Even ITT apparently
Context here is that the red one actually voted for the billionaires.
The blue one voted against the billionaires, and the billionaires won because the yellow one didn’t vote.
The secret is both red and blue are establishment parties which seek to help billionaires.
The only difference is the blue parties billionaires are socially conscious, so they’ll act progressive, but won’t rock the boat economically.
They all voted for different billionaires
Ah, yes.
Red party: tax cuts for billionaires, dismantle government agencies and sell the scraps to billionaires for pennies on the dollar, allow billionaires destroy the environment for profit
Blue party: tax billionaires their fair share, use that money to create a better society that is nicer for everyone to live in, address pollution and climate change
Mouth breathers: “they’re the same picture”
The are not the same. You can vote for billionaires who want fascism or billionaires who want neoliberalism.
So quick to attack everyone for some perceived slight.
When op says vote I know what they mean but the vote they are talking about pales compared to the voting we do every day. Everyday we have to the opportunity to vote with our wallets and always, always, always, that vote lands in a billionaires pocket.
Sorry, no. The green one voted for the billionaires, the other green one voted for the billionaires, and the third green one… voted billionaires.
Edit: that’s why they green
This is more “the right and left are the same” nonsense that anyone can see is silly. People calling it silly is not some gotcha.
Guys, guys, this left vs right nonsense is dividing us. We workers just need to unite against the people who own everything. It’s “up” or “forward” or something. Eat the rich! But I’m not sure how exactly because I just invented this idea.
I’m all for this! But I’m also not on the side that’s attacking rights. I’m all for uniting the people but when they’re are other people who are also trying to hurt society, you can’t just ignore them. And those people, a subset of that group I admit, would never be interest in working with the people they hate and despise.
Here we go again
A lot of times these discussions boil down to what each person thinks the solution is. Destruction of the entire system, reformation of the system, maintenance of a system which as a whole might seem like a force of good, or lastly an absolute system above any reproach.
The only reason we haven’t started killing each other is because of the thin veneer that politics can help us accomplish our goals without fighting.
As we all know, there was no conflict nor problematic ideas before billionaires or their equivalents.
Billionaires don’t force people to become shithead followers of billionaires. People choose to become shithead followers of billionaires.
Free will is an illusion and this completely ignores the near monopoly they have on the media and information people are exposed to.
Also, this isn’t saying they cause all problems, just a lot of them in our current society.
Free will is an illusion
I knew you were going to say that.
and this completely ignores the near monopoly they have on the media and information people are exposed to.
Not really. We live in one of the freest eras of human expression, political and otherwise, ever known.
Also, this isn’t saying they cause all problems, just a lot of them in our current society.
I very much read it as “We shouldn’t be enemies of each other; we should be enemies of the billionaires!”
But the awful truth is that, while we should be enemies of the billionaires, we are also very much justified in being enemies of each other. The idea that these people are just puppets dancing on their masters’ strings strips them of the very real agency they have and willingly exercise in service to abhorrent values and goals. If the apocalypse came tomorrow and no estate was worth more than a few days’ work when the dust settled, these people would still be parroting the horrible positions they do now.
So you think people just happened to decide on a narrow range of positions that are highly convenient to the ruling powers in society?
Modern propagandists have realized it doesn’t matter if the truth is out there—you just need to make your narrative the loudest, most available, algorithmically boosted option and most people won’t put in the effort to question what you put in front of them.
So you think people just happened to decide on a narrow range of positions that are highly convenient to the ruling powers in society?
Other way around. Ruling powers have established themselves around the narrow range of positions that people take. It’s why you see the same rot in every society, not just modern or Western or capitalist ones.
Modern propagandists have realized it doesn’t matter if the truth is out there—you just need to make your narrative the loudest, most available, algorithmically boosted option and most people won’t put in the effort to question what you put in front of them.
Sounds a lot less like a monopoly and a lot more like people choosing to be lazy and uninformed.
You’re not the first to realize there’s a wealth divide. You’re not the first to notice rich people using chaos to their advantage. You didn’t “figure out it.”
The reason not everyone is constantly making it a “rich vs poor” thing is because the world is multifarious. People are multifarious. There’s overlapping struggles and amorphous factions.
Get out of here with this child shit. Not everything needs to be distilled into “A vs B” “Red vs Blue” “Rich vs Poor” Just because you learned about a problem doesn’t mean everyone else is wrong for focusing on a different battle.
When that “different battle” is football players kneeling for the national anthem, or a video game made in very small part by a transphobe being released, yeah they are wrong actually
Why you got to attack me? Why you so emotionally charged?
Can you not see what I’m describing is a problem?
