“Eat the Rich” memes spread, but is it a political movement?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 295
  • Views: 7K
  • Politics 
Not thin-skinned about being disagreed with, just take issue with being misconstrued when trying my best to operate in good faith and make what I’m saying clear.
i empathize. it is a real problem. i think we get so many bad faith posters that people have forgotten how to be respectful and open-minded toward our good faith ones. or not forgotten, so much as apply it inconsistently. or maybe it's just the nature of anonymous message board posting.

and the false accusations are also a problem.
 
Not thin-skinned about being disagreed with, just take issue with being misconstrued when trying my best to operate in good faith and make what I’m saying clear.
But you didn't make it clear yet...at least not to me. Do you think that the actions of the insurance company are more culpable in this instance than the shooter himself?

That's what those poll results mean to me and that's the question I have not seen you answer. If you did and I missed it, I apologize.

As for me, I ALWAYS think the Individual is most responsible for their own actions. To use the most macabre example I can think of, I think every guard at Auschwitz and every other camp should have been put to death. They were all individually responsible for their own actions. They could have just as easily put a bullet into their commanding officers as those who they murdered who were innocent. Would it have cost them their own lives. Yes, but that was the choice they made.
 
Does this look like the poor and middle class are paying disproportionately?
I think I've about worn a hole in the internet googling this stuff. The poor don't pay squat in income taxes, thanks to George W. Bush. They pay some sales tax imposed by the states and SS, for which they receive an oversized benefit in relation to what they pay in.


High-Income Taxpayers Paid the Highest Average Income Tax Rates


In 2021, taxpayers with higher incomes paid much higher average income tax rates than taxpayers with lower incomes.

The bottom half of taxpayers, or taxpayers making under $46,637, faced an average income tax rate of 3.3 percent. As household income increases, average income tax rates rise. For example, taxpayers with AGI between the 10th and 5th percentiles ($169,800 and $252,840) paid an average income tax rate of 14.3 percent—four times the rate paid by taxpayers in the bottom half.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI of $682,577 and above) paid the highest average income tax rate of 25.93 percent—nearly eight times the rate faced by the bottom half of taxpayers.

High-Income Taxpayers Paid the Majority of Federal Income Taxes

In 2021, the bottom half of taxpayers earned 10.4 percent of total AGI and paid 2.3 percent of all federal individual income taxes. The top 1 percent earned 26.3 percent of total AGI and paid 45.8 percent of all federal income taxes.

In all, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid more than $1 trillion in income taxes while the bottom 90 percent paid $531 billion.
Using AGI as the measure there is the problem. The truly wealthy generally have an AGI close to 0. By time you have calculated an AGI the rich have already used their loopholes to eliminate their taxes.
 
But you didn't make it clear yet...at least not to me. Do you think that the actions of the insurance company are more culpable in this instance than the shooter himself?

That's what those poll results mean to me and that's the question I have not seen you answer. If you did and I missed it, I apologize.

As for me, I ALWAYS think the Individual is most responsible for their own actions. To use the most macabre example I can think of, I think every guard at Auschwitz and every other camp should have been put to death. They were all individually responsible for their own actions. They could have just as easily put a bullet into their commanding officers as those who they murdered who were innocent. Would it have cost them their own lives. Yes

Which option is accurate? The post supposed two possible motives for answering the question in that way.
the post suggested that the second option, the protest vote option so to speak, was more likely. when he agreed, i take him to mean that he would have seen the poll as an opportunity to be heard.

i mean, think about it. someone calls you and asks for your opinion on something but in a way designed to stifle your expression. there's no option for "the killer made his choice, but in addition to that we need to talk about health insurance because never before in the history of the world has injustice been accepted without violence somewhere." you have to pick an answer. "the killer is responsible" makes no difference in the world. he will be prosecuted; everyone will go on business as usual; and nothing will change. "the insurance company is responsible" has at least a chance to spark conversations that will result in change.
 
The ultimate culpability for the killing lies with Mangione, IMO.

But the killing reveals the rot and discontent within our political system. It didn’t happen in a vacuum. That’s all I’m trying to say, and that’s the sentiment I’ve heard *most* of my peers express. I don’t agree with the people who are sanctifying Mangione.

Again, explanation is not justification. It’s an important moment for people to realize how systems affect people’s actions.
And im fine with (and agree with) this stance, but that is NOT what those survey results say to me and based on what I see on social media the survey is indicative of a more sinister view than that.
 
And im fine with (and agree with) this stance, but that is NOT what those survey results say to me and based on what I see on social media the survey is indicative of a more sinister view than that.
People are sick of the oligarchs and the country is much closer than many people realize to violent revolution. People voted for Trump because they want to tear the system down, because the system no longer works for ordinary people. They’re just too dumb to realize what Trump is offering is much worse than even the broken current system.
 
And im fine with (and agree with) this stance, but that is NOT what those survey results say to me and based on what I see on social media the survey is indicative of a more sinister view than that.
one downside of communication-by-meme, which is a dominant form of communication on social media, is that it rarely allows for any sort of nuance. the whole point of a meme -- or one of them -- is to avoid having to express any specific opinion. you can be all things to all people (or the opposite).

i'm not saying you are wrong, but i do think that you need to take your observations and the polls on this with a grain of salt. if everyone had exactly the view that paine expressed, i am not sure social media would be much different. the nuanced view is just not social media friendly.

i long ago predicted that twitter would be the demise of democracy. i didn't mean it 100% seriously -- and i certainly didn't predict that a right wing edgelord would buy it and turn it into a firehose of disinformation -- but i think the general intuition was right. nothing good can come from limiting expression to 240 characters. people accuse me of writing long posts. they certainly are long compared to tweets. they are not long compared to the history of written expression. it wasn't that long ago that advertisement -- one page advertisements in magazines and newspapers -- contained more text than all but my longest posts. what has happened is that americans, and maybe others as well, have lost the ability to express ideas coherently.
 
one downside of communication-by-meme, which is a dominant form of communication on social media, is that it rarely allows for any sort of nuance. the whole point of a meme -- or one of them -- is to avoid having to express any specific opinion. you can be all things to all people (or the opposite).

i'm not saying you are wrong, but i do think that you need to take your observations and the polls on this with a grain of salt. if everyone had exactly the view that paine expressed, i am not sure social media would be much different. the nuanced view is just not social media friendly.

i long ago predicted that twitter would be the demise of democracy. i didn't mean it 100% seriously -- and i certainly didn't predict that a right wing edgelord would buy it and turn it into a firehose of disinformation -- but i think the general intuition was right. nothing good can come from limiting expression to 240 characters. people accuse me of writing long posts. they certainly are long compared to tweets. they are not long compared to the history of written expression. it wasn't that long ago that advertisement -- one page advertisements in magazines and newspapers -- contained more text than all but my longest posts. what has happened is that americans, and maybe others as well, have lost the ability to express ideas coherently.
This is all true, but it isnt just the memes themselves. It is the overall response to them. When someone does express the more nuanced view, people pile on with "that fucker got what he deserved"

You were very right about Twitter and I'm glad I never participated in it.

Here's my prediction....what we are seeing with the acceptance of such things by people is the natural offset to MAGA and it is just as dangerous.

We are rapidly cruising toward a society that places no value on human life itself and all value on being agreed with 100% of the time.
 
How would you read that to say they are justifying the killing? If someone places a “moderate” amount of blame on Mangione and a “great deal” of blame on the for-profit health insurance industry, are they justifying the killing to you?
Yes. They are definitely justifying the murder.
 
Yes. They are definitely justifying the murder.
this is incorrect. you can have whatever opinion you like about the merits, but it is simply not true that contextualizing is justifying. it can be the case, but it isn't necessarily so.

what was the cause of world war one? in history class, they teach that the assassination of the archduke was merely a spark, and the real cause was the military buildup and hardening alliances in europe that made war almost inevitable. it only took a match. i have never interpreted that contention as a justification for the serbian assassin. that it only takes a match doesn't make it right to light the match. it is also ridiculous to ignore all the kindling. this incident isn't the same as that one; i am merely pointing out that justification and contextualization are clearly not the same thing.
 
this is incorrect. you can have whatever opinion you like about the merits, but it is simply not true that contextualizing is justifying. it can be the case, but it isn't necessarily so.

what was the cause of world war one? in history class, they teach that the assassination of the archduke was merely a spark, and the real cause was the military buildup and hardening alliances in europe that made war almost inevitable. it only took a match. i have never interpreted that contention as a justification for the serbian assassin. that it only takes a match doesn't make it right to light the match. it is also ridiculous to ignore all the kindling. this incident isn't the same as that one; i am merely pointing out that justification and contextualization are clearly not the same thing.
Gee, thank you so much for pointing out that justification and contextualization are clearly not the same thing. Without you, I wouldn’t have a clue about that.
 
For what it's worth, I would also say that Gavrilo Princip is more responsible for the murder of Archduke Ferdinand than anyone else. Just in case anyone was wondering!
 
unless one considers this site social media.
Message boards are a form of social media, although they are almost all niche social media and quite archaic at this point.

But I think that super's point stands even with social media that doesn't have character limits. The movement of internet consumption/usage from computer to phone/tablet has overall created a very, very different social media experience. Folks typing on phones/tablets rarely contribute terribly long or nuanced posts, they tend to create short posts that focus on very limited, high-level points.

It takes a lot of characters to express why you think Biden's COVID policies were bad or why his efforts to curb inflation weren't successful with any nuance or intelligence, but it only takes a few seconds to say "Biden sucks!" or post a silly picture response or to simply post a link to someone else you agree with (but that doesn't force you to actually wrestle with the issues yourself).

And, as someone who is rapidly approaching his 30th anniversary of spending time on message boards, that doesn't even start to cover the changes from the internet being largely populated by reasonably educated folks (college students/professors and white collar workers) to the internet being fully available to nearly everyone via 24/7 connection. Over my time on various message boards, the level of interaction and discourse has fallen further than I could ever imagine.
 
Message boards are a form of social media, although they are almost all niche social media and quite archaic at this point.

But I think that super's point stands even with social media that doesn't have character limits. The movement of internet consumption/usage from computer to phone/tablet has overall created a very, very different social media experience. Folks typing on phones/tablets rarely contribute terribly long or nuanced posts, they tend to create short posts that focus on very limited, high-level points.

It takes a lot of characters to express why you think Biden's COVID policies were bad or why his efforts to curb inflation weren't successful with any nuance or intelligence, but it only takes a few seconds to say "Biden sucks!" or post a silly picture response or to simply post a link to someone else you agree with (but that doesn't force you to actually wrestle with the issues yourself).

And, as someone who is rapidly approaching his 30th anniversary of spending time on message boards, that doesn't even start to cover the changes from the internet being largely populated by reasonably educated folks (college students/professors and white collar workers) to the internet being fully available to nearly everyone via 24/7 connection. Over my time on various message boards, the level of interaction and discourse has fallen further than I could ever imagine.
Sorry to veer off the general topic for a moment, but this post made me think back to the old ACCBoards.com and how things were about 25 years ago. It’s funny to think that there were A LOT of college students— even high school students— on those boards at the time. At that time, I was a recent college grad in my mid-20s. Definitely a far cry from the demographics we see on these boards today.
 
sorry to veer off the general topic for a moment, but this post made me think back to the old ACCBoards.com and how things were about 25 years ago. It’s funny to think that there were A LOT of college students— even high school students— on those boards at the time. At that time, I was a recent college grad in my mid-20s. Definitely a far cry from the demographics we see on these boards today.
As an of ACCBoards poster, a lot of us have aged like vinegar, I guess, and stuck with these sorts of boards as our social media forums even as they’ve become backwaters for dinosaurs. My son would probably die laughing at the idea of posting on a board like this, but there was an ACCBoards betting pool on when he would be born back in the day.

Happy Adam Scott GIF by Sky
 
As an of ACCBoards poster, a lot of us have aged like vinegar, I guess, and stuck with these sorts of boards as our social media forums even as they’ve become backwaters for dinosaurs. My son would probably die laughing at the idea of posting on a board like this, but there was an ACCBoards betting pool on when he would be born back in the day.

Happy Adam Scott GIF by Sky
I remember there was a poster back in the old ACCBoards with “1951” in his username (something like “1951 Tar Heel”). He was a 1951 UNC grad, which would put him in his early-70s during most of those ACCBoards days. I remember thinking at the time how surprised I was that he figured out how to get to and use internet message boards based on his age at the time we were in (most folks over 70 at the time didn’t have a lot of experience with computers or the internet). And now we have a number of posters in their 70s, many (all?) of whom were younger than I am now back in the ACCBoards days.

Anyway, sorry to continue taking this off topic.
 
Back
Top