There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

lemmyshitpost

This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

eager_eagle , in Alignment Chart Shitpost
@eager_eagle@lemmy.world avatar

kleenex is too good, should be replaced for sandpaper

gibmiser ,

There is exactly 1 sheet in the box

ummthatguy ,
@ummthatguy@lemmy.world avatar
peto ,

It’s not just the discomfort it causes to the user, it’s how high quality, non-dissolving paper fucks the sewer system for everyone.

balderdash9 OP ,
steal_your_face ,
@steal_your_face@lemmy.ml avatar

I’ve had friends that used coffee filters because they forgot to buy TP :/

MeDuViNoX ,
@MeDuViNoX@sh.itjust.works avatar
Gemini24601 , in Jadzia, no!
@Gemini24601@lemmy.world avatar

Nothings wrong with a little ‘chan before reading SERN’s proprietary code

ToucheGoodSir , in Get in the Hilux

BUT THINK OF THE BILLIONAIRES COMPETING AGAINST EACH OTHER TO BUILD BIGGER MEGA YACHTS. THINK OF THE YACHTS.

telllos ,

I think they compete in Space cock

jimrob4 , in AROOOOO!

HE’LL YEA BORTHER!

damnedfurry , in Get in the Hilux

No they aren’t. The number that’s increasing is a price tag, not cash. That’s why no one’s wallet or bank account gets bigger when that same number goes down.

stormeuh ,

Who do you think the profit of increasing the price tag goes to? The workers in the factory to help them deal with inflation, or the rich shareholders?

damnedfurry ,

Who do you think the profit of increasing the price tag goes to?

Whoever sells the appreciated asset to someone else, who was willing to buy it at the new, higher price.

And if they don’t sell, there is no profit, it’s still unrealized.

Zink ,

Unrealized on paper, but not in a practical sense when they can borrow against those assets to access their wealth tax-free.

damnedfurry ,

borrow against those assets to access their wealth tax-free.

…until they pay the loan back, you mean.

Hell, loans better be tax free, it’s not income if you have to pay it back.

P.S. Some food for thought: if workers’ labor is being ‘skimmed’ by employers, making workers into a source of profit as a result, then why would a company ever downsize as a measure against financial difficulty? Why would any business ever fire anyone who’s doing their job, if worker = profit for the business?

HaHaHamennn , in Post a prompt, have an art from this insane russian

A tall man stands among the wind generators and tries to be like them

andrew_bidlaw OP ,
@andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works avatar
Semi_Hemi_Demigod , in Get in the Hilux
@Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world avatar

Conspiracy theory: The reason we have the Chicken Tax is to keep the Hilux out of the US because it’s too effective a weapon against the military

Wizard_Pope ,
@Wizard_Pope@lemmy.world avatar

It is so smaller more competitively priced and actually usable trucks stay out of your country

Semi_Hemi_Demigod ,
@Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world avatar

That’s too credible for me to believe

John_McMurray ,

Top gear put a Hilux up against a 1984 chevy half 4x4 they found on craigslist. The old chevy won, only vehicle running at the end.

Semi_Hemi_Demigod ,
@Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world avatar

[citation needed]

John_McMurray ,
Semi_Hemi_Demigod ,
@Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world avatar

That’s Top Gear America, which is very much not Top Gear. Plus they didn’t run the Hilux head-to-head. I bet none of those guys have even driven a Hilux.

John_McMurray ,

Anyways, point has been made, and proven. They did run head to head. Hilux was the runner up, 2nd last to break. Watched the episode years ago. Now I know you’re thinking of what amounted to a hilux ad on the original top gear. It’s not really true to life. No 85 Chev half tons in England either.

John_McMurray ,

You gotta remember hiluxes are just a quarter ton truck. Yeah they’re tough enough, so were old Datsuns. It’s never really mechanics and hard core off roaders that fanboy hiluxes, and those old chevys were fucking tough.

Emerald , in Get in the Hilux

Nobody seems to have mentioned the very oddly placed highlight

nifty , in Jadzia, no!
@nifty@lemmy.world avatar

She’s not listening because you gotta say it to Dax

samus12345 , in I have solved this great mystery. The answer is: no.
@samus12345@lemmy.world avatar
HenriVolney , in Ok I won't not

Regular hands are OK though

Linkerbaan , in "Hey Google, Turn my balls off"
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar
Heavybell , in "Hey Google, Turn my balls off"
@Heavybell@lemmy.world avatar

“Mods, deactivate this man’s balls.”

PhlubbaDubba , in Get in the Hilux

I’m not opposed to being rich, or really even being filthy rich, I think the fair chance of being able to live lavishly is a great motivator for folks to shoot for their best ideas.

What I am opposed to is being so obscenely rich that it would take several generations of chronic mismanagement for your descendants to manage to blow through the funds within a time limit of “by the end of the 22nd century.”

Most generational wealth has reduced to being a small supplement for the recipient to supplement still having to work for their living with by the time the original person who built it up’s grandkids have had their turn with it, maybe the great grandkids if the family makes it a point of staying grounded and using the wealth wisely.

That’s not even from blowing through it like madmen, it’s from how many people it’s getting divided among by then and how likely any one of those individuals are to just decide they don’t need to work anymore on getting access to it.

Track_Shovel OP ,

I’m fine with people having money, but there should be a hard cap.

Billionaires do not need to exist.

PhlubbaDubba ,

Agreed, but just saying “you can only have this much money” will get fought tooth and nail, IMO the way to do it is through basing the rates in tax brackets on the percentage of wealth controlled by people in those brackets.

It’s not a “hard” cap, but it does pit the rich against each other to have more than the other rich assholes while not having so much that they’re all paying an above 100% tax rate.

Might not be as delicious as frying them for ourselves, but watching the rich eat each other will be far more entertaining, and is shown to be far more effective. Take it from the once Shah of the Sasanian Empire Kavad, if any one noble is getting too powerful, the best tools to use in bringing them down is other nobles jealous of their ascendency.

erev ,
@erev@lemmy.world avatar

But then we still live under the same corrupt system and nothing fundamentally changes except us offsetting our issues onto future generations. Continuing to find ways to prop up Capitalism and make it liveable doesn’t actually fix a ton, it just shifts the burden from us onto our children. That’s why we’re in the shit as much as we are globally right now, and our kids will be drowning in it if we don’t act.

PhlubbaDubba ,

I literally just made the owning class start a battle royale against each other and you want to argue nothing fundamentally changes? What are you worried it’s gonna be a .io game and we’re gonna end with a big fat superowner who ate everyone else?

erev ,
@erev@lemmy.world avatar

thats just gonna create a different owning class and continue the cycle. change would be removing the idea of class altogether.

PhlubbaDubba ,

How does it just create a different owning class if they’re all at war with eachother?

You’re coming across as very "nothing but ‘just do revolution bro’ is real change!" right now ma dude.

OpenPassageways ,

There doesn’t even need to be any kind of cap, they just need to pay more taxes and be prohibited from buying politicians.

cecinestpasunbot ,

At some point people do not actually become happier from additional wealth. If you create a system where people are allowed more than that you are just giving them power over vast quantities of resources for no particular reason. It becomes an incentive only for those whose lust for more cannot be satiated and is anti democratic by it’s very nature.

PhlubbaDubba ,

That’s actually not entirely true, although what is true is arguably even worse.

See money does keep buying you happiness…just in diminishing returns.

So basically, the ultra wealthy are drug addicts forever chasing the satisfaction they once knew when they got their first big hit having achieved an independent standard of living, but every dose is less and less effective even as they keep upping it, eventually they die strung out and paranoid of everyone around them.

johannesvanderwhales , in And he will not stop collecting data. EVER.

Ya’ll know that’s not a real picture of him with the beard, right?

setsneedtofeed OP ,
@setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world avatar

Ceci n’est pas une pipe

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines