this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2025
1067 points (99.4% liked)

You Should Know

39585 readers
513 users here now

YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.

All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.



Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:

**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **



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.

Posts and comments 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 non-YSK posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

If you are a member, sympathizer 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.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



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- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Rule 11- Posts must actually be true: Disiniformation, trolling, and being misleading will not be tolerated. Repeated or egregious attempts will earn you a ban. This also applies to filing reports: If you continually file false reports YOU WILL BE BANNED! We can see who reports what, and shenanigans will not be tolerated.

If you file a report, include what specific rule is being violated and how.



Partnered Communities:

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

Credits

Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 46 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Whenever I see the 1% or 99% numbers when discussing wealth inequality, this fact is the first thing that comes to mind. We need to use decimal points to get to the real ones in power. 1% contains a lot of people who have money, but are still out of the loop as the rest of us, or as Carlin said, "not in the Club". They are millionaires, but like they say, the difference between a million and a billion is about a billion.

And that's US - many Americans are in the 1% in worldwide numbers, with rough income numbers being around half a million income. Again, they may or may not be comfortable depending on their expenses, but having money doesn't mean you have power. It's the .1 that is the beginning of that, and the .01 is moving the pieces for everyone.

(The numbers are just estimates, there's gray areas everywhere, the point is the top people want us to be yelling at the top middle and ignore what they do.)

[–] misteloct@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Bingo. My entire circle is 1-5%ers, we are privileged and comfortable and not saying we're not part of the problem. But we're powerless. Start by eating the richest, by the time you get to me I'm going to guess there won't be a problem any more...

[–] Sineljora@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

“Powerless”, but how many sets of guns/armor can your circle buy? 1000? 10,000? They’re still astonishingly poor and closer to homelessness or kidnapping to El Salvador than being rich. Better to pick a side in the class war, and doing nothing is picking oppression. Eating the rich also includes non-rich wealthy class-traitors.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Opinionhaver@feddit.uk -5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Exactly. Millionaires aren’t the problem. That’s why I can’t stand these thought-terminating clichés like “eat the rich.”

Someone with even several hundred million to their name is dirt poor compared to billionaires.

[–] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 21 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

When people say eat the rich, I think they generally mean to start from the top.

[–] moonlight@fedia.io 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Millionaires aren't rich, they're "well off". (Or maybe not even, it's possible to have 1M+ in assets and be struggling financially)

Being rich is a completely different lifestyle. Like you never even think about money, and get people to do your grocery shopping and stuff. Megayachts and private jets, etc.

[–] Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 7 points 1 week ago

Well, I guess that depends on how one defines “rich.” To me, it means someone whose passive income exceeds their spending. What you’re describing, I’d call “wealthy - which is one or two steps above that.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] yucandu@lemmy.world 37 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Should figure out where they live and protest on their street instead of burning down the local 7/11.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] TooPoor@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago

If my math is correct 158 families would be around .00005%. They have no clue what life is like for the average person yet they have so much influence. Gross.

[–] galoisghost@aussie.zone 18 points 1 week ago

And they all have addresses.

[–] Eyekaytee@aussie.zone 12 points 1 week ago (2 children)

wasn’t there some billionaire that ran for president, spent hundreds of millions and got like <1% of the vote?

[–] awesomesauce309@midwest.social 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah Michael Bloomberg bought his way through the rest of the primary debates then when it came time for the primary vote nobody wanted him.

[–] Eyekaytee@aussie.zone 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

That's the one!

Bloomberg spent nearly $1 billion on his three-month presidential campaign

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/bloomberg-spent-nearly-1-billion-his-three-month-presidential-campaign-n1165306

So my next question is:

Just 158 families have provided nearly half of the early money for efforts to capture the White House

Just how effective is advertising in the presidential race when you can spend a billion and go no where?

Conservatives vote out of fear. They lie awake at night terrified of their son having to play sports agains a trans boy. Advertising these moron fears is a lot easier than advertising a plan to make things better. But also Michael Bloomberg had no plan to make things better, at least for us lowly constituents.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 5 points 1 week ago

He was just dumb. He spent unwisely. The best things in life are free. Like the support of moguls like Murdoch from Fox News.

[–] Stern@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Perot did pretty well on his runs iirc. But I don't think he's the one you were talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot

[–] Eyekaytee@aussie.zone 8 points 1 week ago

Yep sorry it was Michael Bloomberg

[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

Fuck scotus. John Roberts is the most damaging traitor in American history.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›