56
all 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] AClassyGentleman@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 year ago

If you're only a decent person when consistently threatened into being one, you're not a decent person. I say we get rid of the system that rewards and encourages the worst parts of humanity.

[-] randy@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

You aren't wrong, but ultimately actions matter more than reasons. I'd rather have someone acting decent out of fear rather than acting indecent.

[-] dingus@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Bullshit. This is how Christianity works. People fear damnation for their darkest impulses and they don't hold back because they've become a better human and realize why those are dark impulses, they hold back and don't do it because they're afraid of sky-daddy.

I've literally had one of these fucking freaks approach a philosophy group I was part of at a local coffee shop. It became creepily more and more apparent, as he kept referring to scenarios like rape and murder, that really the only thing holding him back was fear of Holy retribution. He basically admitted that if he were to become an atheist like us that "nothing would stop him."

It was eye opening and fucking disturbing, so no, I don't agree at all that "ultimately actions matter more than reasons."

[-] archpaladin1@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 1 year ago

She said many rich people wanted to set up their own educational or health foundations without checking whether there was a need or an existing charity or government-funded programme working to address the issue.

When the rich only think about charity as a means to further their own name, it's no wonder nothing ever really gets fixed.

[-] AllonzeeLV@vlemmy.net 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Its worse than that. A corporation starts a charity or gives 100k to one. Real nice right? Nope.

They will:

  1. use that to decrease their tax burden, robbing the commons of their share of taxes to repair the infrastructure their semi-trucks and businesses disproportionately use and tear up, the public educated, pre-literate workforce they have access to, and then...

  2. they ADVERTISE how noble they are, spending millions upon millions in ad buys to tell you what how awesome they are for donating that 100k. They use the guise of what is supposed to be giving with no expectation of return, ie "charity," as a marketing strategy, and then...

  3. They use such initiatives as lobbying tools to explain why their industry doesn't need to be taxed to institutionally, societally address the issue that is currently subject to the transient whims of charity.

There is nothing a publically traded corporation does that isn't done out of greed, that isn't calculated to provide more return than dispursment. Nothing.

Charity with any expectation of return, beyond a warm fuzzy feeling inside, isn't charity at all, but there is a word for it: a transaction.

[-] Dick_Justice@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The lady in the article seems well intentioned, but this quote:

“You guys could be part of the turning point that protects your children, your grandchildren and your client’s children and grandchildren. Isn’t that worth something?”

makes me think she doesn't know her audience. *They dont care *

[-] Zpiritual@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

They're probably reading it as "better beef up my security and reinforce the wall around my mansion".

[-] reverendz@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago

Why wait for them to act? It’s already bad enough.

lights torch, sharpens pitchfork

[-] ModdedPhones@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

However its quite easy to just say hey , new currency now.

[-] Purpureo@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago

Having studied history, I am increasingly convinced that nothing brings about violent revolution like an incompetent ruling class mismanaging difficult times. Revolutions are also pretty unpleasant things through which to live though, so hopefully the times will get easier or the ruling classes more competent.

[-] mochi@lemdit.com 14 points 1 year ago

There are fewer ultra rich that need killing though, so it should be easier and quicker this time around, right?

[-] Purpureo@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago

I seriously doubt any revolution against capitalism would stop at just the ultra rich, but modern technology would make the killings very fast so that's either very good or bad depending on how you look at it.

[-] zephyrvs@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

How do you think you'll get to the rich calling the shots, though? They all have private military and most people on Forbes' aren't even the richest persons because no one really talks about old money families who've been plundering countries and people over the past few centuries.

Macron and his cronies will be in a plane before any common folk even gets close to being able to guillotine them.

[-] knotthatone@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago

There's a reason the statement "May you live in interesting times" is a curse.

[-] hadesflames@vlemmy.net 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah dude a more competent ruling class fucking us over. That's definitely what we need. 🙄🙄🙄

[-] RedCanasta@lemmy.fmhy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

1848? I'm of the opinion violent revolution is becoming inevitable, and inequality is only one piece of the mosaic for that opinion.

Maybe this time modern history will start to turn again...

[-] cazyius@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Our pitchforks and torches aren’t very effective against drone robot mech guardians equipped with machine gun turrets 🔫🤖

[-] dingus@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah bluetooth/wifi and hacking those drones is a much better option.

Also laser pointers do a pretty good job of fucking up their optics, too.

[-] Levii@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

And spray paint

this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
56 points (98.3% liked)

World News

32291 readers
927 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS