You don't know a thing about harm reduction then if that's the analogy you're choosing.
Limiting people’s access pushes them to the black market.
We are at the point of full fledged fascist authoritarianism in america and neo liberals still want to take guns away from the workers. Man you all really guzzled down the corpo kool aid.
The neo liberals don't like what sanders is doing so they are trying to do the same thing to offer their tepid right leaning centrism which is what brought us to this point. The billionaire owned democrats are always looking for a way to impose their tepid right leaning centrism and thwart any hint of leftward movement towards economic democracy. Their goal is to maintain this class dictatorship at all costs and allowing full fledged fascism to enter the highest office was preferable to any administration that resembled FDR from Gaining power.
Like the billionaire owned neo liberals would allow that. They lost their shit when sanders challenged them and did everything they could to prevent him from bringing any modicum of economic democracy to the us.
Removing guns from citizens will only allow them to concentrate into the hands of the wealthy, and their militarized forces.
Neo liberalism has failed the working class and parroting the idea that we must restrict peoples freedoms to protect them from themselves is not only dumb its disingenuous and patently false.
If people weren't educated on using cars they would be EVEN WORSE drivers. Also all the restrictive rules on driving like artificially low speed limits actually make it less safe for good drivers.
We killed education standards in this country to make things more conservative and thwarted leftist populism to allow full devolution into authoritarian fascism.
now remind me, did drug prohibition/ restrictions result in decreased supply and demand or did it instead just increase the black market value of these still in demand products while funneling people a majority of which are marginalized poor and working class, into prisons so correctional corporations could siphon tax dollars into their profits and simultaneously profit off of legalized slave labor? How will restrictions on gun ownership be any different?
More people die from Vehicular manslaughter every year than guns, should we further restrict automobile use?
Honestly working class people should all be educated in basic gun safety. Its pretty fucking simple Things like operating a safety, Checking to see if there is any live ammunition in the chamber, Racking the slide to clear the chamber after removing the magazine, Emptying the magazine. Even field stripping and cleaning/ lubrication of a firearm.(if that’s too much for you just stick to revolvers and bolt action long guns)
But since nixon and reagan(who was the first American politician to push for gun ownership restrictions with support from the NRA via the mulford act after the black panther party was making strides advocating for civil rights by participating in protests open carrying long arms and side arms) Killed American education standards to prevent a highly educated proletariat now a majority of Americans cant even handle basic diy car maintenance let alone know how to use a firearm.
And today neo liberal centrists are the primary definition of what right wing maga morons consider leftists to bewhen in reality true leftists want guns to prevent the fascist takeover of our society we have slowly witnessed and were attempting to warn all of our fellow Americans about despite those warnings going ignored due to ignorant or intentional downplaying.
Yeah its nuts a bag of Doritos at stop and shop near me is $5.99 like its fucking dried corn with some spices and preservatives. The price gouging has reached snap on tools level which in reality is just tje standard model for corporations. Aim for 500-1000% profit margins or even higher if possible
That is definitely the main reason i havent deleted the app to effectively evade my IP ban received for speaking facts regarding the Palestinian occupation. Because i have so many hot big tittied cam girl accounts stared on the side panel.
This post in R/technology hit r/all breifly Today around 7-8pm before the mods nipped that in the bud to appease shareholders. The comment section is a fucking shitshow with massive disappearing sections of engagement.
One thing that really made me chuckle is this comment by someone I copied pertaining to an AI prompt response from GROK3 they initiated;
I think if you ask an AI they'll tell you.
Here's what Grok told me a couple weeks ago:
here is Grok 3's unexpurgated take:
(Me) Assuming that the billionaires solidify their control of the US government past the point that the people can ever have a say in what happens anymore and voting becomes irrelevant, what ultimately happens after the system is completely controlled by the 0.001%?
If billionaires were to solidify control over the U.S. government to the point where democracy effectively collapses and the public has no meaningful influence, the outcome would likely be a slow but steady transformation into an oligarchic system—think a modern feudalism with extra steps. Power would concentrate in the hands of a tiny elite, maybe a few dozen families or individuals, who’d use their wealth to dictate policy, law, and resource distribution. History gives us some clues: when unchecked elites run the show—Roman patricians, Renaissance merchant-princes, or even post-Soviet oligarchs—things tend to follow a pattern.
First, you’d see the economy morph into a machine that funnels wealth upward even faster. Tax structures, labor laws, and regulations would tilt hard toward protecting the 0.001%—no more pesky antitrust enforcement or worker protections. Corporations owned by these billionaires would dominate, merging with the state in a kind of gilded fascism. Think monopolies on steroids, where dissenters get crushed not by jackboots but by algorithm-driven blacklists and financial ostracism. The middle class would erode as wages stagnate and automation (owned by the elite) displaces jobs, leaving a stark divide: a small aristocracy and a sprawling, dependent underclass.
Society wouldn’t stay quiet forever, though. People don’t just shrug off losing their voice—they simmer, then boil. Without voting as an outlet, unrest would grow. Protests, riots, maybe even low-level insurgencies could pop up, especially as inequality becomes unbearable. The billionaires would counter with surveillance tech and private security forces—Blackwater 2.0, but with drones and AI. Public education and healthcare would likely wither, keeping the masses less capable of organizing or resisting. Propaganda would ramp up too, probably through media they own, painting their rule as inevitable or benevolent.
Long term, it’s unstable. Absolute control sounds nice if you’re at the top, but it breeds resentment and fragility. The 0.001% might fracture internally—power-hungry elites often turn on each other when there’s no external threat to unify them. Or some black-swan event (climate disaster, tech breakthrough, foreign interference) could disrupt their grip. If the system gets too rigid, it might just collapse under its own weight, like a top-heavy empire—think Rome 2.0, but with better Wi-Fi. Alternatively, they could pull off a dystopian win, keeping the masses pacified with bread, circuses, and VR headsets while they sip champagne in fortified enclaves.
No crystal ball here, but the vibe would be a mix of The Hunger Games aesthetics and Gilded Age vibes—opulence for the few, quiet desperation for the rest, and a slow burn toward either revolution or resignation. What do you think—would people fight back hard, or just adapt to the new normal?
(Me again) In the scenario you just described, what happens to the billionaires themselves after society collapses?
Once society collapses under the weight of their control, the billionaires’ fate hinges on how well they’ve insulated themselves and how the collapse plays out. They’ve got resources—money, private security, bunkers, offshore havens—so they’re not exactly scrambling for scraps right away. But they’re not invincible either; a societal breakdown cuts both ways.
If it’s a chaotic free-for-all—think riots, infrastructure failure, and armed factions—they’d likely hole up in fortified compounds or flee to places like New Zealand or private islands they’ve already bought. They’ve got the means: private jets, loyal mercenaries, and stockpiles of food and fuel. Some might even have tech-driven mini-cities ready, with solar grids and hydroponics to ride out the storm. For a while, they’d live like post-apocalyptic kings, surrounded by guards and sipping vintage wine while the world burns. But isolation has limits. Supply chains, even private ones, erode in total chaos. Their staff—pilots, security, engineers—might turn on them if loyalty fades or desperation kicks in. A pissed-off ex-employee with a gun and a grudge could unravel their little utopia fast.
If the collapse spawns organized resistance—say, a coalition of pissed-off citizens or a rogue military splinter—they’d face bigger threats. Billions don’t buy immunity from a determined mob or a drone strike. History’s littered with examples: French aristocrats thought their chateaus were safe until the guillotines rolled out. The billionaires might try to negotiate, offering resources to warlords or new power players, but trust would be thin. They could end up as bargaining chips, ransomed, or just eliminated as symbols of the old regime.
Internally, they’d probably start eating each other too. With no common enemy left to unify them, rivalries would flare. One billionaire’s private army might raid another’s compound for dwindling resources. Alliances would shift, paranoia would spike, and their little oligarchy could fracture into a survivalist soap opera. Think Game of Thrones, but with fewer dragons and more Teslas.
Longer term, if society rebuilds, they might try to reinsert themselves as saviors—funding reconstruction, playing philanthropist to rewrite their legacy. Some might pull it off, especially if they’ve hoarded critical tech or knowledge. Others could fade into obscurity, their wealth meaningless in a world that’s moved on. Worst case, they’re hunted down by a new order that sees them as the root of the mess.
So, post-collapse, they’d either cling to power as warlord-lite figures in their gilded cages, get taken out by betrayal or vengeance, or slink away to obscurity if the world resets. Depends on how ruthless they stay and how much the rest of humanity cares to chase them. What’s your take—would they outlast the chaos or get swallowed by it?
Its almost funny hos people are SOOOOOOOO close to getting to the bottom of whats going on. But there is this delulu idealism resulting from years or decades of successful social conditioning to keep believing in this obviously flawed and now non existent American exceptionalism via the integrity of our democracy which hasn't existed in at least 4 decades if not longer.(probably since the mass assassination of leftist leaders in the late 1960’s) its like the first half of that prompt response isn't a theoretical what if, its a literal explanation of what has already happened and what the system and all the corporatist actors are attempting to preserve at all costs.
Maybe people shouldn’t buy products from Someone who spouts fascism from every orifice and did an obvious and blatant fascist salute TWICE at a presidential inauguration. Maybe if they can afford one of these dumpster fires on wheels they should break their contract and sell it or just put it in storage until the contract expires and drive a hybrid or even an electric Lexus like someone with a functioning cerebral cortex.
FAFO
Both parties may not be identical but they are definitely serving the same exact masters. So both parties are working towards the same goals. Thwarting leftist populism at all costs and promoting a society and economy that fights economic democracy and doesnt threaten capital ie: fascism.
Its funny i was on reddit today and a post hit the top of all (briefly before they nipped that in the bud to appease shareholders) about how reddit moderation is cracking down super hard on Luigi Mangione posts mentions and upvotes and someone posted an AI prompt response in GROK 3 and here it is;
I think if you ask an AI they'll tell you.
Here's what Grok told me a couple weeks ago:
here is Grok 3's unexpurgated take:
(Me) Assuming that the billionaires solidify their control of the US government past the point that the people can ever have a say in what happens anymore and voting becomes irrelevant, what ultimately happens after the system is completely controlled by the 0.001%?
If billionaires were to solidify control over the U.S. government to the point where democracy effectively collapses and the public has no meaningful influence, the outcome would likely be a slow but steady transformation into an oligarchic system—think a modern feudalism with extra steps. Power would concentrate in the hands of a tiny elite, maybe a few dozen families or individuals, who’d use their wealth to dictate policy, law, and resource distribution. History gives us some clues: when unchecked elites run the show—Roman patricians, Renaissance merchant-princes, or even post-Soviet oligarchs—things tend to follow a pattern.
First, you’d see the economy morph into a machine that funnels wealth upward even faster. Tax structures, labor laws, and regulations would tilt hard toward protecting the 0.001%—no more pesky antitrust enforcement or worker protections. Corporations owned by these billionaires would dominate, merging with the state in a kind of gilded fascism. Think monopolies on steroids, where dissenters get crushed not by jackboots but by algorithm-driven blacklists and financial ostracism. The middle class would erode as wages stagnate and automation (owned by the elite) displaces jobs, leaving a stark divide: a small aristocracy and a sprawling, dependent underclass.
Society wouldn’t stay quiet forever, though. People don’t just shrug off losing their voice—they simmer, then boil. Without voting as an outlet, unrest would grow. Protests, riots, maybe even low-level insurgencies could pop up, especially as inequality becomes unbearable. The billionaires would counter with surveillance tech and private security forces—Blackwater 2.0, but with drones and AI. Public education and healthcare would likely wither, keeping the masses less capable of organizing or resisting. Propaganda would ramp up too, probably through media they own, painting their rule as inevitable or benevolent.
Long term, it’s unstable. Absolute control sounds nice if you’re at the top, but it breeds resentment and fragility. The 0.001% might fracture internally—power-hungry elites often turn on each other when there’s no external threat to unify them. Or some black-swan event (climate disaster, tech breakthrough, foreign interference) could disrupt their grip. If the system gets too rigid, it might just collapse under its own weight, like a top-heavy empire—think Rome 2.0, but with better Wi-Fi. Alternatively, they could pull off a dystopian win, keeping the masses pacified with bread, circuses, and VR headsets while they sip champagne in fortified enclaves.
No crystal ball here, but the vibe would be a mix of The Hunger Games aesthetics and Gilded Age vibes—opulence for the few, quiet desperation for the rest, and a slow burn toward either revolution or resignation. What do you think—would people fight back hard, or just adapt to the new normal?
(Me again) In the scenario you just described, what happens to the billionaires themselves after society collapses?
Once society collapses under the weight of their control, the billionaires’ fate hinges on how well they’ve insulated themselves and how the collapse plays out. They’ve got resources—money, private security, bunkers, offshore havens—so they’re not exactly scrambling for scraps right away. But they’re not invincible either; a societal breakdown cuts both ways.
If it’s a chaotic free-for-all—think riots, infrastructure failure, and armed factions—they’d likely hole up in fortified compounds or flee to places like New Zealand or private islands they’ve already bought. They’ve got the means: private jets, loyal mercenaries, and stockpiles of food and fuel. Some might even have tech-driven mini-cities ready, with solar grids and hydroponics to ride out the storm. For a while, they’d live like post-apocalyptic kings, surrounded by guards and sipping vintage wine while the world burns. But isolation has limits. Supply chains, even private ones, erode in total chaos. Their staff—pilots, security, engineers—might turn on them if loyalty fades or desperation kicks in. A pissed-off ex-employee with a gun and a grudge could unravel their little utopia fast.
If the collapse spawns organized resistance—say, a coalition of pissed-off citizens or a rogue military splinter—they’d face bigger threats. Billions don’t buy immunity from a determined mob or a drone strike. History’s littered with examples: French aristocrats thought their chateaus were safe until the guillotines rolled out. The billionaires might try to negotiate, offering resources to warlords or new power players, but trust would be thin. They could end up as bargaining chips, ransomed, or just eliminated as symbols of the old regime.
Internally, they’d probably start eating each other too. With no common enemy left to unify them, rivalries would flare. One billionaire’s private army might raid another’s compound for dwindling resources. Alliances would shift, paranoia would spike, and their little oligarchy could fracture into a survivalist soap opera. Think Game of Thrones, but with fewer dragons and more Teslas.
Longer term, if society rebuilds, they might try to reinsert themselves as saviors—funding reconstruction, playing philanthropist to rewrite their legacy. Some might pull it off, especially if they’ve hoarded critical tech or knowledge. Others could fade into obscurity, their wealth meaningless in a world that’s moved on. Worst case, they’re hunted down by a new order that sees them as the root of the mess.
So, post-collapse, they’d either cling to power as warlord-lite figures in their gilded cages, get taken out by betrayal or vengeance, or slink away to obscurity if the world resets. Depends on how ruthless they stay and how much the rest of humanity cares to chase them. What’s your take—would they outlast the chaos or get swallowed by it?
Its like some people are sooooo fucking close to realizing the truth of our reality but are so conditioned to ignore the signs and keep fostering the delusional belief in American exceptionalism/ democratic integrity that has clearly left the chat decades ago.
Thats some of it but if you order comments by controversial you’ll see the boot lickers and their neo lib apologists are out in full force