689
Gamblers trying to win a bet on Polymarket are vowing to kill me if I don’t rewrite an Iran missile story
(www.timesofisrael.com)
this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2026
689 points (98.5% liked)
Not The Onion
20945 readers
1372 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So this is a market place where rich people can bet on how gruesome poor people can die in war zones and genocides. Is this any different from the rich hunting the poor for sport? Instead of a trigger, they click a button, but it's not that different.
Isn't humanity awesome? Can we please start jailing these (or at this point, all) psychopaths?
Seriously, 99% of the population consists of awesome people that take care of one another. The problem is that psychopaths, like the ones from the article, have the need to be on top and control everything and we let them.
Seriously, as far as I can tell, humanity could kill a few 10.000s psychopaths and all of the sudden, no more wars, no more hunger, no more conflicts, no more senseless pollution, the world could heal and humanity could enter a phase of sustainable awesomeness.
No. I am not suggesting we kill them, it was just to make the point. However, I do feel we need to start testing people for psychopathy (as far as possible and work in better screening) to ensure we keep these fuckers from positions of power and money. We need to stop psychopaths from gaining any real power.
Hell, if it were up to me, nobody would get great power or money. I'd have a world wide wealth cap, nobody can be worth over, say 1 or 10 million. Anything over that goes to taxes. THAT will stop people.frok amassing great wealth and power and just stop this shit
For the website: I wish people were still masquerading as Anonymous and would just continuously hack this site into the ground where it belongs, next to its disgusting creators.
Fuck I hate this world :(
hmmmm
Susan Sontag was asked what she had learned from the Holocaust, and she said that 10% of any population is cruel, no matter what, and that 10% is merciful, no matter what, and that the remaining 80% could be moved in either direction” —Kurt Vonnegut
Why not?
Because suggesting outright premeditated killing for people with a given trait, regardless of whether they have actually offended in any way or are an active threat or whether killing them is the only way to stop them being one, is kinda genocidal. We should never advocate killing people for things they cannot control.
Killing someone is, as our technology goes today, final. It robs them of all potential, all freedom, of the most basic human right: life. It is a heartless thing to do to someone, regardless of motivation. Yes, when you're under attack, killing your attacker is valid, but it should never be taken lightly and inherently devalues their life in favour of your own survival. It is a trade we should accept, but also be aware of.
But reflexively resorting to murder when there is no immediate need for it infringes on fundamental human rights. And doing so indiscriminately for a psychological condition is, quite frankly, no better than killing people for their ethnicity or religion.
Restrict them from seeking power for a fundamental incompatibility with the requirements for empathetic governance, but do not call for their death. Do not forsake your own empathy.
Right. Im also not suggesting to kill everyone with a net worth of 1bn+ regardless of their actions. But there are many people whose greed has killed thousands and keeps ruining the lives of millions, would you not call that "being under attack", which you brought up as a justification for homicide? Also the countless wars that are being fought for their pleasure where people are quite literally under attack.
But just to be clear, my first comment was meant as a joke.
Whynot? Just donate to charity to get down to 999,999,999 nw and they're safe.
If it was communicated clearly and set as an "official" limit, sure. But I dont think thats what we were talking about^^
I mean what part of kill all the billionaires is unclear? What else could we be talking about?
No, with "being under attack" in this case I meant immediate, impending physical harm with probable lethal consequences. Self-defense in that sense should strive to be somewhat proportional to the severity of the attack.
But you raise an interesting point:
We absolutely should do something about the suffering arising from the greed and cruelty of the super-rich. The difficulty with removing individuals is that the institutions propping them up will continue to exist. While their ownership (and the mechanisms of inheritance / transfer of that wealth) as well as the attendant authority is accepted as legitimate, the problem will continue to exist.
The theoretical approaches to changing this system – whether from within or without – don't strictly require violence, but the people who believe in that legitimacy will follow orders to defend it against people that would render those orders void. If they do so violently, it may be necessary to defend ourselves.
And this is where you have a point I didn't originally consider: if we perceive the orders (and thus the ones giving them) as the ulterior enemy, self-defense could extend beyond the immediate threat of people misguidedly following them.
This could also be applied to, say, healthcare execs that make decisions with significant impact on people in need of lifesaving care, or military industrial cronies.
Whether responding with violence is a good idea or at all effective is a different question, but I can see an argument that targeting key figures behind life-threatening orders would at least be a legitimate form of self-defense.
That apparently went over my head, but it lead to an interesting line of thought I didn't consider before, so I'll consider that a win.
Your comment is almost exactly the follow-up I had in mind for your first point^^
Well, not like a funny joke, just in a joking manner
I propose torture, of being a well-supported member of proletariat class just without excessive wealth.
More like 10 million psychopaths. 4% psychopathy rate.
I didn't believe you. can you present evidence?
I can try to find. The 4% is the population rate of being without empathy. So that would cover sociopathy, psychopathy, and narcissistic personality disorder. It's still damaging and terrifying.
how does the dsm define psychopathy
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8374040/
This study puts it at 4.5% , which is way more than is listed in Wikipedia.
I think it's just "antisocial" traits. I also think it might have been updated to exclude sociopathy, but I read books about this a long time ago, so not sure. Psychopaths are Machiavellian, have no empathy, and are narcissistic, iirc. It's called the dark triad. Narcissists still experience anxiety, so they are different that way. Borderline folks often feel bad about themselves rather than having a grandiose sense of self, and I think they only have periods of lack of empathy during episodes. Really, I'm not sure borderline folks count in the 4%. I'm also not sure sociopaths and psychopaths are still classified separately in DSM.
i have to admit i was baiting you because i knew psychopathy isn't a diagnosable condition in (ok, now just as far as i know) any version of the DSM. but then i read the wikipedia entry on psychopathy.
it turns out, even though it's not diagnosable as such, there are evaluation criteria for it so it sort of sits in this weird middleground.
anyway, i think we should just treat people as people and not like a diagnosis. i don't want people to treat me like "depressed commie" or "anxious commie" (not conditions i have diagnosed, just using examples). i want to be treated as a whole person. writing off people who hit certain evaluation criteria as "just a psychopath" is pretty shitty.
I think they usually do not attempt diagnosis before people are around 21. Maybe has to do with prefrontal lobe development. The reason is that kids are just stupid and do things that might be considered antisocial but are just growing up. Since there is a great stigma attached to those personality disorders, even in the mental health industry, they typically don't want to risk the mistake of incorrectly diagnosing it.
Some psychopaths are highly functional and seem to be useful at times. I'd rather have a psychopath trauma surgeon for example. But I do think they will make the planet uninhabitable with all the wars and data centers. I've toyed with the idea of eliminating the genetic component through DNA tech, but then it opens Pandora's box for eliminating depression and all other sorts of things that can be natural adaptations or responses to environments, so the next thing you know we would just have perfect people without the imperfections that make us human.
It's a fascinating topic. After being the target of a malignant psychopath I read some books (after I moved away). I found myself wondering which one of us was really flawed. Is it us for having empathy and vulnerability, or them for the damage they do? After deciding that they are creating barricades for climate change efforts (oil companies repressing clean energy tech, Trump killing wind farm efforts, bombing things constantly), I have come to the conclusion that they will contribute so much to the destruction of our species that it must be them that is flawed. We'll say rather, the condition is flawed since you're right about recognizing individuals as people and not their mental diagnoses.
I hate it all too.
Take me out first, please.