this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2025
785 points (98.0% liked)

Political Memes

9200 readers
3417 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

(TikTok screencap)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 74 points 1 day ago (3 children)

It's a paradox. The people who would use such wealth for good almost never become billionaires in the first place. It takes a significant amount of ruthlessness. No one becomes a billionaire without exploitation. And there are a select few who actually follow through on giving up their fortunes (while still alive, I consider the "giving pledge" upon death to be null and void).

[–] aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone 43 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I just saw a story about Woz who gave up his apple wealth to fund museums and schools. He probably would have been a billionaire if he hadn't. But he said that he values more than just his bank account.

[–] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 27 points 1 day ago

Exactly, great example! He could definitely have been a billionaire if he wanted to, but he's just not that kind of person. Mad respect.

[–] PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

There are a few billionaires that inherited their wealth through birth or got through a divorce usually aren’t as insane.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 4 points 18 hours ago

or twice as insane!

[–] plyth@feddit.org 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They mirror the general population. If people would make sure to buy from good people and to vote for good people, good people would be in power.

Of course people will be good if that is what is rewarded in society. But in general people just do what everybody else does.

[–] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 7 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I remember when I used to believe in the myths of meritocracy and the ftee market.

[–] plyth@feddit.org 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Relying on good people is more than meritocracy. There would be ethical considerations to fully balance the accumulation of power. So it's even more difficult.

[–] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 5 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

With the first comment, you seem to be making out as if it's a choice we made, to have the worst of humanity rule over us.

The reality is, the worst of humanity forced themselves on us and we've had little to no choice over the matter. If we voted for good people and only bought from good people, the bad people would simply neutralise them.

Billionaires do NOT reflect the general population. They manipulate the general population into their preferred image which, I can agree, might look similar.

[–] plyth@feddit.org 0 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

It's still a choice.

The bad people cannot neutralise everybody.

I don't fully understand the last paragraph. What is the preferred image?

The bad people cannot neutralise everybody.

They don't need to, only to get enough apathetic or foolish people to do it for them. They also don't neutralize by killing, but by making sure they never hold power or influence