Some people will jump on a comment about guillotines and say that’s it’s a call to violence.
But in practice, you’re never going to get a billionaire into a guillotine by strongarming them with a mob. They’re usually too well protected or reclusive.
The guillotine is more of a reminder of the historical context of how the common people express their dissatisfaction with the ruling class.
It’s not okay to kill people. But they are killing us. It might not look like a direct effect because they’re not walking through the streets shooting people. They’re just “steering us headlong into apocalyptic climate disaster.” This way they can kill far more people than by walking through the streets shooting people. And while that might not necessarily be their intention, it is the effect they’re having on the world.
If it’s not about literally killing them then using that language is completely counter productive. Say what you mean and mean what you say. You wouldn’t give this charitable view to what your opponent is saying either.
Yeah, maybe we should just do away completely with metaphor, memes, and rhetoric. That will surely be a fun way to live.
But you’re right. I wouldn’t give my opponent a charitable view if they were saying something like this. Because they have ludicrously more resources than I do and a history of enacting harm.
This isn’t a call to violence. That would require a specific group or person to be called out with a plan to cause harm.
We could quite easily solve this global crisis by investing more.
In guillotines.
Is blahaj competing with lemmygrad and hexbear for the most extremist instance nowdays?
Some people will jump on a comment about guillotines and say that’s it’s a call to violence.
But in practice, you’re never going to get a billionaire into a guillotine by strongarming them with a mob. They’re usually too well protected or reclusive.
The guillotine is more of a reminder of the historical context of how the common people express their dissatisfaction with the ruling class.
It’s not okay to kill people. But they are killing us. It might not look like a direct effect because they’re not walking through the streets shooting people. They’re just “steering us headlong into apocalyptic climate disaster.” This way they can kill far more people than by walking through the streets shooting people. And while that might not necessarily be their intention, it is the effect they’re having on the world.
If it’s not about literally killing them then using that language is completely counter productive. Say what you mean and mean what you say. You wouldn’t give this charitable view to what your opponent is saying either.
Yeah, maybe we should just do away completely with metaphor, memes, and rhetoric. That will surely be a fun way to live.
But you’re right. I wouldn’t give my opponent a charitable view if they were saying something like this. Because they have ludicrously more resources than I do and a history of enacting harm.
This isn’t a call to violence. That would require a specific group or person to be called out with a plan to cause harm.
Is it not extremist to burn the world down for your 100th yatch, 700th second vacation estate, 4000th impluse buy car, 3rd private jet?
So we counter extreme bahvior with more extreme behavior? That’s the world you want to live in? Where people are executed for over-consumption?
Yeah no thanks. Views like this is why people vote for Trump and I don’t blame them.
They’re very clearly joking.
Guillotines are far too clunky.