I’m anxious that all the praise for the CEO shooter is revealing that “eat the rich” wasn’t a euphemism for “tax the rich” but that people actually want the streets to run red with blood and cranberry sauce.
Cook me daddy
‘eat the rich’ specifically means ‘we should eliminate the existence of the rich - by any means.’ so taxation works, but more extreme methods are not ruled out. It’s entirely up to the rich on how they’d prefer to respond to this motive - and it’s then up to the working class extremists on how they respond in kind.
I agree with you; I think you have the meat of it.
There are two problem here: first is that “rich” isn’t clearly defined. When the billionaires are all dead, are the millionaires next? Where doors it stop? Maybe that fucker in the house that’s bigger than your’s deserves to get her bullet too? How about anyone who’s rich enough to own a house?
Second, kill the rich and we still have a system that enables consolidation of wealth. We’ll just get a new group of 1%ers, only they’ll probably be more dedicated to repressing the public to ensure that what happened to their predecessors doesn’t happen to them.
Maybe the biggest problem, for me, is that I don’t know what’s better than what we have. Probably a limited capitalism, maybe modeled after one of the Nordic countries? Semi-socialist? I don’t know. I’m pretty sure a huge part of the problem is the stock market (if not specifically, then the economic model that enables it), and laissez-faire economics is a shit-show fantasy that doesn’t exist, but which the striving for causes all sorts of issues. But beyond that, I don’t know how to limit consolidation of wealth, and outcomes like Citizens United.
So, people can kill all the CEOs they want; I don’t expect it to improve anything.
You’re first point ends up just being a slippery slope fallacy. If we take out the billionaires, it’s just a hop and skip until we take out the people in mobile homes! Just using a single data point provided by census.gov is ‘Real median household income was $80,610 in 2023’. A person who’s a lowly billionaire (i.e. JUST has $1,000,000,000) made 12,405 YEARS worth of money. Someone who’s JUST a millionaire ($1,000,000) would have 12 years. Which if you flip that, it’s possible for someone to earn a million dollars w/o exploiting people. It’s clearly not possible to become a billionaire (using USD as the base) w/o being an immortal being who had a successful career starting in 10,381 BCE. The order of magnitude ends up being overlooked since it’s just the next thousand -> million -> billion. And to answer, when would it stop, it would probably stop naturally. Prices keep going up so billionaires can be multi billionaires and now we have one jack-ass gunning for being a trillionaire. And our taxes goes to subsidies these pricks too. If homes became affordable, if food was affordable, if our education system was up to snuff and affordable (K-12 and higher education), our healthcare was up to snuff, our roads were in good shape, our internet wasn’t nickle and diming everyone… you’d see a general lack of interest in being pissed off. It would happen organically, just like it has in the past… the wealthy get got, things change, and we peasants get less “eat the rich” motivated.
To you’re second point, yes the system is broken. But not everyone who’s family of the one in control of the estate, agree with that person. Also, fear is a great motivator. Most people fear homelessness or starvation. The 1% don’t fear much. Also, if vigilantes start taking out multiple 1%ers they’re either going to hire a lot of security (putting money back into the system, back into the hands of the people) or they’re going to start doing something to not be viewed as “dinner”. And we literally saw that. UHC gets got… and Blue Cross Blue Shield immediately reverse the change on anesthesia. They claimed it was due to backlash, but they’re a for profit company, they don’t care. But the CEO being targeted and seeing the people cheer… that sends a message.
I don’t think anyone has a clear plan as to what would be better. There’s certainly a lot of ideas out there. But so long as the ultra rich control the government, control the means of communication (news outlets, social media) it’s difficult/impossible for change that would negatively impact them that would positively impact the rest of society.
And you might not believe in it, but the French of utilized this method to much success. Honestly, we did to way back when if you want to throw in the revolutionary war.
The point is that the rich have purchased a system that protects them. If they’re scared that people are resorting to other methods, because the system won’t go after them, then they can choose to fix the system so people actually see results without murder. As long as they feel safe and cozy, they have no incentive to fix the system they rigged.
“Eat the Rich” just means “rich bad, and make them accountable.” Depending on who is saying it, it could mean anywhere from taxation to revolution. A good chunk of those saying it are revolutionary leftists, like Marxists and Anarchists.
I mean that’s what I assumed it meant. I didn’t think we were actually going to come out murdering people.
Again, depends on who is saying it. The sentiment behind hatred for the rich is what is expressed, though the methods differ between leftists, who seek revolutionary change, and disaffected liberals, who seek reforms.
Coward lol
What if it was a controversial opinion, your cooked.
What’s the opinion?
I always feel that good pineapple, well caramelized, can be good on pizza. The problem is the majority of pizza places don’t properly caramelize it, thus why most people never have a chance to try it well made, and thus the strong feelings against it.
At least that’s why I dont usually grab Hawaiian pizza.
I don’t think it has to be caramelized, but that would be good. But if someone uses low quality pineapple it’s going to suck. And you kind know, like if you see a pizza place and your thoughts are “well it’s cheap and quick” I wouldn’t get from there. But, if someone says “OMG, the pizza here is so good”, that’s the kind of place to get it. Local family pizzeria, yes. Dominoes/Pizza Hut/Pizza Ranch, probably a no.
Yep.
The acid from the pineapple and tomato sauce almost pair for the same acid hit and their sweet flavors complement each other.
We like pineapple with doughy things
We like tomato with doughy things
Pineapple and tomato are a shockingly good combo
And cheese makes juuuuust about anything better.
This who say pineapple on pizza ought not exist probably think Italians “invented the tomato” too.
My high school used to serve pineapple, ham, and jalapeno pizza. It tasted pretty good.
I’ve got some really good pizzas with pineapple on them, and some really bad pizzas with pineapple on them. Also, there used to be a place nearby that made a really good hamburger with pineapple in it.
Overall, it’s not the existence of pineapples that make food good or bad.
Apparently the Italian mozzarella association or whatever it’s called officially recommends mozzarella and pineapple as a good pairing of flavours so it’s not just you
Anyone who knows anything about cooking does. The acidity cuts through all the fatty cheese, and it also pairs great with salty meats. It’s only people ignorant of good cooking techniques who say it shouldn’t be done.
Personally though, I don’t care for pineapple that much. It’s too sweet for me. Nothing against it on pizza in particular, just the fruit itself. Still, on a salty pizza, it’s pretty good.
You shouldn’t hide. It’s others that are wrong.
