Should criticizing the rich be illegal?

[B. Kidd]

Criticizing the rich or the wealthy breeds anarchy and dissent, the reality of course being that "wealth" on some level is necessary for the invention and maintenance of many needs which selfish and immoral people take for granted.

Whether the more mundane, such as food and shelter, or the more "fun" such as television, radio, and whatnot.

Being "rich" or "wealthy", in and of itself, is not the same as "miserliness", which arguably a character trait or defect which has less to do with merely some abstraction of "having wealth" in a vacuum, usually just based on abstract comparisons without any regards for accounting or the actual usages of the money; one could potentially be miserly in relation to their own wealth regardless of what it is or ranks as in comparison to a hypothetical someone else's.

Much as the irony is that most 'anti-wealth' or 'anti-rich' propaganda is produced by corporations and 'rich' people themselves, preying on the immorality and stupidity of the masses, their vices of greed, envy, and so forth which naturally play a role in substantiating their impoverished mindset.

If we merely banned all anti-wealth propaganda as promoting potential anarchy or dissent, this might help the immoral masses to stop with their degeneracy.

What is it with you and your fondness for censorship?

Not sure, if I were rich I would merely grow tired of the immorality of the masses and desire to force a bit of morality on them, in practice most if not everyone depends on the "wealthy" to some degree or another, for the things that they have, much as most people in a 1st world country are "rich" or wealthy by the standards of 3rd world countries, and not keen, in practice on parting with it.

mammon is king in this millennieum

~S~

Ever since Jesus drove the moneychangers out of the Temple!
In God We Trust!!

 

[playtime]

I think we have more than enough authoritarians trying to control, punish and intimidate speech as it is.

Not all speech is created equal.

I'm in the top 1 percentile in terms of language, why should my right to speech be "the same" as one who only speaks and reads at a 6th grade reading level and does nothing but regurgitate propaganda? That's not very meritocratic.

but it's a fucking right, & the constitution defends that right.

 

[Questioner]

<ahem>

that would be

no.

Repeal it or amend it so that "free speech" is limited to select individuals, not "everyone" - problem solved.

Get started on that, once you have accomplished let us know....till then fuck off and die.

Just limit free speech to legitimate criticism of government actions.

People producing propaganda shouldn't have a right to free speech, particularily if it attacks foundations of civilization, such as a natural hierarchy based on merit, character and virtues.

I don't care about the rights of weaklings who need to appeal to their "big daddy" government for their "freez peach", only those of the virtuous, or those actually willing to fight for it; I believe if we take away the propaganda of the radical left and their "freez speech" myths, and simply smack them with an iron fist of the state, most of them will just cry, and cower in their rooms.

 

[Questioner]

I think we have more than enough authoritarians trying to control, punish and intimidate speech as it is.

Not all speech is created equal.

I'm in the top 1 percentile in terms of language, why should my right to speech be "the same" as one who only speaks and reads at a 6th grade reading level and does nothing but regurgitate propaganda? That's not very meritocratic.

but it's a fucking right, & the constitution defends that right.

Constitutions can be changed - we can simply take away free speech rights for the left, and limit it solely to people of certain political persuasions, but not others.

Much of the blather which idiots purport to be "speech" to begin with would likely never even meet the Constitutional definition of "speech" were it actually taken to court.

 

[Mac1958]

I think we have more than enough authoritarians trying to control, punish and intimidate speech as it is.

Agree.
CNN really sucks, doesn't it?

Yes. Like Fox and MSNBC.

You thought you had me there.

One of the many behaviors shared by both whacked-out ends of the spectrum is that you assume EVERYONE is as hypocritical as YOU.

Incorrect.
.

Get me outta your head.
I'm not that important.
And you digress, as usual.

I answered your question. You're welcome.

I hadn't posted to you. You jumped in, uninvited.

Get ME out of YOUR head.

Much appreciated.
.

 

[sartre play]

If you want to let the people with more money & power run your life let them. no one is stopping you.

 

[playtime]

I think we have more than enough authoritarians trying to control, punish and intimidate speech as it is.

Not all speech is created equal.

I'm in the top 1 percentile in terms of language, why should my right to speech be "the same" as one who only speaks and reads at a 6th grade reading level and does nothing but regurgitate propaganda? That's not very meritocratic.

but it's a fucking right, & the constitution defends that right.

Constitutions can be changed - we can simply take away free speech rights for the left, and limit it solely to people of certain political persuasions, but not others.

there's really not much daylight between you, with your high brow bloviation, & a knuckle dragging troll who can't put together a cohesive sentence if his life depended on it.

 

[occupied]

Should criticizing the rich be illegal?

Fuck no!

It should be the national pass-time.

No, it really shouldn't - people criticizing the rich should be shot.

Critiizing human behaviors such as "greed", "miserliness" is one thing, but in practice no one believes that "wealth" automatically equates to these things to begin with, as evidenced by their own miserly behaviors and unwillingness to part with their wealth and socioeconomic status of a 1st world country, which is "wealthy" compared to most of the 3rd world countries.

So idiots criticizing "the rich", (usually rich pedogogues) themselves as a stereotyped "demographic" and trying to drum up anarchy and "class warfare" should simply be shot.

The powerful should be shot as soon as they think they are above reproach by the common rabble. How do you like that you fucking loon?

 

[westwall]

Criticizing the rich or the wealthy breeds anarchy and dissent, the reality of course being that "wealth" on some level is necessary for the invention and maintenance of many needs which selfish and immoral people take for granted.

Whether the more mundane, such as food and shelter, or the more "fun" such as television, radio, and whatnot.

Being "rich" or "wealthy", in and of itself, is not the same as "miserliness", which arguably a character trait or defect which has less to do with merely some abstraction of "having wealth" in a vacuum, usually just based on abstract comparisons without any regards for accounting or the actual usages of the money; one could potentially be miserly in relation to their own wealth regardless of what it is or ranks as in comparison to a hypothetical someone else's.

Much as the irony is that most 'anti-wealth' or 'anti-rich' propaganda is produced by corporations and 'rich' people themselves, preying on the immorality and stupidity of the masses, their vices of greed, envy, and so forth which naturally play a role in substantiating their impoverished mindset.

If we merely banned all anti-wealth propaganda as promoting potential anarchy or dissent, this might help the immoral masses to stop with their degeneracy.

What is it with you and your fondness for censorship?

He's a closet stalinist.

 

[miketx]

Criticizing the rich or the wealthy breeds anarchy and dissent, the reality of course being that "wealth" on some level is necessary for the invention and maintenance of many needs which selfish and immoral people take for granted.

Whether the more mundane, such as food and shelter, or the more "fun" such as television, radio, and whatnot.

Being "rich" or "wealthy", in and of itself, is not the same as "miserliness", which arguably a character trait or defect which has less to do with merely some abstraction of "having wealth" in a vacuum, usually just based on abstract comparisons without any regards for accounting or the actual usages of the money; one could potentially be miserly in relation to their own wealth regardless of what it is or ranks as in comparison to a hypothetical someone else's.

Much as the irony is that most 'anti-wealth' or 'anti-rich' propaganda is produced by corporations and 'rich' people themselves, preying on the immorality and stupidity of the masses, their vices of greed, envy, and so forth which naturally play a role in substantiating their impoverished mindset.

If we merely banned all anti-wealth propaganda as promoting potential anarchy or dissent, this might help the immoral masses to stop with their degeneracy.

WTF is wrong with you?

 

[B. Kidd]

Criticizing the rich or the wealthy breeds anarchy and dissent, the reality of course being that "wealth" on some level is necessary for the invention and maintenance of many needs which selfish and immoral people take for granted.

Whether the more mundane, such as food and shelter, or the more "fun" such as television, radio, and whatnot.

Being "rich" or "wealthy", in and of itself, is not the same as "miserliness", which arguably a character trait or defect which has less to do with merely some abstraction of "having wealth" in a vacuum, usually just based on abstract comparisons without any regards for accounting or the actual usages of the money; one could potentially be miserly in relation to their own wealth regardless of what it is or ranks as in comparison to a hypothetical someone else's.

Much as the irony is that most 'anti-wealth' or 'anti-rich' propaganda is produced by corporations and 'rich' people themselves, preying on the immorality and stupidity of the masses, their vices of greed, envy, and so forth which naturally play a role in substantiating their impoverished mindset.

If we merely banned all anti-wealth propaganda as promoting potential anarchy or dissent, this might help the immoral masses to stop with their degeneracy.

What is it with you and your fondness for censorship?

He's a closet stalinist.

Must be.
Or posting from a gulag somewhere.

 

[Questioner]

Should criticizing the rich be illegal?

Fuck no!

It should be the national pass-time.

No, it really shouldn't - people criticizing the rich should be shot.

Critiizing human behaviors such as "greed", "miserliness" is one thing, but in practice no one believes that "wealth" automatically equates to these things to begin with, as evidenced by their own miserly behaviors and unwillingness to part with their wealth and socioeconomic status of a 1st world country, which is "wealthy" compared to most of the 3rd world countries.

So idiots criticizing "the rich", (usually rich pedogogues) themselves as a stereotyped "demographic" and trying to drum up anarchy and "class warfare" should simply be shot.

The powerful should be shot as soon as they think they are above reproach by the common rabble. How do you like that you fucking loon?

Corruption is corruption, has nothing inherently to do with arbitrary or imaginary "power" relations, which even Saul Alinsky himself said is all an illusion, not all "power", imaginary as it is being equal or equally desirable to begin with.

A billion dollars, of course has less "power" than a knife or a gun in the event one was mugged, its power or what people imagine its power to be is meaningless outside of whatever arbitrary "faith" one puts in it to begin with.

Corrupt people should be prevented from being in power to begin with, but of course the reality is that most anti-intellectual media is simply preying on misinformation via class warfare sentiments, and preying on the immoral ways of man. Immoral people living materialistically and selfishly, impoverished as a result of their own consumerism shouldn't have any say in regards to serious men and women in business, law, society, or life in general.

 

[playtime]

Criticizing the rich or the wealthy breeds anarchy and dissent, the reality of course being that "wealth" on some level is necessary for the invention and maintenance of many needs which selfish and immoral people take for granted.

Whether the more mundane, such as food and shelter, or the more "fun" such as television, radio, and whatnot.

Being "rich" or "wealthy", in and of itself, is not the same as "miserliness", which arguably a character trait or defect which has less to do with merely some abstraction of "having wealth" in a vacuum, usually just based on abstract comparisons without any regards for accounting or the actual usages of the money; one could potentially be miserly in relation to their own wealth regardless of what it is or ranks as in comparison to a hypothetical someone else's.

Much as the irony is that most 'anti-wealth' or 'anti-rich' propaganda is produced by corporations and 'rich' people themselves, preying on the immorality and stupidity of the masses, their vices of greed, envy, and so forth which naturally play a role in substantiating their impoverished mindset.

If we merely banned all anti-wealth propaganda as promoting potential anarchy or dissent, this might help the immoral masses to stop with their degeneracy.

WTF is wrong with you?

holy shit - i agree with a froo froo ---- hell must be frozen.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Just limit free speech to legitimate criticism of government actions.

People producing propaganda shouldn't have a right to free speech, particularily if it attacks foundations of civilization, such as a natural hierarchy based on merit, character and virtues.

I don't care about the rights of weaklings who need to appeal to their "big daddy" government for their "freez peach", only those of the virtuous, or those actually willing to fight for it; I believe if we take away the propaganda of the radical left and their "freez speech" myths, and simply smack them with an iron fist of the state, most of them will just cry, and cower in their rooms.

It is just a stupid idea, there is no other way to describe it.

If I wish to call someone out it matters not if they are rich or poor or part of the government or not.

Take your for instance. I get that you fancy yourself some sort of deep thinking looking for answers...but in reality you are nothing but a troll on an internet forum. It does not matter if you are rich or poor, it is what you are.

And I should legally be allowed to tell you that you are a fucking moronic troll if I wish to.

 

[Crepitus]

Should criticizing the rich be illegal?

Fuck no!

It should be the national pass-time.

No, it really shouldn't - people criticizing the rich should be shot.

Critiizing human behaviors such as "greed", "miserliness" is one thing, but in practice no one believes that "wealth" automatically equates to these things to begin with, as evidenced by their own miserly behaviors and unwillingness to part with their wealth and socioeconomic status of a 1st world country, which is "wealthy" compared to most of the 3rd world countries.

So idiots criticizing "the rich", (usually rich pedogogues) themselves as a stereotyped "demographic" and trying to drum up anarchy and "class warfare" should simply be shot.

The powerful should be shot as soon as they think they are above reproach by the common rabble. How do you like that you fucking loon?

Corruption is corruption, has nothing inherently to do with arbitrary or imaginary "power" relations, which even Saul Alinsky himself said is all an illusion, not all "power", imaginary as it is being equal or equally desirable to begin with.

A billion dollars, of course has less "power" than a knife or a gun in the event one was mugged, its power or what people imagine its power to be is meaningless outside of whatever arbitrary "faith" one puts in it to begin with.

Corrupt people should be prevented from being in power to begin with, but of course the reality is that most anti-intellectual media is simply preying on misinformation via class warfare sentiments, and preying on the immoral ways of man.

The wealthy are waging class warfare on the rest of us.

 

[Questioner]

Should criticizing the rich be illegal?

Fuck no!

It should be the national pass-time.

No, it really shouldn't - people criticizing the rich should be shot.

Critiizing human behaviors such as "greed", "miserliness" is one thing, but in practice no one believes that "wealth" automatically equates to these things to begin with, as evidenced by their own miserly behaviors and unwillingness to part with their wealth and socioeconomic status of a 1st world country, which is "wealthy" compared to most of the 3rd world countries.

So idiots criticizing "the rich", (usually rich pedogogues) themselves as a stereotyped "demographic" and trying to drum up anarchy and "class warfare" should simply be shot.

The powerful should be shot as soon as they think they are above reproach by the common rabble. How do you like that you fucking loon?

Corruption is corruption, has nothing inherently to do with arbitrary or imaginary "power" relations, which even Saul Alinsky himself said is all an illusion, not all "power", imaginary as it is being equal or equally desirable to begin with.

A billion dollars, of course has less "power" than a knife or a gun in the event one was mugged, its power or what people imagine its power to be is meaningless outside of whatever arbitrary "faith" one puts in it to begin with.

Corrupt people should be prevented from being in power to begin with, but of course the reality is that most anti-intellectual media is simply preying on misinformation via class warfare sentiments, and preying on the immoral ways of man.

The wealthy are waging class warfare on the rest of us.

And yet you're still using a computer built by one of wealth and intellect, proving my point.

Generally, I do believe that people who do or sacrifice more in general tend to have more; whether tangible "wealth", intellectual or less tangible things, traits and qualities; there are oddities and exceptions, but this, overall is what seems to be the rule.

Those too selfish, lazy, or unempowered not to make a meaningful effort in life beyond a silly victimhood mindset both conditioned and accepted on axiom and reinforced via circular reasoning are a blight upon humanity.

 

[Crepitus]

Fuck no!

It should be the national pass-time.

No, it really shouldn't - people criticizing the rich should be shot.

Critiizing human behaviors such as "greed", "miserliness" is one thing, but in practice no one believes that "wealth" automatically equates to these things to begin with, as evidenced by their own miserly behaviors and unwillingness to part with their wealth and socioeconomic status of a 1st world country, which is "wealthy" compared to most of the 3rd world countries.

So idiots criticizing "the rich", (usually rich pedogogues) themselves as a stereotyped "demographic" and trying to drum up anarchy and "class warfare" should simply be shot.

The powerful should be shot as soon as they think they are above reproach by the common rabble. How do you like that you fucking loon?

Corruption is corruption, has nothing inherently to do with arbitrary or imaginary "power" relations, which even Saul Alinsky himself said is all an illusion, not all "power", imaginary as it is being equal or equally desirable to begin with.

A billion dollars, of course has less "power" than a knife or a gun in the event one was mugged, its power or what people imagine its power to be is meaningless outside of whatever arbitrary "faith" one puts in it to begin with.

Corrupt people should be prevented from being in power to begin with, but of course the reality is that most anti-intellectual media is simply preying on misinformation via class warfare sentiments, and preying on the immoral ways of man.

The wealthy are waging class warfare on the rest of us.

And yet you're still using a computer built by one of wealth and intellect, proving my point.

Generally, I do believe that people who do or sacrifice more in general tend to have more; whether tangible "wealth", intellectual or less tangible things, traits and qualities; there are oddities and exceptions, but this, overall is what seems to be the rule.

Those too selfish, lazy, or unempowered not to make a meaningful effort in life beyond a silly victimhood mindset both conditioned and accepted on axiom and reinforced via circular reasoning are a blight upon humanity.

That computer was built by average folks like you and me. The companynis owned by someone of wealth.

 

[toobfreak]

Should criticizing the rich be illegal?

No. Just expensive. You should be forced to pay their taxes for 5 years. The rich are better than you. I'm better than you. Heck, I should charge you just for this opinion.

 

[MaryL]

Criticizing the rich or the wealthy breeds anarchy and dissent, the reality of course being that "wealth" on some level is necessary for the invention and maintenance of many needs which selfish and immoral people take for granted.

Whether the more mundane, such as food and shelter, or the more "fun" such as television, radio, and whatnot.

Being "rich" or "wealthy", in and of itself, is not the same as "miserliness", which arguably a character trait or defect which has less to do with merely some abstraction of "having wealth" in a vacuum, usually just based on abstract comparisons without any regards for accounting or the actual usages of the money; one could potentially be miserly in relation to their own wealth regardless of what it is or ranks as in comparison to a hypothetical someone else's.

Much as the irony is that most 'anti-wealth' or 'anti-rich' propaganda is produced by corporations and 'rich' people themselves, preying on the immorality and stupidity of the masses, their vices of greed, envy, and so forth which naturally play a role in substantiating their impoverished mindset.

If we merely banned all anti-wealth propaganda as promoting potential anarchy or dissent, this might help the immoral masses to stop with their degeneracy.

By rich, do you mean gay communist degenerate white boys with a silver elitist well educated spoon in their mouths, or do you mean like those antiquated notions of prim and proper 19th century robber barons that ceased to exist years ago? Which of the two do you think is the more proper association?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Criticizing the rich or the wealthy breeds anarchy and dissent, the reality of course being that "wealth" on some level is necessary for the invention and maintenance of many needs which selfish and immoral people take for granted.

Whether the more mundane, such as food and shelter, or the more "fun" such as television, radio, and whatnot.

Being "rich" or "wealthy", in and of itself, is not the same as "miserliness", which arguably a character trait or defect which has less to do with merely some abstraction of "having wealth" in a vacuum, usually just based on abstract comparisons without any regards for accounting or the actual usages of the money; one could potentially be miserly in relation to their own wealth regardless of what it is or ranks as in comparison to a hypothetical someone else's.

Much as the irony is that most 'anti-wealth' or 'anti-rich' propaganda is produced by corporations and 'rich' people themselves, preying on the immorality and stupidity of the masses, their vices of greed, envy, and so forth which naturally play a role in substantiating their impoverished mindset.

If we merely banned all anti-wealth propaganda as promoting potential anarchy or dissent, this might help the immoral masses to stop with their degeneracy.

When ever there is a post about Wealth envy, I post this very smart man.