If that’s what you got from what I said then your reading comprehension levels are non existent.

This isn’t reddit, you can simply just scroll through my account history and see. It seems like you can’t comprehend that someone exists on here who isn’t irrational or bloodthirsty

However, killing them is the accountability and we’ll keep doing so untill they accept jail instead. It is the punishment for what they have done. I’m willing to settle for jail. But I don’t know about the rest of the world. Because remember they are killing us because it hurt thier bottom line and we’re undesirable.

I think you’re missing the point here. The difference between tyranny and justice is the means of delivering accountability. I’m in favor of the rich and powerful facing justice, however, it has to be done in an extremely principled way. We have to give to hold them accountable for breaking laws that apply to everyone else, and those laws have to be based on universally applicable principles. Not only that, but they need to be given fair trials and appropriate punishments.

In simpler words, you can’t punish billionaires on misguided emotions, justice has to be just at every level. For example, you can’t just grab a random billionaire and execute them for being a billionaire. Why? Because we would be condemning a person for what is essentially a lawful act. If we were to do that then the law would lose meaning and we would create a slippery slope to tyranny. Therefore, you have to punish the specific billionaires for specific acts that violated the law. Just like anybody else they have to go through trial, they’ll have the right to a defense, and the court shall judge them appropriately based on the evidence provided by the prosecution. If they are deemed guilty then they have to punished within the confines of the law.

Again, it sounds boring and unsexy compared to movie styled executions, but these technicalities matter a lot as they are the very foundations of society. If they are not taken seriously, then you’ll be creating a fragile society that’s prone to collapse because it stands on nothing.

But I will fight you on the hierarchy bs. It may be “nature” but, we do things that go against nature all the time to benifit others. Vaccination, antibiotics, gmos, and other similar items. Going down that nature argument is a slippery slope that leads directly into thinking that others are lesser, the lie that you and the right belive.

You have fundamental misunderstanding of what hierarchies are. They are NOT optional. They are our innate biological mechanism that allows us to socialize in large groups. In order to have a functional society, you need to have large groups of people to specialize in different thing and coordinate to deliver common goals. Hierarchies do this by breaking up complex tasks into smaller chunks via labor division, streamlining abstract processes like coordination efforts and decision making, and by providing a clear social structure like a chain of command. Societal organization like this require leadership on multiple levels. Leadership positions by definition are a supreme as they have special privileges that grant them more power than the positions below them.

However, this type of supremacy has nothing to do with the supremacy that you’re talking about. Position based supremacy is completely different from the idea of inherent supremacy. For example, take a country like France. The president has the most supreme governmental power of any individual in the country. That person stands at the top of the political hierarchy. However, they are not superior or inferior to anybody else. They’re just a normal citizen that’s equal to all others who was voted in by society to serve as a leader by holding this position for a period of time. An individual being the president of France does not make them superior or inferior to other French people. The idea of inherent supremacy, aka, where people think they’re born superior to others, is the problem, but that’s a very specific type of supremacy that is demonstrably false.

Ideologies like anarchy have a completely misinformed understanding of what hierarchies are, and thus they treat all hierarchies as evil because they think they’re the source of inherent supremacy because they have positional supremacy based on vertical social organization. That’s just a flawed understanding of many different topics.

“What death toll is good enough to satisfy you?” the number of deaths to that provides a deteriant to prevent any one from having that much power again. And that number, will be surprisingly low. Mark my words. Especially if we kill them in ways that they beg for death and make them stay alive through every ounce of pain they have caused.

That’s just… unhinged. History has shown that cruelty is one of the weakest long term deterrents because resentment and desperation are much stronger drivers in humans than fear. Cruelty is tyranny, and tyranny never stops where it was originally intended. The goalposts will always move and there will always be new targets, pushing the populace in to a corner where they will eventually lash out and destroy it.

If you think that the violence would stop at the billionaires then you’re greatly mistaken. It will quickly expand to include critics of these policies, multimillionaires, people who propped up billionaires (lawyers, doctors, politicians, etc), and so on eventually expanding all the way out to the common people where a new reign of terror will take place.

Again, what you’re saying here has already happened in recent history, more than once to. I’ll once again, bring up Mao as an example. He killed every capitalist, every businessman, every lawyer, every intellectual, every critic, he killed so many people that his reign of terror has become the standard example of democide… and has it worked? Nope, the cruelty he employed was supposed to be a strong deterrent, but China literally readopting capitalism shortly after he died because his economic policies almost brought the country to collapse again.

You will be useful in the end, you will be one of the few that will be a guardian of the innocent.

Is it not concerning for you that you don’t view yourself as such?

You are right that more rich people will replace them, but, if those rich that replace are not evil and do things that truly benifit humanity and are looser with thier wallets and willing to be accountable, then maybe, just maybe we can have a better world. Untill then, death to evil rich and thier loyal servants.

The issue here is that evil is an inherently subjective term. It’s not something that can be quantified or measured. In other words, your entire view here is not based on something that’s grounded in reality. The idea of inherent evil has the same exact problems as the idea of inherent supremacy. They both make the assumption that there are people that fundamentally different from others, which is not true. We’re all the same regardless of wealth, status, or race. If all people are the same then that means your conclusion has to be false, and something else is at play… which is in fact the case. The issues with our current society is entirely systematic, not individualistic. Things are what they are because of flaws in the systems we use to structure our society. That’s something that has to be fixed by legislation based on data and reasoning, not violence.

And using history as a lense, the system changes came about only after a large number of deaths.

This is not true. History is full of peaceful power transitions, system reforms, and revolutions.

Im proposing to limit death to those who are rich, racist, and currently hold the reigns of power for evil. Simple as that.

But this is literally the mentality of the most evil people in history. Like I said before, all the most evil people have the mentality that the world would be a better place if they just killed the people they didn’t like. They all thought that they’ll restrain themselves to only what’s necessary and that history would look kindly on them once they see the results. However, that’s never the case, for a reason.

Just an FYI, it originated in India. It’s called Arabic because it was introduced to Europe via the Arabs, however, both of the numeral system that are widely used in the Arab world came from India.

The point that I made completely flew over your head. I didn’t ask you what you thought the appropriate punishment should be, I specifically criticized the notion that you think that the world’s problems can be solved by a quick fix, which in this case is getting rid of the billionaires.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why this shallow line of thought is flawed. It oversimplifies all the world problems to a single source, which is never the case, and it tries to sell a one time silver bullet solution that promises to immediately fix a lot of the world’s problems quickly, which also never happens. For all your talk about Nazis, this mentality is ironically one of the biggest drivers of evil ideologies in history. All the most bloodthirsty dictators have the same idea of “if we just get rid of all the people we don’t like, the world will surely be a better place”. They all think that history will look kindly on them for doing what they’re doing, but that’s never the case.

Take Mao as an example. He did exactly what you want down to the letter, and the result was the worst man made catastrophe in recorded history. He is responsible for the single highest death toll of any state leader ever, and he is globally recognized as a monster. All of that, and his original goal of getting rid of social classes failed. Despite all the killings and deaths, it changed nothing. China has the highest number of billionaires in the world.

Do you know why Mao failed and why your wish here will fail in the same exact way? It’s because it’s not based on grounded reality. Billionaires just represent a tip of an iceberg. They’re just the top of the economic hierarchy. If you kill them all, they will be immediately replaced by the people right under them, and if you kill those, they will be replaced the people under them, and so on and so forth. In a hierarchal system, vacant positions at the top will always be filled by the next in line. So what is your master plan? To keep killing people until there is no one left? What death toll is good enough to satisfy you?

The next thought for people with beliefs like this is they think that if they can’t solve problems by killing people then they’ll just destroy the system that enables the current hierarchies… but that’s also stupid because you’ll just replace them with a different set of hierarchies. Take a look at the Soviet Union. They tried to get rid of the capitalist hierarchies based on economic wealth by having the state seize and redistribute private wealth. While they got rid of their economic classes, they introduced new political classes that took over as the new elite. The power and wealth that was with the tycoons transferred over to government and party elites. It’s the same problem just reskinned, that’s actually why the USSR collapsed.

This is because you can’t actually get rid of hierarchies. Inequality is literally one of the definition hallmarks of civilization. We are social animals, and all social animals are hierarchal. That’s how we organize ourselves and our societies. It’s a part of our DNA, so trying to get rid of it is a battle lost before it started. That’s why any serious ideology needs to factor this in order to be pass the bare minimum of being considered pragmatic.

As it turns out, history has shown how we can fix the issues we’re seeing today. The reason why Germany, Italy, and Japan were able to rebuild and move past their fascist chapters is because they were forced to rebuild their system from the ground up based on liberal values, not by killing all the Nazis… that’s just historical illiteracy. Things like secularism, democracy, freedom of speech, rule of law, equality of opportunity, and most importantly, check and balances is what transformed those societies into the advanced and open nations that they are today.

In America’s case, that’s what’s missing. There is no accountability at any level. The checks and balances that used to be there aren’t being applied anymore. The branches of government aren’t keeping each other in check, the constitution isn’t being respected, the economy isn’t being regulated, the people are largely apathetic to the abuses of power, laws aren’t applied universally, and opportunity is not given equally. The lack of accountability erodes trust in the country and its institutions, which just fuels more distrust creating a vicious cycle. This isn’t an issue that can be solved overnight by killing people or destroying things. It’s a multifaceted issue that requires education, great coordination efforts, and a politically active public… which unfortunately a lot of people don’t find sexy enough of a problem or solution to do something about it and so we’re stuck with ideas like yours for the time being.

You would have to be an actual lobotomite to think that killing all the billionaires is going to change anything. All the people under them would just take their place? Are you just going to keep killing people endlessly, what’s exactly is that 200 iq play here?

This is such a shallow view of the world. No, if every single billionaire died tomorrow, literally nothing will change. The people below them will rise to the top. People who think like you also think that if they got rid of the hierarchy, then surely the problem will be solved… But no, when one hierarchy is gone another will take its place. This is because humans are social animals, and like all the other great apes, we evolved to exist in hierarchal societies.

“If we just kill all the people we don’t like, the world will surely be a better place” - All the most evil people in history

People today really do lack basic critical thinking to the point where it’s not just concerning, but could outright explain the decline of our society. I think it should be common sense to consume media while being mindful of its era and audience as well as being able separate the art from the artists. I think it’s ridiculous that there are people who are attacking actors for playing an outdated joke on a show 30 years ago. Like how fragile and miserable do you have to be to get that riled up while trying to watch entertainment to relax.

Idk why you’re being downvoted, you’re right. The shows first few seasons were great because the humor felt original and the chemistry between the characters felt organic.

I felt like all of the characters declined. Chandler’s sarcasm became more and more forced. Ross getting divorced again and again got repetitive, I also didn’t like how they handled him having a kid. Joey’s character was lobotomized and he went from being a funny womanizer to being a child in an adult’s body. The girls stayed more consistent, but I felt like Phoebe’s shtick kind of wore off and became annoying. I also hate the ending.

I think the first half of friends is one of the best sitcom products that American TV has produced, but the second half is just mediocre.

I mean if you understand that they’re satire, then they can be funny.

That being said American dad past season 9 and Family Guy past season 7 have severely declined in quality to the point where they’re not funny to me anymore.

Okay, but it’s rarely hated for that. The hate fests always revolve around this weird assumption that this car is driven exclusively by incels and MAGA types, but that’s simply not true. Like sure its ugly and a bad product, but it’s not exactly unique in that aspect there’s a lot of other cars like that.

I never understood this weird hate boner that Reddit and Lemmy users have for cybertrucks specifically. It can’t be a moral position because they’re fine with regular Teslas, just not this one. It also can’t be about the ugly design because they’re fine with other ugly cars.

The thing is that I’ve seen a few of these out in the wild, and they’re almost always driven either by Indian tech bros or white finance bros. I’ve never seen any right wing types drive these like so many people here seem to think. In fact, the right wing types have this weird vendetta against all electric cars and they intentionally go for the gas guzzling pickup trucks. Which this hate boner even more baffling. It’s like people are mad for the sake of it.