Scrolling through the all feed and saw this post and genuinely cannot tell of this is satire or not.

all 82 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 81 points 7 months ago

No no, I agree we should start with the billionaires or possible trillionaires by time we actually do something.

  • source
  • [–] 63 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Millionaires aren't really the problem, billionaires are.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago

    Billionaires also aren't the problem. They are the symptom.

    The problem is the system of economics and politics, by extension the various institutions they manifest, that allows individuals to become billionaires through the exploitation of other people's labor via private ownership over the means of production that should rightfully belong to the people through collective ownership.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago

    Yep. A million dollars is much closer to 0 dollars than it is to a billion dollars. An even bigger problem is the ultra billionaires.

    Aside from that simplistic argument, billionaires are much much more parasitic to society than millionaires are.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 42 points 7 months ago (11 children)

    Bitch even if we came for the millionaires, that would hardly be the “first” group anyone came for. Y’all been coming for the women, gays, Latinos, atheists, Arabs and trans folk as long as can I can fuckin remember.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 7 months ago (10 children)

    well, the white women majority back Trump so there is that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Sources?

    I find it hard to believe that (white) women, who are increasingly left, back Trump by majority.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 7 months ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    Half of them do it because they are in captive marriages with a Trumper.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago

    Nah I've met plenty of these white women, they may have religious opposition to abortion or fear of immigrants or just don't believe that their rights are threatened. And that's before we get to the misogynistic women who insist on making their kink into everyone's problem rather than just admitting they're a sub

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 7 months ago

    Except the "They" who comes for people is the millionaires.

  • source
  • [–] 95 points 7 months ago (22 children)

    First they came for the millionaires and distributed their wealth equally and I said nothing because I wasn't a millionaire.
    Then they came for the abled bodies and made public spaces as inclusive as possible and I said nothing because I didn't notice.
    Then they came for cis men and abolished the nuclear family and I said nothing because I'm not married so I didn't care.
    And when they smashed white supremacy, there was no one left to defend me.

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (20 children)

    Is “abolishing the nuclear family” actually in the program here? WTF

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (15 children)

    Do you think that this means "no one can have a family that is two cis gendered people of the opposite sex raising children!"

    Or do you think its talking about the structures of society that force people into these gender roles and family structures to begin with?

    Answer. It's the later one. Abolishing these structures, the incentives of and the dependencies they create, is part of abolishing patriarchy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (14 children)

    I don’t know what the fuck it means. I’m glad at least one of us seems to perfectly understand it as something benevolent, but it’s a pretty poor way to say it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (10 children)

    It's a 'classic' red team conspiracy theory, long lasting cause it's kiiiinda true. Just that it's corpos atomizing us across the board because more households buy more stuff and not the liberals/gays/commies doing it because satan told them to in a weed trance

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (6 children)

    Was hoping to lightheartedly explain the "they want to abolish the nuclear family" thing, but don't think you're my audience and the other guy made it weird. Got a different question than "uh wut" or should we just move on?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (5 children)

    My other question would be breaking your comment into clauses and asking you what you are talking about because it was unreadable to me.

    Can you start with what you meant by “corpos atomizing us across the board?”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (4 children)

    Big companies want people isolated and dependent on their services, rather than meeting each others needs directly. I do a lot of engine repair stuff, and in that context fuel is "atomized" into a fine mist that's less stable and more reactive than when it's in a cohesive puddle or droplet. If three generations share a kitchen, a population needs 1/3 the appliances it would if every 18 year old moved out and bought their own. In the course of maximizing profits the system isolates and divides us and is naturally opposed to core support systems like the "nuclear family". It's pretty silly to instead ascribe that opposition to the other side of a manufactured culture war that supposedly just hates your way of life

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (3 children)

    Okay I think I gotcha now. Honestly I thought you were trying to draw a literal analogy between nuclear/nucleus and atoms and I could not figure out what the message was.

    Now I know you meant that commercial interests prefer separating and isolating people into as many individual households as possible to maximize consumption by making sharing and resource pooling impossible. Corpos atomizing us across the board.

    Who is the “red team?”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (2 children)

    The US two party system is often colloquially referred to as red vs blue. I'm sure you've seen coverage about "red states" or "blue cities" during election cycles. That was referencing the same reactionary impetus you refer to elsewhere in this thread to "defend the family" against a perceived other rather than the predatory corporations actually working to dissolve it. There's definitely some confusing cultural baggage around the term as each side has respectively glorified/demonized it, I do not blame you in the slightest for having to ask and doubt you'll get two identical responses

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    Thank you. I thought it might have somehow meant “leftists” or “communists.” “Red state” snaps right into place for me in a way “red team” did not.

    So you’re saying that American conservatives have a longtime conspiracy theory about the family being under attack by gays whispering to Satan in a weed haze (this part I do understand).

    But what’s actually going on is “corpos atomizing us.”

    Are you saying that the corpo atomization is something that “red team” fears or is against?

    I would think that the “nuclear family” is the conservative ideal and the corporate consumption powers that be are aligned with them because more, smaller families drive more of that individual consumption you mentioned.

    So I was a little confused how “nuclear family” as a conservative conspiracy theory fits with corpo atomization in your view exactly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    First off thank you, I'm really enjoying bridging this generation gap. And satan's doing the whispering while his blue team minions smoke the devil's lettuce, but that's beside the point ;)

    I don't think modern "red team" believes or is aware that social atomization is a byproduct of corporate greed for the most part. Distracting from that and providing a scapegoat is part of the utility of culture war and exactly what that conspiracy theory is meant to accomplish. A wealthy, intelligent, well-positioned conservative might be consciously aligned with the process, but dumb is a lot more common than evil. The conflict between social and economic values kinda has to be obscured for that ideology to function. They fear the result, but can blame the other (gay weed smoking atheists!) and remain all for the process that's actually responsible

    It confuses things further that a few generations ago the "nuclear family" was widely recognized as a step towards atomization, but at this point things have progressed so far it's become a traditional ideal many feel nostalgia for. Grandma watching the kids and everyone working the farm together is long gone, and if you're a single parent or just living on your own it sure seems cohesive from here. It's a destructive template imposed on us, and whether they're after a return to the land or a soma pod above a nightclub I don't think it's what anyone who's thought things through really wants. Even if it is a step in the right direction at this point x(

    Actually in the process of writing that last bit I had a thought: waaaay back when, conservatives almost certainly were against the push towards the nuclear family (and were right imo). It's only once we'd been isolated beyond that point that it could seem like something worth preserving or returning to

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    You should really look into the history of how the "nuclear family" was pushed by capitalist media of the 50s and 60s in an effort to normalize the suburban lifestyle in order to have a more exploitable populace and how that affected the breakdown of local community and intergenerational support structures.

    The shift was heavily facilitated by the "white flight" phenomenon of the era as well and plays a role in institutionalized racism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    Trust me as an LGBT dude who came of age in the 90s, I’ve watched the whole conservative panic about “defend the family” for a long time. And of course women for centuries have been told they are a failure if they don’t marry and reproduce. The only miscommunication here is that the term “nuclear family” on its own does not communicate all those bad things. The term has a simple and objective definition so when people talk about it as the antichrist, with no qualification, that is confusing to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    It's not. You are just taking the definition of "Nuclear Family" in a vacuum. It's like thinking "Abolish the Police" means that everyone that says that means they want anarchy, no state, and no form of law enforcement.

    It's a general phrase that speaks to the current structures and their real material results.

    Your "idea" of the police or the nuclear family may be their definition on paper. An armed law enforcement. Or a single man, single women having kids.

    These are what they are defined as in a vacuum. They are not what they are in the context of state structures.

    The police are a defense of the capitalist class. Their job is first and foremost to protect private property and ensure class structures are not threatened.

    The Nuclear Family is a means of ensuring a women's material conditions and her children are dependent on a man for his labor. That same structure ensures men are given the advantage of control in that family structure; while keeping them having no power in their work or their labor.

    These are what "leftist" are talking about when we are talking about abolishing these systems.

    It's not about being benevolent. It's about being educated in class struggle and patriarchy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    Good try but no this was not in any way shape or form a clear way to say this. If you want to say “relive us from the pressure to conform to the tired and oppressive ideal of the nuclear family” then say that. Not “abolish the nuclear family,” which is nonsensical on its face because it’s physically impossible. Your connotations of this term are not to be confused with its denotation, and that’s the beginning and end of this. Anyway, I can tell you think this is super important but you’re not convincing me and I really don’t have any more fucks to give here so farewell.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -3 points 7 months ago

    I think you're having a problem with the word "Abolish". You might want to look at an actual dictionary.

    Honestly, I feel like this happens a lot these days. There is a reason words in a dictionary have multiple definitions. But for some reason, today, people often just pick the most uncharitably definition and then just double down on their own misunderstanding.

    Webster's definitions:

    (1) to end the observance or effect of (something, such as a law) (2) to completely do away with (something)

    You're picking the second definition and just saying that it is "nonsensical". I know we live in a world where words are quickly losing their meaning; and it is beneficial (in social media) to purposely portray or misunderstand what someone says. But you can at least realize you're doing it when it's been pointed out to you so clearly. I don't think you're doing it on purpose.

    It's why I explained the systemic structures in my last comment. But, oddly, you seem to understand that and are just unfortunately having a problem with vocabulary.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago* (3 children)

    Certainly not in the sense that "we take away your children and raise them separated from you" but more in the sense of "it takes a village to raise a child". This can mean anything from extended family to patchwork to an active and engaged neighborhood to queer constellations of open relationship or poly or what ever. There is a quote from Thatcher "There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families."

    Nuclear families, more than other forms of family and relating to each other, are isolating and making the people dependent on each other, most often making women financially dependent on men and men emotionally dependent on women. Abolishing the nuclear family doesn't mean that you can't live in a healthy monogamous relationship with a good connection to your kids. It means that you don't have to but can leave a toxic relationship and that your kids have other caregivers to complain about you and, if need, can leave. Or to live in other ways together that don't fit the model at all. To get back to Thatcher, it's not about taking away the little connection the individuals have but about strengthening the society, she denied exists.

    I hope that helped. Sometimes I'm too much in my bubble to realize that implications aren't obvious. I specified "nuclear family" but I see that that's not enough. Thanks for pointing it out. Family Abolition is an interesting topic you can look deeper into if that interests you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago

    I am learning from these comments that some people have very strong negative associations with the term “nuclear family,” and equate it with not only the strict definition of “a family consisting of parents and children” but also rolling all the associations of cis heteronormativity and abusive marriages and pressure to confirm etc etc etc all rolled into just “nuclear family.” But yeah while I am aware of all those dimensions, that complex of oppressions and abuse has never been explicitly loaded straight into the term “nuclear family” for me in a way that I can recognize in the middle of a sentence.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    I really think that the word "abolish" is causing problems of understanding here. For most people, "abolish" conjures up the word "abolition," as in the abolition of slavery. That was not a movement that made slavery optional for those who wanted it but kept it in place for those who still wanted to maintain the practice; it was emphatically a movement to make the very concept of slavery illegal (we could have a conversation about how successful it was in the context of the private prison complex, but that's a whole other can of fish).

    When we talk about abolishing something, we generally aren't saying we're going to reduce it as an obligation or pay less attention to it; we mean we're going to do everything in our power to make it not exist anymore. If people assume you mean the latter when you actually mean the former, it's going to cause confusion and derail the entire conversation into a cul de sac of definition, rather than addressing the actual topic we want to address.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago*

    I just made a comment realizing that I was arguing with someone that just was using a hard definition of "abolish" in their mind. Though in the context it is clearly using the and more systems based definition.

    (1) to end the observance or effect of (something, such as a law) (2) to completely do away with (something)

    Honestly, it's an important thing to realize how reactionary thought is so good at connecting to emotional reactions that they truly redefine words or their contextual meanings. Every word becomes a "hard" definition if it is ever used by the left to explain structures. It becomes a hard definition that can invoke emotion.

    In this case it comes from "Abolish the Police". Even some people on "the left" have adopted the right wing definition since. By either being an anarchist or a "no I don't mean abolish" liberal.

    No, we mean abolish. We didn't stutter. We know what words mean and will not adopt the frame of the reactionaries.

    I don't think it's reasonable to "be careful" with language. The reactionaries in society will pervert the definition of whatever word one attempts to use to invoke an emotional response to defend the current structures.

    The correct thing to do is to educate those that are willing to ask "what do you mean by abolish"?

    If we could have anarchist not reinforcing the reactionary definitions that would help as well... But that's a whole different story.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    They are serious. If you suggest any constraint to oligarchist/corporatist supremacism, that makes you the nazi. See, first you will ask the arguably deplorable millionaires to pay their fair share, but because you are a nazi, you will then tax the poor middle class jews.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 7 months ago (16 children)

    Millionaires can stay. I'm more angry about the billionaires and the soon to be trillionaires.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [+] -20 points 7 months ago (14 children)

    Nobody gets to be a millionaire without exploiting people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    My dad worked as a programmer (idk the official title) for a decent sized company. Always contributed to his 401k enough to get the employer match, and added more each time he got a raise. Between the paid off mortgage and 401k balance his net worth is over $1 million. He was only ever an employee, I don't think he exploited anyone. Bought himself a new set of golf clubs to enjoy when he retires. His last set was one his family got him for graduating high school.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    They're talking income, not net worth. The people who make in a year what your dad managed to accumulate over a lifetime. That's why his lack of exploiting others is irrelevant.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    The exact quote was:

    "Nobody gets to be a millionaire without exploiting people."

    A millionaire is anyone whose net worth is at least one million.

    The criticism was valid. They didn't specify income. If they intended to, they should have said that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Becoming a millionaire is not as hard anymore. And it's definitely not necessary to exploit anyone. You can work hard enough to justify it all though you'll need to be good at something or build/Create something alot of people want to buy.

    Billionaires, should not be tolerated.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago

    If I kept my current lifestyle and had a job paying twice as much, I'd be a millionaire by the time I retire. And twice as much would be around 100k€. Which is a lot, but still something a decent amount of people make. And it's not like it'd be impossible with less.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago*

    thats actually hundred millionaires to billionaires they exploit people. MIllionares often do have to "work thier way up" most of the time. people who are born which rich, or upper middle class dont work thier way up, and they are usually much wealthier than 10million+, and usually dont stay millionaires if you already born into upper middle class(richer than 1mil+)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 7 months ago*

    Well the headline is satire. The sign likely not. It shows how crazy people are that you don't know anymore

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 7 months ago

    It's real. It was from a protest in Washington State, USA. The legislature was voting on a tax on millionaires.

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Pretty sure this is about the millionaires tax in Washington State, the first income tax passed in the state ever. The big argument against it is that it'll set the precedence of an income tax being legal by the state constitution, and then they'll start lowering the minimum income to tax everyone. Oh no, a progressive tax system!

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    How can you tell that they are a boomer at heart?

    They talk about millionaires as the rich.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    She's likely a hundredaire who will one day be a billionaire.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago

    And then what? They're coming for your low middle class ass? They already have you! You're drowning in debt with diabetes from the HFCS they refuse to outlaw and the healthcare you can't afford praising a serial rapist that just made gas prices sky rocket by bombing a country so your stupid ass will forget about the evidence that proves he's a habitual sex predator.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Oh please, please let's do that. That would legitimately be fantastic. Not just millionaires though, because enough of them could've just worked hard to get there. Once you get to the like hundreds of millions or billions, then those people don't deserve it.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah it's crazy how inflation is like that.

    There are plenty of just regular day-to-day people that are technically millionaires. But like, it's all invested and or it's their retirement account and they're 50 and it has to last them the rest of their life and they aren't globetrotting on a mega yacht.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Inflation is the one reason I have a tiiiiiiiny corner of my mind saying "they might have a point". Pegging laws to a dollar amount that makes sense today doesn't mean that dollar amount will continue to make sense in the future.

    Tie it to some multiple of the poverty line or median cost of living, then we're getting somewhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 6 points 7 months ago

    The post thread can be found here

    https://feddit.org/post/27648940

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago

    That's a waste of perfectly nutritious millionaires.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago

    First they came for the millionaires and I laughed and laughed and laughed

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    If only they would...

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    First they took from people who had so much they couldn't spend it in a thousand lifetimes - The Billionaire Genocide

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    The person holding the sign looks like they could be/could be related to Robert Ritchie

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    It's not satire, it's weaponized absurdity.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    No this sheer audacity and appropriation... On point after Karens took over BLM.

  • source