 readers
180 users here now

Tabletop, DnD, board games, and minecraft. Also Animal Crossing.

Rules

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
jack@hexbear.net
RiotDoll@hexbear.net
113
This is why you dont let billionaires have 100 children. (hexbear.net)
submitted 1 day ago by Yuritopiaposadism@hexbear.net to c/games@hexbear.net
50 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

According to recent reports by Fortune and Wall Street Journal, and court testimonies, the 48-year-old entrepreneur aims to father at least 20 US-born kids specifically to inherit his video game fortune. Bo wants to leverage US-based surrogacy to bypass domestic birth restrictions and secure American-born heirs.

Citing Xu’s video game company, a Wall Street Journal reported that Xu has more than 100 children born through surrogates based in the US, and has been allegedly seeking “50 high-quality sons,” as per accounts linked to Xu on Chinese microblogging website Weibo. One of the accounts also claim that according to Xu, “having more children can solve all problems.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PorkrollPosadist@hexbear.net 3 points 9 hours ago

You cannot possibly raise that many children. You cannot even remember all their names.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 15 points 1 day ago

Everything i hear about Cultural Revolution not only failed to convince me it was mistake but made me wonder why there isn't next one.

[–] Owl@hexbear.net 69 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's cool that China is beating the US at everything I guess, but maybe they should skip beating the US at how weird their Elon Musk is.

[–] Yuritopiaposadism@hexbear.net 31 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Rare China L

xinternet

[–] vegeta1@hexbear.net 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Could you imagine a version of the show succession with this family

[–] Blep@hexbear.net 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You could legit kill like 2 failchildren an episode and still have like 5 or 6 seasons

[–] vegeta1@hexbear.net 12 points 1 day ago

The last sibbling standing finds written in the extra clause of the will "this money is going to charity. You killed your fellow sibblings and frankly I can't believe you actually did it. I don't need that kind of decision making in my life and since I'm not alive the world doesn't need that kinda decision making having billions"

[–] GrouchyGrouse@hexbear.net 30 points 1 day ago (1 children)

All this tells me is we can add “child neglect” to the list of billionaire crimes.

[–] ExotiqueMatter@lemmygrad.ml 23 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Wasn't it already on the list?

[–] GrouchyGrouse@hexbear.net 11 points 1 day ago

It was but now it’s bolded and underlined

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 56 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It's going to be cool when every billionaire has succession wars fought by their dozens of children.

[–] tamagotchicowboy@hexbear.net 48 points 1 day ago

The best the big bourgeois can dream of is monarchy, definitely tells one something

[–] infuziSporg@hexbear.net 24 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"Historical progression is linear, there is only socialism on the other side of capitalism, 'techno-feudalism' is gibberish, no way could capitalism bend back around to feudalism"

[–] Ildsaye@hexbear.net 19 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Calling monopoly capitalism "techno-feudalism" only serves to whitewash capitalism. What we are seeing is capitalism returning to form, now that the last shreds of Cold War pretense that capitalism can be humane and lawful have been shed. Haute bourgeoisie have always been this weird, they just used to have better PR.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 day ago

Yeah I read Vaurofakis's book, he basically just described normal rent seeking in the monopoly stage of capitalism but pretended like it was a novel break from all the capitalism that came before it. As if railroads weren't just the datacenters of yesteryear.

[–] infuziSporg@hexbear.net 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The distinguishing feature of capitalism, in contrast with feudalism with banks, is that under capitalism there is a tradable promise of social mobility and a competition for the same top of the pyramid instead of inheritance of it.

[–] Ildsaye@hexbear.net 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The "free market" phase of capitalism is just an early, and pretty brief stage of capitalist development. For most of its life cycle afterward, the promise of social mobility is a scam.

The Cold War was a state of exception in which capitalism temporarily distorted itself to survive a strong international labor movement, embodied by the USSR; conditions favoring greater social mobility were tolerated as a concession then. Only the appearance of another militant labor front on that scale has even the remotest chance of bending the capitalists that far ever again.

Even back in their time, Marx and Engles observed that capitalism's liberatory role was limited and short-lived, and that if it outlived its time, the result would be "the common ruin of the contending classes;" and the prosperity capitalism opens the way for could only be completed by the production mode to come: socialism.

[–] infuziSporg@hexbear.net 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

the prosperity capitalism opens the way for

This is exactly the kind of reasoning that "capitalism built your iphone" people use. Capitalism doesn't open the way for anything; human technology builds upon earlier human technology largely independently of who controls the profits and how.

It's not unambiguously liberatory compared to its coincidental historical predecessor in Northwest Eurasia, its full development is not a prerequisite for building socialism, and as you've acknowledged, it does have the ability to turn humans into permanent subordinates that are structurally stripped of virtually all consequential agency.

[–] Ildsaye@hexbear.net 5 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

During the Industrial Revolution, neither the feudalists nor the socialists were prepared to build the social organization to make 'iphones'. Maybe there are timelines where they were, but in this one the feudalists lacked the incentive to drive change and the socialists had not matured to the point of making a USSR yet, and so the capitalists were able to capture the space. Socialists have certainly since demonstrated that they can spoof whatever parts of capitalism might have been needed, to transition out of feudalism directly, and it's only more so now with the availability of computers to solve distribution problems.

Something feudalists and monopolists have in common is that they have little reason to build or improve capital, they'd prefer to just collect rents on what there already is. As long as there are any socialist or industrial capitalist powers on earth, they will have the advantage of the actual production and reproduction of capital, which shows sooner or later. t34

To address the present state of affairs more specifically, it seems a matter of time before the erratic decline of the US drives countries to abandon or weaken copyright treaties made with it. All my digital rental properties gone! all-my-apes-gone

[–] infuziSporg@hexbear.net 3 points 17 hours ago

Under feudalism and even/especially under slave societies, it was possible to build large buildings requiring many divisions of skilled labor, and to command armies in the hundreds of thousands, all equipped with the most advanced technology that was available. The fact that they didn't produce the technology we have today is more a matter of the sequential progression of technology than of the users of technology. The march of technological development is mostly independent of what state structures are in place. The linear development of "slave society > feudalism > capitalism > socialism" is largely a post hoc ergo propter hoc heuristic in the Western European perspective, much like "savages > barbarians > semi-civilized > civilized" and "Stone Age > Copper Age > Bronze Age > Iron Age" that were dominant in Marx and Engels' time but have been superseded.

The interest under socialism of making physical improvements with less redundancy, to better peoples lives, is a good point. And I fully agree with it. But it doesn't directly have much to do with the more backward/reactionary modes of social development.

[–] Philosoraptor@hexbear.net 38 points 1 day ago (1 children)

High quality, precision engineered, artisanal sons

[–] 9to5@hexbear.net 15 points 1 day ago

I craft my sons the old fashioned way. Slightly buzzed at 3am behind a waffle house

[–] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 51 points 1 day ago (1 children)

"50 high quality sons"

Those kids for sure aren't being mentally and emotionally tortured

[–] Acute_Engles@hexbear.net 45 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Hiring quality control staff to randonly check my sons for defects.

Ooh i don't like how real that sounds

[–] Florn@hexbear.net 27 points 1 day ago

My parents have a potential career change

[–] came_apart_at_Kmart@hexbear.net 45 points 1 day ago (1 children)

my 50 high quality sons
vs
your 3 large adult sons

[–] context@hexbear.net 23 points 1 day ago (1 children)

~~my 50~~ your 100 high quality sons

vs

~~your 3~~ my 5 large adult sons

this is the plot of the bhagavad gita, incidentally

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It was ok since one of them was reincarantion of a demon. Damn, Frieren is a much older show than we suspected.

[–] Wheaties@hexbear.net 33 points 1 day ago (1 children)

a) weird

b) splitting inheritance between 20 children is at least marginally closer to wealth redistribution than 1 or 2 children

[–] Alaskaball@hexbear.net 33 points 1 day ago

Bringing back feudal gavelkind inheritance for the failsons and faildaughters of billionaires to break up monopoly capital to own the commies

[–] 3rdWorldCommieCat@hexbear.net 28 points 1 day ago

Those children are gonna have 0 emotional attachment to this guy.

[–] robot_dog_with_gun@hexbear.net 36 points 1 day ago

death to hypernatalists

[–] Meltyheartlove@hexbear.net 39 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Living billionaire-tears's dream

[–] optissima@lemmy.ml 40 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Maybe repealing the child limit entirely was a mistake

[–] purpleworm@hexbear.net 23 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Yeah, this is a good case for the need for a maximum of maybe 10 children.

[–] Le_Wokisme@hexbear.net 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

how about "if you want more than 3 children we cockblock you forever"

[–] purpleworm@hexbear.net 20 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I don't think there's an inherent problem with having a big family, and it's not worth legislating around unless absolutely demanded by current conditions (which, right or wrong, was the premise of previous X child policies), so I said 10 because my only more generalizable stance is that these "hypernatalist" assholes should not be allowed to do what they do. 10 might be high, but I think 3 is probably too low.

Of course, this must be paired with mandatory sex ed and access to contraceptives, abortion, etc. so that as few people as possible simply "end up with" a big family that they didn't want.

[–] buckykat@hexbear.net 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

10 kids screams "mormon sickos" to me

[–] purpleworm@hexbear.net 3 points 11 hours ago

I did say 10 might be high.

[–] doublepepperoni@hexbear.net 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I mean, this guy is seemingly just doing the creepy Musk thing where he mails his spunk to morally decrepit sickos who are willing to aid in their breeder fantasies for $$$

It's as far removed from normal human sex and procreation as you can imagine

[–] purpleworm@hexbear.net 6 points 1 day ago

True, but we've seen cults and such that operate more along the lines of polygyny, not to mention the "quiverfull" people (though I repeat myself)

[–] woodenghost@hexbear.net 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is a good case for a maximum of maybe 10 millions of personal wealth.

[–] purpleworm@hexbear.net 8 points 1 day ago

I agree, though I'm sure we also agree that the much more important thing is the systems that would allow a person to get $100 million to begin with were that limit not in place. "Behind every fortune is a crime" and such a system would thereby only have a very indirect way of preventing crime that is otherwise possible.

[–] Parzivus@hexbear.net 13 points 1 day ago

I had to check, his company publishes mainly mobile games that haven't been released outside China, but they are notably also the developer of Gunfire Reborn, a fairly popular co-op shooter on Steam.

[–] scathliath@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 1 day ago

These men learned nothing reading about Charlemagne or the Khan, eh? Wonder if we can convince him to have a thousand kids so he has a ton of heirs fighting over modest sums.

[–] Evilphd666@hexbear.net 13 points 1 day ago

Then they get all creepy about bloodlines and 'divine right'.

dennis Strange women laying in [SEMEN], accepting money is no basis for a system of governance.

[–] Infamousblt@hexbear.net 28 points 1 day ago

Billionaires are not okay

[–] bobs_guns@lemmygrad.ml 23 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Sorry but this sounds like something from a porno

[–] KoloradoKoolAid75@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

"Life imitates art", or something like that ider.

[–] volcel_olive_oil@hexbear.net 10 points 1 day ago

what are you gonna do when 50-60 high quality large adult sons inherit a video game fortune while kids play