• nonentity@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    Financial obesity is an existential threat to any society that tolerates it, and needs to cease being celebrated, rewarded, and positioned as an aspirational goal.

    Corporations are the only ‘persons’ which should be subjected to capital punishment, but billionaires should be euthanised through taxation.

    • YeahIgotskills2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I agree. My real abhorrence, however, is for the countless bootlickers who themselves live in near poverty yet loudly support their overlords in a sycophantic and unquestioning fashion. These class traitors, masquerading as real Americans are as culpable as the mentally deranged hoarders they prop up.

      I don’t feel like there’s a way to get through to these sheep-like collaborators, so it’s difficult to imagine anything will change in the near future.

    • Cruxifux@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      16 hours ago

      They should be, but they wont because their wealth and our system allows them to make the taxation laws. There is only one realistic way out of this one.

    • CH3DD4R_G0B-L1N@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Since it seems your use of obesity is causing some concern, perhaps it’s more appropriate to say “financial gluttony” as a more accurate phrasing?

      • nonentity@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        22 hours ago

        A distinction without a difference. One is the process, the other its outcome.

        Obesity is a problematic state for an entity to be in, and attempts to reframe it as normal only manifest as harm.

        Where I see potential validity in criticism is the flawed definitions used for medical classification, but that’s an issue for the medical profession to reckon with and address.

        • CH3DD4R_G0B-L1N@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          18 hours ago

          With the silly reactions to my suggestion even though I have no issue with your wording, I feel stupid trying to hold a discourse here, but regardless…

          The distinction is gluttony is an active action, a decision, to consume more than needed, and a sin in religious contexts.

          Obesity is a state of being, correct, but can be out of a person’s control medically, I believe (I’m no doctor).

          I’m sure the rhetoric brigade will attack this as well, though. So much for quality interactions of the fediverse.

          • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            17 hours ago

            It can be out of a person’s control… and it’s still bad for them. Nobody here is saying that fat people are bad people, people are saying that fat is bad for people.

    • slappyfuck@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      27
      ·
      1 day ago

      Financial obesity makes it seem like it’s the same as being fat, which doesn’t make sense because being fat is not a specific problem in the same way that being rich is.

      I’m sure you just mean it like “fat cat” but it’s a bizarre way to phrase it since it isn’t a good analogy.