this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2025
179 points (95.4% liked)

Ask Lemmy

34368 readers
1610 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

If you had the money to retire at 30, your savings would be invested and on an average year your earnings would cover your expenses. You would have health insurance, so no worries there. The only catch is that you would have to keep your expenses at 65% of what you spend right now. Would you take it, or would you rather work a few more years for a better lifestyle and financial security?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I didn't mention sociopathic oligarchs or sociopathic corporations. Not every business is a sociopathic corporation.

"Morally right?" JFC, get a fucking clue. How is it morally right to contribute to a MAGA Nazi society? Burn it the fuck down.

Ah yes, because the USA is the only country with internet access. No wonder you elected trump if you yanks are this reactionary.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No, you didn't mention Oligarchs or Corporations because that would undercut your "moral" argument, so I did.

The entire world has been sold the concept that the only "moral" lifestyle is to sacrifice your life to earn barely subsistence wages in the pursuit of obscene wealth for a few wealthy families. That is the 21st century human paradigm across the entire planet, regardless of political ideology. EVERY society is Capitalist in practice, and those that deny it it, are lying. There is not a single nation on this planet who is not dedicated to funnelling vast amounts of money to a few wealthy people in their country.

In addition, if we continue on this path, the number of wealthy families benefiting by this system will shrink, until there is only a single family, or perhaps person, who controls the entire planet's wealth. It may take a few generations, but it is inevitable.

And yes, ALL corporations are sociopathic, by definition. There are NO exceptions.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The entire world has been sold the concept that the only "moral" lifestyle is to sacrifice your life to earn

EVERY society is Capitalist in practice, and those that deny it it, are lying.

I wonder why...

And yes, ALL corporations are sociopathic, by definition. There are NO exceptions.

This you?

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

We got a real bootlicker vibe going on here.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Corporations aren't inherently bad. It's the money that corrupts. The love of money is a root of all kinds of evils.

You can run a corporation that provides a good service to society, pay a fair wage and provide good employment locally. However, to make a large corporation, a lot of the time requires the said corruption, you need to fight and cheat your way to the top, cutting corners as well as employee benefits.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Let me tell you a story about how corporations used to be time limited, for the public good, and held their members directly financially responsible.

The reasons? At the time people recognized corporations as a concentration of capital and it needed severe limitations to prevent corruption.

After a century of lobbying and a whole new legal field around corporate law sprouted up we ended up with corporations that are no longer time limited, that do not have to be for the public good, and their members are no longer held accountable.

Objectively corporations are horrible and have caused irreparable harm to the environment and society. They have become the dominant form of our culture bending governments to their will and killing off hundreds of millions of people for profit.

As I said, you are trying real hard to be a bootlicker.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Okay. This is irrelevant to what I was saying but go off.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I am not sure we are seeing eye to eye on this and that is okay. I wish you good luck on your learning journey.