907
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2023
907 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
59757 readers
2298 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm not one of the maniacs making threats of any kind, but honestly it really seems like death threats are the only thing that gets any attention anymore, so I can understand why it's done...
Is "eat the rich" not a death threat in its own right?
It is, and here's the thing: All of society, laws, and legal recourses ultimately just boil down to "might makes right, but with extra steps." We all love to act like this isn't the case in a civilized society, but it is. That might usually rests with the police, the military, some governmental organization, or some megacorporation. Violence both literal and metaphorical is inflicted on the common person continually by those at the top. Who are the police after all? Just guys with guns. Who are judges and politicians? Just guys with access to the police. Who are megacorporations? Just guys with access to judges and politicians, and so on down the line. So when someone says they have the law on their side, and you don't, what they're really implying is that they can call the guys with guns, who if you don't do what they say (no matter how ridiculous) can literally kill you. And we treat this as normal and proper and reasonable, because we're stupid.
These motherfuckers want to act like their only their violence or threat of violence is justified, and that's it's a one way street.
Well, it ain't. Nobody's invulnerable.
Maybe it's "just" video games. (Or "just" a cell phone app, or "just" a predatory subscription, or "just" an apartment with exorbitant rent, or whatever.) But big corporations are fucking with people's livelihoods, here. There's a reason we colloquially call such a thing "a living." These are assholes taking food off of someone's table, just for greed, just because they can, because they think they've above reproach. Because the whole teetering facade is lopsided. It doesn't matter who the fuck they are at that point.
Yeah, this is basically why I'm not buying these arguments against a struggle of any kind, just because methods of it are illegal.
Illegality =/= your cause or methods are wrong
Call me whatever you want but Im happy the people who make these bad decisions from their insulated lots in life have to face at least some kind of consequences now, because the law is explicitly set up so that they typically never have to. Sucks that it comes to this but its behavior analysis 101, if you dont introduce consequences for undesirable behaviors, you'd be an idiot to expect change.
I don't love that it's probably caught up a lot of people who have nothing or little to do with it though, but the guys at the top need consequences or nothing will change, and beggars cant be choosers.
Yeah, it's not like voicing disagreement and concerns amicably is listened to. It's not like these executives negotiate with the users before making decisions that can ruin their livelihoods. As the avenues for civilized protest close, as people are left powerless towards the decisions of the wealthy, what else can they be expected to do?
It might seem much when it comes to games, but it's also a matter of worker's rights. Sometimes it seems like people today are a bit too passive and overly concerned with civility as their rights are undermined. Comes to mind the other news about the Australian CEO saying that he thinks more people should be unemployed and feel pain to be reminded who they work for. What is the appropriate response to that?
Well here I thought it was a metaphor, but if you're down for literally eating the rich I guess us steves gotta stick together
Looks like meat's back on the menu, boys!
That's the idea. Here's hoping they get it.
Maybe it is but I always took it as "let's take their money and redistribute the wealth."
Frankly that doesn't sound honest. Especially when picture of guillotines are sent by the same crowd. Even more considering that wealthy people are not going to volunteer their wealth through reasonable debate.
It comes from a poem. It's very literal
What poem if you don’t mind me asking?
Apparently this might have been created recently, even though the phrase goes back at least a few hundred years. Here's a transcription of the one I was talking about though:
“We are starving. There is no more bread, and we have nothing to eat.”
The rich man said,
“Not my problem you don’t work for your bread,”
as if he did not snatch away the grain by his own greedy hands and create filling bread for his own overflowing mouth.
The poor cried,
“We are dying. There is no more medicine, and we’re all ill.”
The rich man said,
“Not my problem you don’t take care of yourselves,”
as if he did not buy all the medicine and raise prices so high
the gods themselves would not
be able to reach.
The poor people
stopped crying,
and the rich man was satisfied…
Until they came knocking at his door one night;
their faces were sunken,
their flesh decaying,
their eyes sightless.
They were monsters
of the rich man’s
own making.
As they devoured his flesh,
the rich man cried,
“Please, spare me!”
The ravenous zombies said,
“Not our fault
you fattened yourself
for slaughter.”
Put the bite on the son of a bitch
That's a warning tbh
There is no meaningful difference between a threat and a warning. I've never understood why we see that retort so often when someone asks "is that a threat?!". It's the same damn thing.
Threat in criminal sense requires that subject of the threat is identifiable....
Who is the rich in that "threat" above?