There is a certain amount of money that you can’t amass and retain without extremely abusive and harmful to society behavior. I don’t know the exact number, but it’s far less than a billion.
I’m mad at billionaires existing because I’M a progressive, unlike her. She might be good with the LGBTQ+ allyship, but her money hoarding and excessive private jet use are incompatible with progressive values.
Okay, your feelings are valid, but why pick someone who’s progressive? There are much better targets for your hatred if you’re just mad at billionaires. I’m mad at a billionaires too.
I will happily dunk on Elon musk, bezos, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, CEOs of large companies.
There are so many people with so much more money and so much more power and that are so much more problematic.
With so many other better targets. You’re kind of coming off as someone who seems to have a problem with TSwift specifically. Just something to think about.
Edit: The amount of money you have does not prevent you from having a political position.
I didn’t actively pick her, I just came across this iteration of the meme elsewhere and thought I’d share it here.
And she’s a liberal, not a progressive. The terms aren’t interchangeable. There are big and important ideological differences, especially when it comes to economic policy positions.
As for “better targets”, I hate on those too. Just because I don’t exclude Taylor Swift from my scorn doesn’t mean that I don’t abhor and criticize all of the ones you mention.
I abhor billionaires whether they’re liberals with one or two billions or fascists with a hundred. That I don’t arbitrarily exclude your beloved Tay-Tay doesn’t mean that I’m fixated on her or that I don’t realize that she’s not the worst billionaire in the world.
Let’s say you are a poor communist. You believe all the communist things in you heart of hearts. Then for shits and giggles, one day you try your luck at the lottery and you win billions of dollars. Now, at that moment when you went from being poor to a billionaire. Does Karl Marx disappear from your mind? Do you lose sympathy for your fellow human being? I would say no. If the answer is yes, then I would say you didn’t actually believe in communism in the first place.
Now, that you are a billionaire, is there pressure for you to ditch communism? Ooooohh yes my friend, big pressure! But a person can be strong enough to resist that temptation and maintain their ideology.
I am fine with generalizing most billionaires as not communist, but I think it is very reactionary to say that it is impossible for a billionaire to be a communist.
I still disagree. This is kind of like arguing communists should go live in the woods and disconnect themselves from markets and capitalism. We live in a capitalistic society. Even as leftists we must engage in capitalism.
If a billionaire were to broadcast communist propaganda. Require their workforce to be in unions. Donate substantially to leftist causes. I feel like you could argue pretty strongly that they are a communist.
Again, ideology is not limited by wealth. In fact, you can argue the wealthy can enjoy weirder stranger ideologies that the average person cannot.
The average person engages in capitalism because they have to. Once you have a billion dollars, the only communist-compatible option is to use it to create a better society. Keeping more than you need does not help anyone.
I don’t need to counter it, you were trying to debate-bro something you already largely appear to agree with. That’s my point, saying a Communist can randomly win the Lottery and be a billionaire temporarily adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.
Here’s the counter-argument: nobody is saying a Communist randomly gaining a billion dollars is no longer a Communist. This is an argument you invented purely to be a debate-bro contrarion. This is not well thought out or a point worth discussing, bevause it is meaningless.
Why is that inconsistent? You know there is a difference between what you think in your head vs. what is posted online right?
For example, if a billionaire were to be donating large amounts of money to leftist organizations. I wouldn’t go up to them and call them a horrible child slave labor capitalist pig. I can think that in my head of course. But it doesn’t help the cause to be antagonistic to people who are supporting it, even if their values are not aligned correctly.
What, like me dunking on Taylor Swift is going to turn her into a raging conservative who hates gays? I mean, if that’s all it takes, it was going to happen anyway.
You can dunk on Taylor Swift if you want, but you can’t say that you’re being an effective advocate for the left at the same time.
In fact, I think this is exactly what I would hear from a conservative pretending to be a leftist. Targeting Taylor Swift is a smart idea. Directing rage at her instead of the bigger more problematic billionaires. Taking down a public supporter of LGBTQ+ people.
Yes, billionaires are problematic Dumbasses. And there are a lot of them. Why are you so interested in dunking on TSwift specifically? Again, she’s probably one of the least problematic billionaires.
There is a certain amount of money that you can’t amass and retain without extremely abusive and harmful to society behavior. I don’t know the exact number, but it’s far less than a billion.
I’m mad at billionaires existing because I’M a progressive, unlike her. She might be good with the LGBTQ+ allyship, but her money hoarding and excessive private jet use are incompatible with progressive values.
Okay, your feelings are valid, but why pick someone who’s progressive? There are much better targets for your hatred if you’re just mad at billionaires. I’m mad at a billionaires too.
I will happily dunk on Elon musk, bezos, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, CEOs of large companies.
There are so many people with so much more money and so much more power and that are so much more problematic.
With so many other better targets. You’re kind of coming off as someone who seems to have a problem with TSwift specifically. Just something to think about.
Edit: The amount of money you have does not prevent you from having a political position.
I didn’t actively pick her, I just came across this iteration of the meme elsewhere and thought I’d share it here.
And she’s a liberal, not a progressive. The terms aren’t interchangeable. There are big and important ideological differences, especially when it comes to economic policy positions.
As for “better targets”, I hate on those too. Just because I don’t exclude Taylor Swift from my scorn doesn’t mean that I don’t abhor and criticize all of the ones you mention.
I abhor billionaires whether they’re liberals with one or two billions or fascists with a hundred. That I don’t arbitrarily exclude your beloved Tay-Tay doesn’t mean that I’m fixated on her or that I don’t realize that she’s not the worst billionaire in the world.
It absolutely can. If you’re a billionaire, but say you’re a communist, you are lying.
I disagree.
Let’s say you are a poor communist. You believe all the communist things in you heart of hearts. Then for shits and giggles, one day you try your luck at the lottery and you win billions of dollars. Now, at that moment when you went from being poor to a billionaire. Does Karl Marx disappear from your mind? Do you lose sympathy for your fellow human being? I would say no. If the answer is yes, then I would say you didn’t actually believe in communism in the first place.
Now, that you are a billionaire, is there pressure for you to ditch communism? Ooooohh yes my friend, big pressure! But a person can be strong enough to resist that temptation and maintain their ideology.
I am fine with generalizing most billionaires as not communist, but I think it is very reactionary to say that it is impossible for a billionaire to be a communist.
Let me rephrase. If you stay a billionaire, you cannot be a communist. It’s hypocritical to horde wealth while advocating for the abolition of money.
I still disagree. This is kind of like arguing communists should go live in the woods and disconnect themselves from markets and capitalism. We live in a capitalistic society. Even as leftists we must engage in capitalism.
If a billionaire were to broadcast communist propaganda. Require their workforce to be in unions. Donate substantially to leftist causes. I feel like you could argue pretty strongly that they are a communist.
Again, ideology is not limited by wealth. In fact, you can argue the wealthy can enjoy weirder stranger ideologies that the average person cannot.
The average person engages in capitalism because they have to. Once you have a billion dollars, the only communist-compatible option is to use it to create a better society. Keeping more than you need does not help anyone.
Agreed, invest the billions. Keep some of the interest for yourself. Donate the rest to causes.
This is an exception to systemic pressures and rules, and does not really answer the original statement. It’s more pedantry than anything.
It’s such good pedantry though, that you don’t have a counter argument.
Where did I say systemic pressures weren’t at play? I even agreed that there was pressure to drop communism when becoming a billionaire.
What do you mean by rules? Is this just another word for systemic pressures to make your post bigger?
How can one answer a statement? I was disagreeing and I laid out my reasoning why with a though experiment.
Nothing in your reply makes sense in the context of this discussion.
I don’t need to counter it, you were trying to debate-bro something you already largely appear to agree with. That’s my point, saying a Communist can randomly win the Lottery and be a billionaire temporarily adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.
I’m sorry you don’t like how well my thought experiment proved my point.
Instead of whining about it and pretending it’s not real, you could always come up with a counter argument.
Here’s the counter-argument: nobody is saying a Communist randomly gaining a billion dollars is no longer a Communist. This is an argument you invented purely to be a debate-bro contrarion. This is not well thought out or a point worth discussing, bevause it is meaningless.
We can dunk on Elon Musk and Taylor Swift. Being a liberal and supporting gay rights doesn’t give you a free pass from criticism.
Yeah, but why not min/max? You are dunking for a reason right? To improve things? Why go though all the work for a target that isn’t really worth it?
Why hold values consistently, amirite guys?
Why is that inconsistent? You know there is a difference between what you think in your head vs. what is posted online right?
For example, if a billionaire were to be donating large amounts of money to leftist organizations. I wouldn’t go up to them and call them a horrible child slave labor capitalist pig. I can think that in my head of course. But it doesn’t help the cause to be antagonistic to people who are supporting it, even if their values are not aligned correctly.
What, like me dunking on Taylor Swift is going to turn her into a raging conservative who hates gays? I mean, if that’s all it takes, it was going to happen anyway.
You can dunk on Taylor Swift if you want, but you can’t say that you’re being an effective advocate for the left at the same time.
In fact, I think this is exactly what I would hear from a conservative pretending to be a leftist. Targeting Taylor Swift is a smart idea. Directing rage at her instead of the bigger more problematic billionaires. Taking down a public supporter of LGBTQ+ people.
Dunking on billionaires is advocating for the left. You’re advocating for neoliberalism. All billionaires are problematic dumbass.
Yes, billionaires are problematic Dumbasses. And there are a lot of them. Why are you so interested in dunking on TSwift specifically? Again, she’s probably one of the least problematic billionaires.
Have fun talking to your strawman!