• SpruceBringsteen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    13 days ago

    Feel like your chances of seeing one of the dozens of people who hold like half the wealth in the world is pretty slim on the street.

  • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    I don’t think that particular game is hunted on the streets.

    They have meticulously maintained resorts, islands, megayachts, etc for exact purpose.

    It’s no proper sport tho, once the staff stops protecting them, they just stand there sucking their thumbs.

    But it’s still fully worth it, once the kill is done & the empire (for at least a moment) falls, nature can’t believe what just finally happened, etc.

      • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        13 days ago

        I mean, historically speaking un-tactical raids (pitchforks & torches) worked, however they did buy up a lot more police/military personnel since then.

  • Rhaedas@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    13 days ago

    I just rewatched some Hawkeye episodes. I’m down with this. brb got to make some more special arrows.

  • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 days ago

    Why would you us a bow? Range is poor, and lethality is also low, esp. with the access the the ultra-wealthy have to medicine. When you hunt deer with a bow, you can usually expect to have to follow a blood trail, as it’s rarely an instant drop.

    Use a .300 Winchester magnum from 1000 yards; at that distance, you still have about 850 foot-pounds of energy, which is roughly double a 9mm at point black range. With the right ammo, that’s more than enough to get the job done. You probably want a combined mechanical and ammunition accuracy of about .5 MOA range though, so that you have deviation of less than 6" at that range. It’s a challenging shot, but it’s definitely doable if you know your holds and can call the wind.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 days ago

        You shouldn’t need to. .300 Win mag is long action, so you’re going to be using a bolt action rifle. There’s not going to be too many contexts where you’re going to want to swap out the scope for anything other than fairly long range.

  • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    13 days ago

    I don’t know. Personally I’m a fan of Piyu style reeducation (or at least a more modern and humane version of it).

  • MissJinx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    13 days ago

    I’m not against but I feel like we have to establish boundaries. Like how rich is rich game? Is a weathy dude huntable? What about people that won the lotery? I Imagine billionaires are the better target right?!

  • Routhinator@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 days ago

    Now I need to see a photo shop of a Post brand cereal named Nut Clarity, with picture of fuzzy almonds floating in milk.

  • Underwaterbob@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    12 days ago

    I get the violent rhetoric, I really do. But, at the same time, I can’t help but feel like more people would be more amenable to social reform that benefits the little guy to the mere detriment of the rich, rather than murdering them horribly. I could be wrong, but doesn’t history teach us that violent revolution more often just begets more violence than actually solves problems?

    • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      12 days ago

      Ok but the rich, and tgerefore powerful will block said reform or even weaponize it. We’re at 40 years of losses for the little-guy. We’re down to the bone and they’re still cutting while the pigs still feed at the public through

    • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      12 days ago

      but doesn’t history teach us that violent revolution more often just begets more violence than actually solves problems?

      Nope! Look at the life expectancy increases under socialist countries, they mathematically have less death!

      Also compare red terrors casualty numbers to standard operating casualty numbers. Like 20 million people die of capitalism caused deprivation a year worldwide today.

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 days ago

      counterpoint:

      in all seriousness, no it doesn’t. that’s whitewashing by liberals. good revolutions are often still violent. because guess what, if you want to challenge power, power doesn’t just fucking let you do whatever you want.

      • Underwaterbob@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 days ago

        power doesn’t just fucking let you do whatever you want.

        No, but power can be subverted. Maybe I’m hopelessly optimistic, but I think there’s still a non-violent solution.

    • ericatty@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 days ago

      I mean, Kamala is running on policies that would help the little guy. And she might lose to guy who SA’s women and said he could shoot someone in the street.

      If she wins and we get a peaceful transfer of power, then I’ll have more faith in your dream.

      But right now, it seems like violence is what the masses crave over social reform.

    • dyc3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 days ago

      I agree 100%. I’m as left as probably most people here, but I just don’t understand why the first course of action is to claw the opps eyes out.

      • Underwaterbob@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 days ago

        I understand. I throw obscene amounts of money at the cash black hole that is rent. I understand entirely how people think that people who make money simply by sitting on assets they own and otherwise provide nothing to society should be, ahem, obliterated. I just think it’s still possible to obliterate them with regulations instead of actual murder.

  • BigBenis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    12 days ago

    I loathe this runaway capitalist system we live in just as much as the next but this violent rhetoric is getting a bit too spicy. Let’s tax the owning class into oblivion. Take away their undeserved wealth and make them work for a living like the rest of us. Riot and rebel if our lives depend on it. But these calls for the outright slaughter of other human beings are going too far.

    • BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      12 days ago

      The owner class wrote the rules and will never give up one iota of power. If we want positive change, meaningful progress, it won’t be from working within the system.

      History only teaches one lesson and it teaches it very plainly: no progress is made without bloodshed. The blood of the worker class has already been spilled, millions of times over.

    • zeroday@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      12 days ago

      Capitalists can choose to give up their property and become workers like the rest of us, or they can get the wall and then their property is redistributed. The capitalist class has colonized our society, and their enforcers are the police. And according to Franz Fanon’s books on anticolonial struggle in Algeria, colonial relations never go away unless fought with anticolonial violence to oppose the violence of the colonizers. Ultimately, violence is what is needed to force those in power to give up their wealth, and if they gave up their wealth willingly then violence would not be necessary.