Pretty sure parent is making a glib reference to the common “eat the rich” saying. It’s meant to be a provocative way to illustrate a larger message of anti-capitalism and the immorality of extreme wealth disparity.
Let’s demonise a subset of the population and joke about murdering them just like my ideological comrades did in the 20th century! Look how provocative I’m being.
Yes, it absolutely is the point. I don’t think billionaires should exist, full stop. They have already dehumanized everyone but themselves, so IMO turnaround is completely fair in this situation. Starting with a very extreme demand like “eat the rich” gives us lots of room to negotiate their surrender.
In general, I agree with you. But some cases are too important and cannot be reasoned with. As an otherwise avowed pacifist, I’d put “punch a Nazi in the face” on this list of acceptable moral hypocrisy, too.
What revolution are you talking about? Billionaires already run the world, so the only possible option is to reverse that. In which case my position seems like it would appeal very nicely to the new ruling power.
Maybe we can counter offer an offer they couldn’t refuse, ie eat their donors.
Who are these donors and what does “eating” them actually entail?
I’m surely misinterpreting you, because it sounds like you’re suggesting murdering people over SoMe bullshit.
Pretty sure parent is making a glib reference to the common “eat the rich” saying. It’s meant to be a provocative way to illustrate a larger message of anti-capitalism and the immorality of extreme wealth disparity.
Let’s demonise a subset of the population and joke about murdering them just like my ideological comrades did in the 20th century! Look how provocative I’m being.
Defending billionaires is an even more ammoral act than making a joke you don’t like, comrade.
I dislike seeing radicals joke about murdering their enemies. It dehumanises them which helps extremism takes hold.
Of course that is the point of such jokes, but you shouldn’t be surprised if people call you out on it.
Yes, it absolutely is the point. I don’t think billionaires should exist, full stop. They have already dehumanized everyone but themselves, so IMO turnaround is completely fair in this situation. Starting with a very extreme demand like “eat the rich” gives us lots of room to negotiate their surrender.
In general, I agree with you. But some cases are too important and cannot be reasoned with. As an otherwise avowed pacifist, I’d put “punch a Nazi in the face” on this list of acceptable moral hypocrisy, too.
You’re kidding yourself if you think it’s a negotiation tactic. When the revolution comes, such revisionism will get you executed by true believers.
But at least you’re useful to them for the time being. Someone needs to radicalise the people who will carry out the purges.
What revolution are you talking about? Billionaires already run the world, so the only possible option is to reverse that. In which case my position seems like it would appeal very nicely to the new ruling power.