Lived experience, thanks. Try it sometime.
otter
joined 1 year ago
Start with the 1%, and gauge response. Repeat with the 2% and add guillotines as set pieces, guage response. Lather, rinse, repeat until shit gets better. π€πΌ
That's edging toward muddying the point. You could also bring heritage (aka "race") into the argument, or age, or disability, et al, and risk doing the same. No one's debating granular data per geophysical location, etc., as this is a median national income bifurcation topic.
They might also use that term because they confuse it with "rich", and that's a whole other issue: intentionally sub-par (mis)education to maintain the socioeconomic divide.
Speaking in broad volumetric terms and then switching to simply stating (see: spoiler) the per annum floor for said 1% is sloppy and misleading. Please include the range that the 1% encompasses, earnings wise, to keep your modeling consistent.
Yeah, most of the entire country is a single missed paycheck/health emergency/household crisis away from absolute destitution.
The level of cognitive dissonance in those very same people demonizing & dehumanizing houselessness-related issues is forebodingly despicable β considering they're >this< close to being "one of them". πΆπ€¦πΌββοΈπ₯
Wake the fuck up, fellow citizens. You're chattel to the rich. Pawns. Playthings.
But, we outnumber them by the billions. We. Are legion.
Why stop at 1%, though?
Be sure not to become the monster when despising them, is all.
Ah, yes. The refuge of the lazy. You're doing great, kiddo.