No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
I think there's some American mythology causing you to see things this way. In short, the American revolution was fueled by Washington recruiting a lot of drunks and fuck ups, and after they won the war they wanted Washington to be king. Similar to Scotland and the movie Braveheart, the mythology has gotten so popular that people start to think the majority or even all of the fighting force was ideologically aligned to some idea of freedom and inalienable rights or something. It wasn't.
Tbf, they did not desire taxation without representation, and a local king would have met the goal for them to feel "represented". At least more so than the remote one in England, who had to spend tons of money on far-away matters such as dealing with France, Spain, Portugal, etc. A local King would instead spend money on local matters, such as dealing with the indigenous peoples present in the Americas. Still taxation, but they would benefit from it more.
Democracy hadn't been a thing since ancient Greece, after which it languished under Turkish rule for several hundreds of years, and I wonder how much most uneducated people at the time knew even about that. Though some French philosophers such as Voltaire, and the English Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (I had to look him up: he was Genevan:-) were popular reading at the time, among the elites, and possibly they shared some of that as stories at the local pubs or whatnot. So anyway, it makes total sense to me that they wanted him to be a King: that was all that they really knew about, at the time, to meet their goal?
But now I am saying that the situation is reversed: the ones pushing for the RADICAL changes, especially using VIOLENT means to overthrow the government, are not trying to throw off the shackles in order to return America to a more pristine state of "democracy" - the so-called "conservative" Republicans want to overthrow democracy, and instill Trump as their emperor. That's moving backwards, towards fascism and away from democracy (VERY unlike the case with Washington, where they intended a more sideways move, not fully knowing that more was even possible).
Likewise, the UK wanted to exist within the scope of the EU but also not at the same time so... bye-bye I guess. Now they are shocked, Shocked I tell you, SHOCKED that they are "out". Even they seem to think now they have moved backwards, and many report wishing that they could undo what was done. They can do as they please yes, but they seemed not to realize that others have that same privilege as well. Especially the ones living in other countries, now shocked to find that they may be expected to pay taxes in those sovereign nations - what did they THINK was going to happen!?
Americans I presume would eventually be the same - not enjoying life under Trump's boot heels, but like Brexit, the ability to return would have been lost. The ones pushing for that WANT the democracy gone, and for it to be replaced with a more useful (to them) fascism, bc with globalization and automation, they do not have need of a large educated workforce, such as doctors and scientists, and they seem to be wanting to "streamline" the population, much as companies are currently streamlining their direct employees. An example is Trump's COVID policy of "just let them ~~eat cake~~ die". Fewer resources taken up by worthless people - like Oxygen consumption and smaller populations being less susceptible to pandemics - leave more for the rich to have whatever they want.
I think you've (perhaps inadvertantly) hit the nail on the head by drawing a comparison to revolutionary groups. Even plagued by the encroaching mythology and rhetoric it's easy to see why the same group of revolutionary boosters are today's reactionary retrogrades:
In revolutionary times, monied interests and industry desired to evade England's taxes, and today those same groups seek to continue perpetually evading the taxes of America's government.
In other words, the rich fucks think they'll be able to fair better under Trump as dictator than they would facing the occasional failed attempt at tax reform by Democrats.
The gravy seals are partially led by the nose by the exact same group of affluent pig fuckers as the minutemen and, in other cases, they aren't being led as they simply are the same rich group.
Among the other elements present at the January 6th insurrection were sizable numbers of the American landlord class, some even chartering private flights to attend and participate.
That's what I was saying yes: a tool is just a tool, the intent lies in the hand of those who would wield it. Though in this case, the BLAME lies in both those who hollow themselves out to be willing to become such a tool, and those who would use them: case in point those who showed up on January 6 to "defend the Constitution" - how many now have the good sense to be horrified at what they were involved in? Regardless, it is up to those who are cognizant to do something about it, or else just sit back and watch it all happen.
But one thing I want to make clear: this is not just the one-dimensional Rich vs. the Poors. This is some Rich folk who don't really give a damn either way - b/c they've bought both sides - vs. some different set of Rich folk who do, and the latter making use of the Tools at their disposal to get their way. Among the former are probably people like Bill Gates who literally cannot spend enough in his entire lifetime to ever get rid of even a fraction of it, plus Warren Buffet who literally advocates for politicians to raise taxes (it's not like they ever will ofc, no matter what he says:-D). Then in the second category I would expect to find people like Jeff Bezos who tracks his workers time in the bathrooms, making them choose between washing their hands vs. getting back to work on time so as not to get fired, regardless if they are pregnant or whatever; and ofc Elon Musk.
I am saying that the TRULY, generationally wealthy, likely don't even give a damn, and some seem to even want their taxes RAISED - obviously not so much as to lower their standard of living, but if it helps avoid revolts then they would be okay with that - while the "wannabe" Rich are the ones who seem to want their taxes kept low.
And yes, there are some Poors who truly do side with the Rich, I guess b/c they either hate themselves or think they are displaced millionaires, but either way they have bought into the pyramid/hierarchical thinking concept that the Rich are the ones who deserve their wealth.
So to bring this back to my original point several comments back: if I sound defeatist it is b/c originally the goals of the Rich and the Poor just happened to align in the Revolutionary War, and too in WWI, WWII, etc., whereas now, for perhaps the first time in a truly completionist way, they no longer align. What I mean by the latter point is that, for example having a ready-made source of young soldiers to fight wars for you, it used to be to the benefit of the Rich to keep the Poor vaguely happy. Whereas now, with automation bringing robots rather than humans to the battlefield (and everywhere else as well), they seem ready to throw off the shackles of needing to keep the Poor in any state whatsoever. So let them ~~eat cake~~ die already, it makes little difference to them anymore.