Anyone who has hoarded more wealth than any reasonable person would have in their entire lifetime is a snake and is not to be trusted and sadly that applies to almost all of our politicians. I don't care about their education or their background or their upbringing or any of their other justifications for their success. There are many different kinds of snakes who cannot be trusted, but the wealthy kind are universal. If they treated people fairly from the beginning and profited fairly and gave profits they didn't genuinely earn or deserve back to their customers or to society they wouldn't have nearly as much wealth as they do. Noblesse oblige, and I have run out of patience waiting for them to fulfill their obligation.
The class war is starting now. Organize and prepare for battle.
Don't agree. That actually sounds really childish. I think anyone who would hate somebody for making money is a snake. And no class war isn't starting. You all better hope not. You all are not the type who can throw punches.
Get better. That's a very well known topic going back thousands of years. No need to be bitter and miserable. Your lack of understanding is your problem not other people's
Give me an example that's legitimate. What exactly do you think is wrong how about that.
Like this is as lazy as any r/the_donald comment. Which is also a super Astro turfed space where gauging a view based on the communities response is not the best thing to do
I mean first off, lol, because what does "legitimate" even mean in your philosophical system?
Like, I dunno, Kant distinguishes between noumena and phenomena but he doesn't then say that therefore it's all a goddamn free-for-all where you can just say that lies are truth now, which seems to be your position.
Hence me saying "listen to the people telling you that you are wrong about your entire epistemic framework".
that’s not even close to what I said. You’re mixing up epistemology with moral reasoning. I never said “lies are truth.” I said perception shapes truth in politics. There’s a difference between understanding how framing works and throwing reality out the window.
Kant separated noumena and phenomena, that’s literally the whole point. we don’t get direct access to the thing in itself. We interact with how it appears. That doesn’t mean free for all, it means we operate off perception and agreement, not perfect access to reality.
Sunshine (she/her)
in reply to Sunshine (she/her) • • •cecilkorik
in reply to Sunshine (she/her) • • •Anyone who has hoarded more wealth than any reasonable person would have in their entire lifetime is a snake and is not to be trusted and sadly that applies to almost all of our politicians. I don't care about their education or their background or their upbringing or any of their other justifications for their success. There are many different kinds of snakes who cannot be trusted, but the wealthy kind are universal. If they treated people fairly from the beginning and profited fairly and gave profits they didn't genuinely earn or deserve back to their customers or to society they wouldn't have nearly as much wealth as they do. Noblesse oblige, and I have run out of patience waiting for them to fulfill their obligation.
The class war is starting now. Organize and prepare for battle.
like this
Red Whacker likes this.
Melvin_Ferd
in reply to cecilkorik • • •don't like this
Red Whacker doesn't like this.
Evkob (they/them)
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •like this
Red Whacker likes this.
cecilkorik
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •like this
Red Whacker likes this.
Melvin_Ferd
in reply to cecilkorik • • •don't like this
Red Whacker doesn't like this.
patatas
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Melvin_Ferd
in reply to patatas • • •Give me an example that's legitimate. What exactly do you think is wrong how about that.
Like this is as lazy as any r/the_donald comment. Which is also a super Astro turfed space where gauging a view based on the communities response is not the best thing to do
patatas
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •I mean first off, lol, because what does "legitimate" even mean in your philosophical system?
Like, I dunno, Kant distinguishes between noumena and phenomena but he doesn't then say that therefore it's all a goddamn free-for-all where you can just say that lies are truth now, which seems to be your position.
Hence me saying "listen to the people telling you that you are wrong about your entire epistemic framework".
Melvin_Ferd
in reply to patatas • • •that’s not even close to what I said. You’re mixing up epistemology with moral reasoning. I never said “lies are truth.” I said perception shapes truth in politics. There’s a difference between understanding how framing works and throwing reality out the window.
Kant separated noumena and phenomena, that’s literally the whole point. we don’t get direct access to the thing in itself. We interact with how it appears. That doesn’t mean free for all, it means we operate off perception and agreement, not perfect access to reality.
patatas
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •grte
in reply to Melvin_Ferd • • •Red Whacker
in reply to cecilkorik • •I'm of the belief that money hoarders are no different than regular hoarders.
Same mental disease only one gets away with it, because they get to flaunt money and unfortunately most of the plebs fall for that shit.
Canada reshared this.