The ratings would be through the roof. : memes

[–] PartyAt15thAndSummit@lemmy.zip 12 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You forgot the part where we also take their companies, real estate, stock, private jets and yachts.

[–] WanderWisley@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

Noted.

[–] Mangoholic@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago

Alternatively we can just take their stuff and throw them in jail. After all the system was designed for them to become what they are. Good enough for me.

[–] obelix@lemmy.world 21 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Waste of perfectly good lead. The same outcome could be achieved with human excrement.

[–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 19 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Typical lack of logic from billionaire haters. You get shit too hot, you release horrible gassed and the cleanup would be terribly tedious.

You need to submerge them in boiling piss.

[–] blockheadjt@sh.itjust.works 15 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Guys, guys, concrete is adequate.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I like the concrete, could do it on a big tanker ship and then just dump it in the ocean when its hard. Put it next to the titanic and titan wrecks.

[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

we can reuse the lead afterwards

[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 26 points 4 days ago

Doctors should put billionaires into involuntary commitment in psych wards.

that level of greed is a serious immediate danger to everyone.

[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 8 points 4 days ago

Crassus is a model we wish all billionaires aspire to.

Carrhae - Historia Civilia

[–] dylanmorgan@sh.itjust.works 16 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Uh, I have some notes. First, lead is toxic-can it be a giant blender instead?

Okay, that was my only note, actually.

[–] WanderWisley@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago

Noted.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

They are called macerators, and yes that would work amazingly.

[–] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Rich people hunger games

[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

a death game movie where all the victims are billionaires would be amazing

[–] teagrrl@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 days ago

I'd tune in.

[–] Siresly@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 4 days ago

The showrunner in the final episode.

[–] mad_lentil@lemmy.ca 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

But who wins

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 32 points 5 days ago

Everyone!

[–] plyth@feddit.org 1 points 4 days ago

They wouldn't. If people would want to see it they could vote for a party that taxes the billionaires. Schools, hospitals and housing could be built right now.

[+] damnedfurry@lemmy.world -27 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (5 children)

Assuming you could wave a magic wand and convert their net worth straight into cash 1:1 (you can't), you couldn't even do the last thing on that list, much less all the others:

Assuming in the US, using 2023 figures:

Total combined net worth of all billionaires (remember, you can only "take all their money" one time): $5.2 trillion
Total annual healthcare cost: $4.9 trillion

Too many people have been deluded into believing that 'the billionaires' are capable of easily solving all societal ills if only they gave away their wealth, and aren't they such assholes for keeping their wealth and not solving them?

Most people are not nearly aware of the actual costs of these things.

[–] Yoddel_Hickory@lemmy.ca 24 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Contrary to the other commenter, I AM trying to say you're wrong. Universal healthcare is very much possible, see every actually developed country! They even managed to do it without the molten lead thing, though I'm sure it would help.

[–] Sandouq_Dyatha@lemmy.ml 14 points 4 days ago (1 children)

see every actually developed country

and a lot of developing countries, Algeria which had a literacy rate of 3% had universal healthcare in the 70s, 10 years of not being a settler colony

[–] Samsuma@lemmy.ml 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Libya too before 2011 (except the literacy rate was recorded to be 89 to 99% at one point)!

not to mention the fact that that the "developed" countries depend heavily on the exploitation of the Global South to provide free/universal healthcare, yes European reader reading this, this includes Finland and no Poland isn't excluded either.

[–] Sandouq_Dyatha@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

the Europeans literally destroyed Libya

[–] Samsuma@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

of course they did, anything so much as hints at providing welfare services that isn't born out of imperialism is a threat to their imperialism... so they needed to make an example out of Libyans by turning it into a sex slave trading hub.

يلعن شكلهم

[–] fxomt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

يلعن شكلهم

والله صح الله يلعن أمريكا وأوروبا، دمروا نصف العالم لمال

[–] Sandouq_Dyatha@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 days ago (2 children)

جماعة من فضلكم لا تقرءوا اسمي

[–] Samsuma@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 days ago

وكي 🙈

[–] fxomt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

ما قرئت اسمك من قبل ههههههه A person disintegrating

[–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 16 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

4.9 trillion assuming you're paying everything through the corrupt, extortionate gringo system.

Actually civilized countries like China and Cuba manage to give universal healthcare to their citizens at a much, much cheaper cost per capita, and without the horrible deficiencies of US healthcare, all under international embargo in the case of Cuba.

Also, really convenient how y'all bootlickers are all about passive income but you pretend assets are going to become cash and nothing else, not to mention the fact that the government can literally print dollars and keep the currency stable as long as industrial output and taxation is well managed.

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

Actually civilized countries like China

lol

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 14 points 4 days ago

Total annual healthcare cost: $4.9 trillion

Guess why that number is so much higher per capita, than it is in countries with universal healthcare.

Also, spending their money isn't the only benefit to boiling them in lead. You also get the benefit of them not using that money to corrupt democracy, or fund propaganda designed to turn the working class against itself.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Total annual healthcare cost: $4.9 trillion

That would be $12K /person /year. That's a lot. That really shows the inefficiency of the US healthcare system, not the inevitable cost of healthcare.

[–] Thalion@lemmy.ca 13 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I'm not trying to say you're completely off base here, but that $4.9 trillion would drop pretty significantly under a universal health care system

[+] mrductape@eviltoast.org -15 points 4 days ago (3 children)

The ratings would not be through the roof. Although they might be richt people, they are still people. Naturally people are social creatures who don't like to see other humans suffer greatly.

Yes, people are cruel, but seeing people dieing and suffering is not something most people will willingly seek out unless they are already depressed or traumatized.

I certainly won't be watching. Now just taking their money, leaving them enough to still live a life and then improving the world, I would be watching that.

But I really do not understand why people hate rich people so much. Yes, Bozos is an asshole for exploiting employees and treating them really bad, but that is about his actions and everything that flows from that. His money alone would not make me hate him.

[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 18 points 4 days ago (1 children)

those people are actively destroying the very planet we live on, and causing untold human suffering in the process so they can own more yatchs that they can conceivably enjoy.

every child that dies of hunger, every sick man who dies due to unaffordable healthcare, every person who worked themselves to an early grave for them to live in misery, all so those ghouls can suck more and more.

then being put in a molten lead tub is barely a tiny fraction of the cumulative amount of suffering they have caused.

[–] Gyroplast@pawb.social 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

The argument is not how one gruesome, cruel, sociopathic behavior outweighs the other, but being opposed to extremely anti-social behavior in general. Nobody wins the cruelty olympics.

Frankly, even the idea of "it is ethical, enjoyable, or just tolerable to cruelly hurt X in any way, because they are objectively worse than whatever I can think of" should be fundamentally repulsive to anyone, more so when attempting to take any moral high ground.

It's too close for (my) comfort to normalizing suffering as somehow deserved by anyone, which is how "the other side" likes to argue how exploitation is totally fine. "Everyone else would do it, too, I'm just faster or better at it than them." - "If they weren't subhuman, worthless losers, they could hold a job in my orphan blending factory, and just not be homeless or pay for medication". These are examples of an anti-social mindset. Honestly wishing, not just out of righteous, powerless anger, another conscious being cruel harm for any reason is a very slippery slope towards that mindset. I try to fight this urge.

I follow the argument insofar that "they" caused unfathomable suffering in multitudes. I would really prefer if the reaction to this wouldn't be the prevalent "I want to see them hurt in (un)kind, because they deserve it", but rather "how can such people be effectively discouraged from ever wanting to become a scourge to society", while still accepting that universal human rights are still universal.

Of course this is much more complicated than "just take the money, and shove it elsewhere", and quite possibly not even achievable within the time we have left, and coming from societies as they currently are. Without that little quantum of optimism, hope, and belief in a fundamentally sociable human nature, though, I don't see much in our future than eventual, total destruction, one way or the other.

TL;DR: Yeah, molten lead isn't even close to the cruelty inflicted by those doused with it. But why are we one-upping each other in cruelty, again? What's the point?

[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago

the same way that it's unethical to chop people's body parts, but it is if said body part of a tumour.

it's best just to end the system that creates them. however, they are fighting tooth and nail to maintain it.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 days ago

There comes a point where amassing wealth is to the detriment of those around you. Name someone who has a billion dollars and I will tell you why I think they are selfish and a drag on society.

[–] Bunbury@feddit.nl 4 points 4 days ago

Agreed. I wouldn’t want any of them killed. I’d be really entertained by a max-income type of idea where they have to make it without all of the luxuries they are used to. And especially for the people who never had to work (besides bossing others around) it would be so fun to see them in some average job, or even walking into a supermarket finding out what food costs.

Memes

Rules: