• nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 month ago

      No. No. They’re right. When even Forbes reports that nearly 30% of people can’t afford their normal expenses and a further 40% living paycheck to paycheck, it’s a systemic issue. Payroll.org’s numbers from 2023 put the paycheck to paycheck at 78%.

      Sure some of those are poor spending habits but, to brush it off as that is wishful thinking. Could blame it on neoliberalism but, people have been coerced into making the wealthy even more money in order to survive since long before that. Not having a home is illegal. Every bit of land on the plant is considered owned, whether occupied or not, so, there is no option to opt-out and refuse to participate while alive and free.

      • Mammothmothman
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        28
        ·
        1 month ago

        So posting on fediverse is going to change any of that how?

        • StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 month ago

          What is the point of your question? It’s based on a completely useless, asinine observation. I guess what I’m asking is, are you trying to start shit or are you profoundly dim?

          • Mammothmothman
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 month ago

            Im just pissed off at all this high minded gobshite about how capitalism is the source of all evil and immediately jumping into this fantasy of a perfect anrchism without any conceptualization of how to get from A to B. Not to mention that my “tankie” comment was sarcastic satire of lemmy comment sections whenever captialism is mentioned.

        • chemicalprophet@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Someone who thinks we need a militaristic (i.e. tanks) installation of a communist regime.

          Edit: clarity

          • SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 month ago

            Although people on Lemmy, especially .world, seem to be increasingly using it like American conservatives use “woke”, to describe anyone they don’t like. On the bright side, also like the usage of woke, it’s typically a sign the person using it is an idiot and doesn’t have anything worth listening to.

            • twig@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 month ago

              It is an unfortunate thing, because tankies are actually a problem. And I do mean the real term, as in the folks who identify with dictatorships that are so-called communist.

              The reason it’s a problem is that the folks who are left-leaning but uneducated sometimes get swept up in pro-authoritarian rhetoric that happens to oppose the west. I’m anticapitalist, leftist, etc. I see tankies and fascists having a lot in common. That seems dangerous in the sense that fascism is a real threat. Also, then, our ranks are being thinned out and co-opted by specific bad-faith actors. At the same time, when people buy into tankie (pro-Russia, pro-China, pro-North Korea) propaganda, this more or less consolidates some of the power that opposes actual leftists (as in, people who support human rights, equitable societies, environmental protection, etc).

              Not really any argument against what you’re saying. Just kind of adding that the term tankie is actually useful to describe a specific viewpoint, but obviously not in the way that the previous commenter used it.

            • xenoclast@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              That seems to be the function I see it used the most.

              And yes, I do find it’s a good indicator that they aren’t very bright, or at least don’t want to engage in constructive conversations.

              Thanks all for letting me be the ‘lucky’ 10,000

            • chemicalprophet@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              Yeah. That was obviously how it was used against me. I’m interested in good faith digression but your right, it’s a sign that it won’t be and your time would be wasted.