this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
59 points (84.7% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35726 readers
1403 users here now

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!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] palebluethought@lemmy.world 122 points 1 month ago (6 children)

Are you under the impression that they don't?

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 46 points 1 month ago (1 children)

As an example... fox news.

[–] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 38 points 1 month ago

And the Sinclair Media Group.

To answer OP's question succinctly, yes, and they do.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 47 points 1 month ago

The Republicans have been caught entirely funding the green party in multiple swing states.

They absolutely use their money to sabotage the democrats

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 43 points 1 month ago
[–] theywilleatthestars@lemmy.world 36 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Either sabotage Democrats or make them pursue more right wing policies, which is why there was so much Reagan praise at the DNC when every dem voter under 40 hates his guts.

[–] Pronell@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm 50 and I hate that piece of shit.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 8 points 1 month ago

bit older and so do i

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 27 points 1 month ago

It's called gerrymandering.

Been going on my entire life so far

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 25 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The obscenely wealthy donate to both parties. Both parties protect the interests of the wealthy.

Hell, there have been two Democratic administrations that had total congressional control over the last sixteen years. The minimum wage is still seven bucks an hour.

[–] stoneparchment@possumpat.io 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

and all that

[–] FlorianSimon@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Whatever you may think, rich people do donate to the democrats too †

Given that the orange clown may not win the election, they need to bribe democrats into doing their bidding. This is what lobbies do.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2019/11/18/here-are-the-billionaires-funding-the-democratic-presidential-candidates-as-of-september-2019/

[–] stoneparchment@possumpat.io 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

we're in agreement :-) what I said is an Orwell's 1984 quote. My overly simplified explanation of the quote is that the governmental entities in the novel were able to maintain absolute authority because of a manufactured conflict. In essence, two sides intentionally maintained a stalemate at war so that each of them could keep absolute control over their populace using fear of the other. In reality, both groups were controlled by the same people-- an autocratic ruling class.

[–] FlorianSimon@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

Oh sorry, I thought you were mocking the person you replied to because they were trying to redefine truth somehow.

[–] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 month ago

You think they don't? See

  1. Kyrsten Sinema
  2. Joe Manchin
[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

That's why they trot out Jill Stein every four years to try and split the vote.

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

Yes, and they do.

[–] FlorianSimon@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 month ago

They sometimes do, just look at what Musk is doing. They also ~~bribe~~ donate to the democrats in an effort to influence them (this is lobbying).

Why do anything illegal, when you can bribe and defame in the media you own? It looks a lot less suspicious and is a lot more sustainable.

Unless something changes, the rich have basically sabotaged the democratic party into being a center-right party. That's why it won't be a left-wing party in the foreseeable future.

If you don't believe me, just look up why the Democrats tolerate the Manchins and the Sinemas within their ranks.

[–] swordgeek@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 month ago

They would, and they do.

But because they're rich and determined to play both sides of the fight, they also pour some (less) money towards the Democrats to have some leverage.

[–] DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 month ago

They play both sides where possible because they can afford to

[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

I think choice and/or the illusion of choice needs to be there for either side's fringe elements to have a safe outlet for their frustrations. There needs to be a viable left-leaning party to control potential socialist or communist agitators. If they just completely shut down the Democratic party, then there's the potential that somebody outside of the control of the aristocratic classes comes to power. Having the Democratic party around gives them a chance to funnel those people through the system and subtly bend them and make them more agreeable to the system. So maybe somebody would've been a bomb-throwing anarchist advocating for blowing up the status quo and beheading all the billionaires, but when processed through the Democratic party, maybe they turn into somebody like AOC or Bernie Sanders or something, still willing to work within the system and less likely to advocate revolution.

I'm still not sure about Trump, he still seems like an abnormality or a glitch in the system. I don't know if he went AWOL and the aristocracy doesn't want to move against their own, or if he's just part of "the plan" to move the country to the Right and having a crazy man-child as president gives them cover to push through all their extreme right-wing policies while everyone else fixates on the latest dumb thing that Trump tweeted. Or maybe it's all just anarchy and there is no conspiracy of the aristocracy, I don't know. Trump's existence just seems like one of those things the TVA would've come in and destroyed this whole timeline over.

[–] OceanSoap@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

....there are a ton of billionaire Democrat backers.

[–] crashfrog@lemm.ee -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Can you describe their “power over the economy”?

[–] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Uhm. They control the price of things. They control wages. They control different markets, like the housing market. They control land development and energy. You know, things the economy relies on.

[–] crashfrog@lemm.ee -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

How do they “control the price of things”? Or wages?

[–] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

... they sit on the board of the major companies and say, "we need to raise prices." Or "we need to decrease wages."

[–] crashfrog@lemm.ee -1 points 1 month ago

And then it happens why?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They raise the price and refuse wage increases. Are you not familiar with how a corporation works?

[–] crashfrog@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Why hadn’t they raised them before? Why don’t they keep raising them until prices are at infinity?

Why don’t they lower wages to zero, or negative?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They didn't think they could get away with raising prices so far before. And they would pay us nothing if they could. Slavery showed us that.

[–] crashfrog@lemm.ee 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They didn't think they could get away with raising prices so far before. And they would pay us nothing if they could.

What does “get away” with it mean? Why can’t they pay us nothing?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Because we fought a war over it and made it illegal. And previously it was assumed price increases would drive customers away. But the monopoly power of corporations like Kroger's had gone further than anyone thought.

[–] crashfrog@lemm.ee -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Sorry, what are you talking about? What “war”? What was made illegal?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Okay, on the chance you're not American, the American Civil War, and slavery.

[–] crashfrog@lemm.ee -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Who said anything about slavery? What are you talking about?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If you're going to post so many comments, at least read the chain. Otherwise someone might mistake you for a troll.

[–] crashfrog@lemm.ee -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I mean I am the chain, I’m asking you what the fuck you’re talking about and you’re really bad at having clear ideas

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Oh, perfect recall then? In that case you know exactly where in your line of 5 year old style questioning that slavery was mentioned.

[–] crashfrog@lemm.ee -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Socratic questioning goes back a lot longer than 5 years, stupid

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (9 children)

That is not the Socratic method. Questioning how the CEO of a corporation has control over pricing is just trolling.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›