this post was submitted on 29 May 2024
253 points (97.7% liked)

Not The Onion

12224 readers
606 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:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] blargerer@kbin.social 26 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This is one of those laws where I fundamentally disagree with the state having the power to make laws like this because the power will be misused, but in this instance, I actually think the law seems fine? Its not just exposing actual luxurious lifestyles like you imply, its also people going into debt to fake a higher level of lifestyle than they actually live, and this self perpetuates through social media like a virus.

[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 36 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If the government gave even a single shit about the poor, they would focus on banning wealth hoarding not wealth flaunting.
But they don't, so they aren't.
What they are doing is openly showing who they are and what they do care about (capitalists, on both counts), you not wanting to believe it is a different problem.

[–] applepie@kbin.social 7 points 5 months ago

Hoarding would be sufficient.

Limiting peoples ability to express rarely results in desired outcome.