124
About what I expected for the pro-billionaire protest.
(lemmy.dbzer0.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2026
124 points (96.3% liked)
SneerClub
1232 readers
22 users here now
Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.
AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)
This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.
[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]
See our twin at Reddit
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
she's pretty unambiguously a nazi btw
https://missionlocal.org/2026/02/sf-march-for-billionaires-bust/
Do I need to comment on this one?
one thing that's so funny to me about this is that of course you're not supposed to say "we're going to brutalize poor people so billionaires don't have to pay more tax." you're supposed to say a rising tide lifts all boats, that kind of thing, and in fact there's a pic in the article where he's holding a sign about how a bigger pie means bigger slices or something to that effect. but as soon as he opens his mouth he just throws "we're going to take the healthcare" out there, because he has no self awareness, no critical thinking, no understanding of what in fact he is trying to do
This passage from the above-linked lw post from the "stone age billionaire" guy about how counter-protestors tried to prevent them from speaking is really telling:
I thought we all understood at this point that baiting your enemies into violence was one of the operating principles behind a lot of protests like this. Maybe not as a primary goal (unless you're the Westboro Bastard Church trying to get ammunition for lawsuits against the host city for failing to adequately protect you from the consequences of your own actions) but historically speaking violent repression isn't exactly a failure state for these events. One of the biggest victories for civil disobedience was putting the violent absurdity of segregation on full display by getting massive crackdowns on them for sitting in a restaurant, for example. Making the implicit violence of injustice explicit changes the emotional valence and makes it harder for John Q Public to justify actively supporting it. If you don't have enough mass support to implicitly threaten to do something (i.e. look at all these people who will cause problems if not recognized) then arguably being repressed is an even more significant goal because showing that "about two-dozen kooks believe something" isn't exactly going to mobilize social change on its own and it's not like billionaires care about solidarity with the hoi polloi.
But considering the absolute bafflement on display about counterprotests being willing to rudely inconvenience them it really feels like they understood that sometimes people who believe things will do this thing called a "protest" where they get together and chant slogans and wave signs and have a grand old time, but had no coherent idea of why and never really thought to ask.
The problem for them is that the cops are actually the army of the rich and state and national government is controlled by billionaire lickers. They could go to DSA meetings and picket, but at best they could get a DSA member to be rude to them and then complain about it.
These people are convinced it's the poorest that are getting a free lunch.
"The Poor get ALL the breaks! It's not fair to Billionaires!"
i can't believe the media is straw manning me. but actually now that you've said the horrible things i don't wanna say out loud that sounds good actually, let's do that