- It blows.
2xar
joined 2 years ago
Unfortunately I'm afraid this will only be a very short term gain for society. In the longer term CEO-s will just muscle-up. They'll hire a whole bunch more security and bodyguards, armored vehicles, taller, concrete fences around their properties and show their faces even less in public. All on company expense, so from our, their consumers' money of course. They will become even more isolated, secluded and cut off from society, more paranoid and resentful about the rest of us, mere 'plebs'.
I'm not saying I don't understand why people are celebrating. But I don't think that this murder will help steer back society, inequality and corporate greed into a healthier, better direction. Instead it is just another step along the path to the dystopian future shown in so-so many sci-fi literature and movies. Where 99% of society has been delegated to a complete slave-like status, with ZERO financial security, self-determination, healthcare access and freedom while they spend day and night labouring endlessly, just to not starve or freeze to death. Which they still might, if they get in an accident or an illness which bankrupts them.
Meanwhile the 1% will reap ALL the benefits from the work of all the rest of us and they'll live like no king has ever lived before. Possibly their lifes extended to hundreds of years, flying around the planet between their mansions from party to party.
Murdering one or two CEO-s will not prevent this future I think. We will need a much, much wider show of rejection of this future if we want to stop it. We will need protests, demonstrations and show of unity. The rich will try to prevent this in every possible way. They will call the protesters terrorists, fundamentalists. Police will treat them as criminals and jail or even kill many of them. But if the society-wide rejection of this dystopian future is not shown in full force, it WILL HAPPEN.
My post was actually about religion and I only used gun control as a theoretical comparison.
However, it seems funny to me that you start by stating that 'gun control is ineffective', and then proceed to describe gun control in great detail and praise it.
Gun control =/= banning all guns.
I don't know which TV have you been watching, but you seriously have zero fucking clue about who Kamala Harris is. She specifically just vowed to do everything to reach piece in Gaza: https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/us-election-2024-donald-trump-rhetoric-darkens-kamala-harris-vows-gaza-peace-in-final-hours-6938437
It's enough to whatch a few interviews with both Trump and Kamala to know about their character and where their heart is. None of them are particularly good liars, actually their both pretty bad at it. The difference is: Trump voters don't care at all how many lies he's telling them, so he does it constantly. Kamala's voters immediately start turning away from her when she's caught/seems to be lying, so she can't really afford to do it. It's the classic double standard between D and R candidates on all levels.^___^
His point about Nazi's attacking the Church is also blatantly false BTW. Nazi's had a bit of a conflict with the Catholic church at the beginning, but they quickly reconciled and pretty much enabled them. Nazi's also created their own version of Christianity, the biggest difference to other branches being that they claimed Jesus wasn't actually jew, but of Aryan descent, and Hitler was the new Messiah:
Religious morality keeps changing as well. A few hundred years ago according to Christianity it was morally right to use black people as slaves, because they had no souls. Luckily, society has progressed and gradually it became immoral to enslave people all over the world. In the end, Christianity had no choice but to accept this - although it took some wars to convince them everywhere about it.
She most certainly isn't OK with it. She said she wants to end the war and have peace several times. She is not a sociopath, unlike Trump, so if she had the means, she would gladly stop supporting Israel with guns. Unfortunately, she does not - at the moment. Why does she not?
Because Israel and Bibi is supporting both Democrats and Republicans in the US elections, and has been for decades (although Bibi naturally leans towards Trump recently, as a fellow autocrat and dictator-wannabe). But Israel is actually lobbying for both sides and partially financing them, as well as having a lot of media under their control that can campaign for or attack any or both of them. They arguably can influence 1-2-3% of voters to swing one way or the other. And that is enough to keep both D and R parties/candidates on their sides, as the gap between the two parties are so small, that those few percents could easily decide the election.
So what would be a solution? If both D and R are dependent on Israel to win elections, what could be done? Well, if one side would win by a huge margin, bigger than those few percents, than they would no longer need the political support from Israel. Of, course, if this was Trump, he would still support them, because he likes other dictators and wannabe dictators, like Bibi, Putin, Orbán or Kim. They all help each other out against democratic countries.
But if Kamala would have a commanding win, that would actually enable her to not care about Israel's political support anymore and do the right thing: end military support for Israel and thus stop the genocide. Let's hope that she will have this power.
Organized religion is a really effective way and tool for brainwashing. Of course there are many other tools as well, but religion is probably the best one. That's why it's so popular.
Just like with guns. If you control and ban firerarms, there are still going to be some murders. But much-much less, because you take away the easiest way of commiting one.
The usual way to fix these things is civil war. Don't worry, you won't have to start it, the racists and fascists will do it for you. And then they'll get annihilated, like always.
This is because they may be loud, aggressive, greedy, hateful and boastful which all help them start and ramp up wars. But they are also stupid, cowardly, irrational, week minded and a minority, which make them loose these wars.
Both, of course.
Literally everybody here gets this. It's in the fucking title of the post... And it is also exactly why everybody is hating on JB now and downvoting your comments. JB should have stood by his lifelong friend and creative partner, and care fuck all about the corporatist PR image after one bad joke. Especially because Kyle's joke wasn't a career endingly bad one. But JB made it out to be one. He has effectively killed KG's career now, by blowing the thing way out of proportion, completely unnecessarily. All because he thought that HIS career was in danger too. That is why everybody is angry at him now. He has acted 100% selfishly.
What he should have done, if anything, was to say sthing like, "Kyle made a mistake, it was a joke in bad taste. But I've known him forever, I know he's a good man with a good heart. He will reflect on this and learn from it and do better in the future. An assassination attempt, and the death of an innocent bystander can never be a joke. We will dedicate the oncoming stages of the tour and all proceeds from it to the family of the victim. Blah blah blah". That's all JB had to do and say.
Instead he threw KG totally under the bus, ended his career, and by making the morally wrong choice, probably damaged his own as well.
view more: next ›