this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2025
534 points (100.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
8396 readers
2512 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There is a world of difference between evil people doing violence to innocent people who just want to live their lives, and doing violence to those evil people in order to protect the innocent
Yes. But people are people. Just like not all us poors are innocent, not all them richs are evil. "eat the rich", for example, sets a presence of blanketed violence that we will never be able to escape. Preemptively killing someone because they might do evil isn't really any difference in end result to where we are now. The "undesirables", as they've been stated earlier, are not all innocent, and the USA government is kicking all of them out, because some of them might be evil (same as killing all the rich, because some of them are evil). I'm all for protecting the innocent, but the cost for doing so cannot be to kill other innocents. I don't have answers, only criticisms, which is one reason I never got into politics. And, in case it wasn't clear, these concentration camps they're proposing are abysmal, evil, and likely illegal (like that ever stopped them before).
You can't be a good person and be a billionaire. The simple fact that you have that much money means you're taking more than your share. No one is creating a billion dollars worth of work.
Fair point. Maybe that's the disconnect. To me, 'rich' covers a whole slew of people that aren't even close to billionaires. Someone who is living very comfortably and has, say, £200k in the bank, to me, would be considered rich.
200k in the bank? That pauper is just one bad medical event from being homeless.
How do you define 'rich', then? Not 'ultrarich', to which I'm thinking that phrase refers in today's world.
If you need an atomic clock to know how many millions of dollars you have, then you're rich. The rest of us aren't even worth fixing a rounding error for them.
For sure billionaires are ultra rich. What about someone with a 10 million? I would consider them rich, but they don't need an atomic clock to count their money. It sounds like I'm being pedantic, but I'm honestly trying to understand.