Jail. If it is we legal it wouldn’t be an issue.
You can’t jail the entire 99% the hardest part would be there’s only 1% to go around.
For sure. But the math of those that dont want to risk jail or death is like 99.9 of the 99.
What if I were to tell you we’re larger than the cops too
I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying why it isn’t done. No one wants to risk it. Or death.
Okay but that’s the joke in the meme then
It’s only a threat because class consciousness doesn’t exist
We’re the only people who have to worry about having a conscience and morals.
And prison
Because that’s canabolism
which is bad, mkay.
Their meat is oily and diseased?
Some project 2025 authors were joking about making biofuel of the elderly and disabled…
People like that don’t joke about those kinds of things (they typically have no sense of humor at all). They use the guise of humor as plausible deniability for their insane beliefs.
Just use livestock if you’re hellbent on that? There’s not enough humans to make that economically viable… Hell, why am I taking this seriously, it’s obviously not a serious proposal, right?
Generous of you to assume they were joking rather than testing the waters.
And you would probably get high on ketamine from consuming it as well.
We could brand it as Special K and introduce a meat line of products
You could also end up getting brain worms that way.
We can just make vaccines from autistic people
The real plot twist
To flip Curtis Yarvin’s script, they’d make better biofuel to actually be useful.
What about Morty-style psychic shields?
Look at history. You need a tipping point, but more importantly, you need organised masses and a vision/visionary to get behind.
That’s how Lenin got in power. It’s how the French decapitated their king. That’s why there was a rally at the White house when trump lost the previous election but nobody is doing anything against him now at the states while he dismantles the country.
Wow you really picked two of the worst possible examples. French Revolutionaries decapitated so many officials that they ended up decapitating the previous wave of French Revolutionaries, then Napoleon and the Church took over.
My example was about how people get together to make revolutions happen, not wether they were good/bad or what ended up happening after. I chose those examples because in both cases a revolt was long time coming but people couldn’t do it until they were organised
I’m not advocating it tbh
They probably taste like shit and cocaine
Correct, but there is a lot of nuance.
Indeed, when things get bad, the public is willing to take risks. When everything is good enough, they don’t revolt.
However, successful revolts do require intelligent and capable leaders.
What the rich have realized, is that if they ensure smart and skilled kids get picked out of the drudgery and get comfortable working for the rich, then the exploited class will not really have anyone to lead them.
Put another way, in 1908, every factory had a few leaders working at the lowest levels. And they are the ones who spearheaded strikes and such.
Nowadays, society is really stratified in terms of skill.
Anyone who grew up poor, but had talent to organize, probably ended up in some kind of middle management or professional job and makes 2x the average.
Convincing these people to have class solidarity is difficult. Only a few of them actually see the bigger. Those tend to become middle or upper management or politicians, making 3-5x the average workers salary. And of those, only a very select few are willing to fight for the common man.
So yeah, the rich engineered a system that they can control. To actually change anything is going to be very difficult.
Iran, 1977, mass demonstrations that were often kicked off by communists and socialists leading to a revolution in 1979.
Iran, 1988, communists, many who were involved in the revolution, begin being executed by the Islamic government.
Revolution is also sadly no guarantee of anything getting better.
“The moral arc of history bends towards justice” is a lie Westerners have sold themselves for far too long while the evidence otherwise has stared them in the face if they were paying any attention at all.
Well yes, it turns out billions of us aid and explicit US training can stamp out communism, at least without any other support structures.
in 1908, every factory had a few leaders working at the lowest levels. And they are the ones who spearheaded strikes and such.
(I can’t be the first person to have this thought so someone please chime in and tell me where to learn more.)
The scale of housing and factories was different in 1908 though. These days factories are giant complexes in the middle of nowhere with supercommuters that don’t live anywhere near each other or the factory so don’t have the same opportunities to fraternize and organize in their homes and taverns. I don’t know how workers can overcome this massive hurdle from the modern era.
True, but nowadays most people don’t work in factories.
The modern equivalent would be the cashiers of Walmart and the baristas of Starbucks.
Yeah, part of it is definitely lack of “third places” (i.e. issues of car dependency/bad zoning) and declining social institutions.
I have been starting to think it might be our job as humans to destroy those machines. I certainly have a fair amount of rage against these machines.
This is a great point that I haven’t heard before, and it seems intuitively correct. Considering overall economic mobility has gotten worse over the decades, I suppose one way you could validate this is by looking at the stats for economic mobility differentiated by… academic success? Measured IQ? Skill acquisition? None of those are good isolated indicators but maybe there’s a good measure where you can say “economic mobility increased for skilled people over time, but decreased for less-skilled people over the same time period.”
This is not a criticism of your point, by the way. I think you’re right. Just wondering exactly how right.
Because much of the working class is easily bought
And even more is easily fooled.
Because they’re passive Americans?
Because eating the rich will accomplish nothing if you don’t also change the underlying system that created them in the first place. And good luck getting everyone in the non-rich class to agree on what that change should look like.
What if the rich kept getting eaten until they figured out a system that the rest of us were satisfied with
Evolution 101 really.
Guns. The answer is guns, Lrrr.
too much damn gristle
Because the rich don’t affect much in our current monetary policy, its the velocity of money that matters rather than the quantity.
If they start buying out every grocery store then prices rise, interest rates rise, and their asset prices fall.
Its the central bank that debases your salary though, making it buy less and forcing a wall of debt to gatekeep your housing.
You’re half right… monetary policy is a huge source of inequality, but that’s because congress obeys their rich owners.
If there was some way to opt out of their monetary policy, then you’d think it would already be catching on. 😉
I’m vegan - I compost the rich.
Vegans like you make me interested in veganism. The diet seems to have some beneficial effect on the sense of humor.
TL; DR I laughed my a** off, thank you!
Happy to be inspiring :)
TL; DR you just made my day :*
It’s OK, they consent to it by being rich.
Remember, even herbivores are opportunistic carnivores on occasion. ☺️
For self-defense it’s actually okay.
Because they taste like shit.
Better to leave them outside for the polar bears to eat so they stop starving to death.
You say the larger of the two, but the majority of the USA voted for fascism and an absurd number of people just stayed home. It’s hard to grow a resistance when you simultaneously believe the simple folk are getting exactly what they deserve and asked for.
Voting stupidly doesn’t turn a working class person into an owner class person. We still outnumber them, it’s just that most of us have been tricked.
I’m not sure the majority voted for Trump considering all the election interference and Elon Musk’s fuckery.
Yes, there is a strong case that voter suppression won him the race in 2016 and 2024
It’s hard to grow a resistance when you simultaneously believe the simple folk are getting exactly what they deserve and asked for.
It really shouldn’t be since that’s just the beginning, they’ll be coming for everyone that says a single negative thing about the king and his cronies.
Removed by mod
We have 2 options.
Make things better or make things worse.
It’s really that simple, guy.
And btw, the DNC held primaries every election. 2024, 2020, 2016. Among the candidates in 2016 and 2020 were Bernie Sanders, who consistently lost. I think more people should participate in primaries, but it’s a false claim to say they “ratfucked candidates” that people wanted. People chose Biden. People chose Clinton.
No, Bernie got done dirty in the primary process each time, super delegates, getting people like Buttigieg to drop out for promises of favors - but it’s convenient there wasn’t a primary in 2024 so they could just pick someone else for you openly.
See, there’s serious doubt for me in both cases that Biden and Clinton were really the people’s choice because the party either overtly or quietly kept their thumb on the scale. I can’t find the article anymore, but whoever took over after Debbie Schultz basically found that the HRC campaign was effectively in charge of the DNC during the 2016 primary. I don’t know about you, but I don’t consider that a level playing field at all. Then, in '20, I found it really, really sketchy how Biden won what, two, three states? And all the other candidates with one or two wins suddenly pulled out and pledged all of their delegates for Biden basically at the same time. Could’ve been that Biden was really that cool, but I’ve always had doubts about that.
It wasn’t exactly a close race. You’d be accusing the DNC of fabricating Millions of ballots. On Super Tuesday, Biden swept races across the nation, a lot more than one or two.
Well, no, not of fabricating ballots. I said I think they had a thumb on the scales, that neither race was fair, not that the votes were fake. So, it’s more like I’m accusing them of giving their candidate of choice significant advantages over the others, which is not something you could call a fair race.
TBH they didn’t even need to include third parties on their ballots from the start. They had all the power in the world to Exclude Bernie. If they were that opposed then why would they even risk it?
Unfair primaries are the onion, and too damn many people took a bite.
Nah, miss me with that shit. The way super delegates were set up in the ‘16 primary was total crap, I remember that the media had basically called it for Hillary on almost day 1 of the primary season because every superdelegate announced (before their state primary!) that they were going for Hillary. I think that the HRC campaign really thought they were going to fold in all of the Bernie voters’ votes, money, and energy.
Removed by mod
I didn’t realize you considered 20 to 30 Million people dem elite ghouls. Clearly, you’re just a conservative.
Removed by mod
The fascists are to blame, and you’ve deluded yourself into believing the DNC are fascists despite every reason not to. When we elect Democrats we get less money in politics, we tax the rich, we expand medical coverage, we strengthen ties with allies around the world, and we actually do something about climate change.
When the GOP wins they claw back all of it.
I cannot see opposition to the DNC as anything other than pure malice, because it consequentially is.
Removed by mod
The same people who have historically bankrolled and controlled Republicans also run the Democrats. It’s kinda hard to “fight the system” when the oligarchs are the system.
Then you would agree we should remove money from politics and…
Oh! Whats this? The DNC passed campaign finance limits in 2002 which were overturned by the conservative SCOTUS in 2010 “Citizens United” decision? Huh, wow, thats crazy. Have any Dems talked about this recently? All of them? All the time? Neat.
So what you are saying is that the oligarchs rule the system and your solution is to continue voting in that same system in which you are being ruled?
You’re going to sit there and “both-sides” in the face of one side clearly fighting against oligarchy and one side clearly fighting for.
You’re going to pretend its all the same while Republicans, who created a deficit by cutting taxes for the rich and only the rich, are tryng to pass a budget that will remove 79 Million citizens health coverage a d defund hospitals.
You’re barely even human.
The same socioeconomic class has been continuously the main benefactor of America economic policy for 50 years regardless of which party is in charge. Idk what more proof you require to accept the oligarchs run the system but you believe whatever you need to to make you feel safe and secure.
Not even a majority of voters, let alone a majority of Americans. Just about 30% of adults in the US voted for trump. We still outnumber them.
And 40% didn’t think it was important enough to even vote
You’ve no idea why those voters didn’t vote. Disenfranchisement has been turned to 11
Actually yes, a majority. Trump lost popular vote in 2016 but won it in 2024. IMO everyone eligible who stayed home is just as much complicit with Trump.
More specifically the number of Trump voters barely increased, but the number of people who voted for Kamala was millions less than those who voted for Biden.
49.9% isn’t a majority. It’s a plurality.
Trump: 49.8% of popular vote (77,302,580 votes)
Harris 48.3% of popular vote (75,017,613 votes)
He won the majority, unless you’re counting spoiled ballots that accomplished fuck all against empowering dictatorship.
Define words however you want, that doesn’t make it true. A majority is 50%+1. Anything less is a plurality. More people voted for someone other than Trump than those who voted for him.
Beside the point, the original claim was a majority of Americans, and that isn’t even close to a majority anyways. Even with your funny definitions.
I would argue voting for a candidate you know will lose with certainty is not a vote for or against anything.
Cool definition. Still not a majority.
The definition of majority is a percentage over 50%.
49.8% is less than 50%
I’m sorry if this is a difficult concept to grasp.
77,302,580 + 75,017,613 = 152,320,193
77,302,580 / 152,320,193 = 0.5075 = 50.075% = MAJORITY
And thats me being generous, I honestly think every third party voter was complicit with the Trump victory. Didn’t think I’d have to show work for somebody to understand basic addition, today.
Yes, the numbers work when you intentionally leave some out.
