• lightnsfw@reddthat.com
            1·
            6 months ago

            Eat the rich and obey the Lord (who speaks through the church of course, so obey the church, you’ll just have to trust us on that one. Also give us money or you’re going to hell).

            • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
              2·
              6 months ago

              Not sure about only trusting the church or giving them your money. A ton of church practices like forced conversion go against what he preached. He wanted people to choose God, while one should give their wealth to the cause of building a better world rather than the church. The good Samaritan nonbelievers were better than people who only followed in word alone.

              • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
                1·
                6 months ago

                It was forbidden for laypeople to own or translate the bible for hundreds of years because the church wanted to control the message.

                The bribes were indulgences you paid to the church to forgive your sins.

                A huge part of the bible is about being submissive, obedient, and turning the other cheek. The whole point of organized religion is to keep the masses under the yoke of the powerful.

                • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
                  1·
                  6 months ago

                  A huge part of the bible is about being submissive, obedient, and turning the other cheek. The whole point of organized religion is to keep the masses under the yoke of the powerful.

                  You’re not wrong, but Jesus had some decent ideas, even if they were mostly coopted to support the system. The tragedy of Christ is how his good ideas were used to sanitize a selfish war God enough to help him conquer the world.

                  It’s not as black and white as NT good, OT bad, but Jesus’s message of love and forgiveness helped Christianity dominate enough to change how most people thought about gods. In the OT, God is the only one you’re supposed to worship, but other gods are explicitly mentioned. The dedication to a single God that helped Judaism survive in perpetual exile allowed the Romans to centralize power better than their previous pantheon could. Even the practices of those who hated the new church were eventually used to create elite monastic orders.

                  Christians can embody the virtues of their faith, but it isn’t something most people can or will do. Just like with Marx’s work, people can take helpful lessons from the text, or they can be led against those helpful lessons by the text. Any good meme can be coopted to serve selfish will to power. Any truth can be used to obscure reality. Any value can be turned against itself. We will never be above this self deception, but we can resist it by always questioning our understanding.

      • ggppjj@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        6 months ago

        I have fond opinions of Veggietales. From my recollection, it seems to be a genuine attempt at Christlike programming instead of Christian programming, if that makes sense.

        The creator has a reasonable head and has some public opinions that I vehemently agree with. I’m not currently aware of any reason that Veggietales should be considered weird Christian propaganda, even if it is Christian propaganda.

        To give context to my saying that, I grew up with friends that made me hide my harry potter book so that it wouldn’t get me banned from their house as a literal spawn of satan. Veggietales was absolutely the best programming they watched, hands down, from every aspect.

        • Donkter@lemmy.world
          2·
          6 months ago

          I always thought veggie tales was Jewish? All the episodes I remember were just old testament.

      • pyre@lemmy.world
        4·
        6 months ago

        love the quote for how creepy it is. this should be the top reply to every single one of Elon’s dumbass tweets

  • ummthatguy@lemmy.worldEnglish
    70·
    6 months ago

    That’s about the most coherent thing he’s ever said. Not just in message, but cogently and understandably spoken. Probably about to have a stroke from that.

  • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
    58·
    6 months ago

    Saying the rich are (just as or even more) unhappy than humans is just rich ppl propaganda, or at best a coping mechanism (‘See, Im better of poor than thev rich, I should be thankful!’).

    • aski3252@lemmy.world
      25·
      6 months ago

      Nah, there is definitely a truth to this. I grew up in a working class family who moved into a wealthier region at some point and I would never trade places with people who grew up wealthy. Pretty much all wealthy people are constantly unhappy, are obsessed with control to the point where they alienate their families, they are constantly scared of losing their control, status and wealth, constantly paranoid towards everything and everyone and often engage in self-destructive behaviour.

      Of course, not having enough money sucks, it generates stress and restricts autonomy. But a similar thing happens at a certain level of wealth.

        • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
          4·
          6 months ago

          Idk. That description sounds like it applies to the JKR and Musks of the world. There are probably more happy rich people than poor people, but many of them aren’t happy because happiness is hard for everyone.

      • Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
        9·
        6 months ago

        Unfortunately, being firmly from a working class family, I can guarantee you that we plebs struggle with the exact same things + actual poverty (not being able to go to a doctor,…).

        I wish I could say we’re magically happy for every crumb thrown our way, but we all realize we are scrawny mice at best while the world is ruled by cats.

        • aski3252@lemmy.world
          5·
          6 months ago

          Again, my point isn’t that poor people are happy or happier than the wealthy. My point is that our system doesn’t even beneft those who are (supposed to be) in charge. They think it does, but it’s more like an addiction that controls and destroys them.

    • FakeGreekGirl@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOPEnglish
      24·
      6 months ago

      I’m not going to say that the rich are just as unhappy as the rest of us, because they’ll never know what it is to truly struggle. But take a look at Elon Musk; does he look happy to you? Dude bought and destroyed Twitter because people there wouldn’t stop making fun of him, and he still can’t stop them. He’s driven his daughter out of his life because he can’t accept she’s trans, which has only made him go even more full on transphobe and bleed over into every other bigoted thought under the sun. He just fucking gutted Tesla, his big pride and joy, because he couldn’t stand his “inferiors” talking back to him and trying to stop him from making terrible mistakes. All his victims are undoubtedly struggling more than he is, thanks largely to his capriciousness and evil, but he certainly doesn’t look happy to me.

      And the funny thing is, he could be absolutely happy if he could let shit go. If I had his money, I wouldn’t even bother with all this petty shit; I’d hire people to manage the money, put as much of it into charity work as I could, find some tropical island somewhere, and spend the rest of my life sipping on margaritas and watching sunsets. But he can’t help himself. He’s incapable of letting go, which stops him from ever being happy.

      • Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world
        5·
        6 months ago

        He’s not happy, but that’s got little/nothing to do with his money. He’s doing the same things and experiencing the same consequences as a lot of people who fall into the extreme-right. He alianted his family, he’s in trouble at work and he’s blaming everyone and everything but himself. Only difference between him and the qanon conspiracy-brain who got fired from the plant in some small town for saying racist shit on Facebook is that Elon’s wealth and public status means his life falling apart is a public spectacle instead of a private one. That, and the fact that his meltdown impacts a lot more people.

        Money actually does buy happiness for most people (up to about $75k USD annually, at which point the correlation fades). I suspect that happiness is a direct result of not feeling like you’re 1 sick day from homelessness, but I don’t think the data is there to support why yet.

        Edit: $75k, not 7k

        • FakeGreekGirl@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOPEnglish
          11·
          6 months ago

          Sure, but that just goes back to the original point - he’s super weirdly obsessed with greed and hate and being a control freak, and will never be happy no matter how much money he has.

          Money can’t make you happy, but the lack of money can certainly make you unhappy.

      • Seleni@lemmy.world
        3·
        6 months ago

        ‘Tell him we will pray for him.’

        ‘He needs your prayers.’

        ‘Is he, then, an unhappy man?’

        Poirot said, ‘So unhappy that he has forgotten what happiness means. So unhappy that he does not know he is unhappy.’

        The nun said softly, ‘Ah, a rich man…’

        Poirot said nothing—for he knew there was nothing to say…

      • kakes@sh.itjust.works
        9·
        6 months ago

        I don’t know about you, but I’m not about to be the guy to say that people are only greedy under capitalism.

        • Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
          15·
          6 months ago

          No, but there’s a big difference between a societal paradigm that overrides natural human compassion with, well, the exact opposite and then incentivizes the entire population to participate, or a society in which greed is greed rather than some overarching be-all end-all goal.

          • kakes@sh.itjust.works
            3·
            6 months ago

            I agree with this, that capitalism as a philosophy promotes greed as a virtue. No doubt this influences the people that don’t stop to question it - which I’m sure is a larger portion of the population than I would like to admit.

            However, I also think that greed is something that has always and will always exist in society. Consumerism is a modern invention, by virtue of industrialization allowing us to consume, but people have always wanted more money, more power, more things.

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
              5·
              6 months ago

              You think THAT’S patronizing? Then check THIS out:

              Capitalism incentivizes greed ≠ greed doesn’t exist outside of capitalism.

              pats on head and speaks very slowly

              Do you understand now or do you want me to get out the puppets?

              • kakes@sh.itjust.works
                3·
                6 months ago

                I could explain my point, but I can tell you’re more interested in role-playing as a daycare worker, so I won’t interrupt your fun.

                • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                  3·
                  6 months ago

                  I could explain my point

                  No need. There’s literally no possible meaning of “don’t say greed doesn’t exist outside of capitalism” (when nobody has claimed anything of the sort) that is a good point rather than a ridiculous strawman, so best skip it.

    • DessertStorms@kbin.social
      4·
      6 months ago

      But most people don’t directly benefit from, and are directly involved in, the systems that encourage such behaviour, like the ones at the top are.
      Most people are just grinding away selling their labour to survive while convinced by the wealthy-owned media and trillion dollar marketing industrial complex that they’re just temporarily embarrassed millionaires who just need to consume more to make their lives better.
      *Insert “we are not the same” meme here*

      • kakes@sh.itjust.works
        3·
        6 months ago

        I don’t disagree, I’ve spent my whole life firmly in the working class. I’m just saying that there are a lot of people focused on having more, regardless of where they’re at.

        Like, obviously many people are struggling. I know that. I’ve been there. I’m not talking about that.

        I guess my point is best illustrated by Buddhism’s second “Noble Truth”: that suffering is caused by desire. This is a pretty decently established philosophy, and didn’t spring into existence after the advent of Adam Smith - is what I’m saying.

        • DessertStorms@kbin.social
          3·
          6 months ago

          The point is that the “desire” is entirely artificial and enforced on us as society by those who profit from doing so (and their trillion dollar industries dedicated to this task), not that some people are struggling, because all of us but a tiny miniscule percent of humanity, are struggling (including the non-existent “middle class”, another lie there to maintain division in the working class, and the illusion of “aspiration”), we’re just made to believe it’s normal and part of human nature, when it is anything but.

          Whatever “truth” Buddhism has is honestly irrelevant, especially because it predates Adam Smith and the levels of unprecedented social engineering and indoctrination we’re subjected to in the name of capitalism by so long, its idea of “desire” is completely detached from yours, but even if it wasn’t, all that “truth” is is victim blaming, and shifting responsibility for systemic issues on to individuals, which is a classic tactic employed by those in charge (be it kings, feudal lords, “gods” prophets and whatever other religious figurehead, or capitalists) because it serves them and only them, for us to be pointing fingers at one another (while ignoring literally all of the environmental factors they impose on us) instead of at them.

          • kakes@sh.itjust.works
            1·
            6 months ago

            I honestly disagree, I think Buddhism - while not perfect - holds just as much truth then as now.

            I agree it’s unethical for companies to push us to consume, but it feels like you’re implying we have no agency in it. Rejecting consumerism is a great first step on the path to happiness, in my opinion - and isn’t limited to the ultra-wealthy by any means.

            • DessertStorms@kbin.social
              1·
              6 months ago

              I never said or even implied we have no agency, but I’m also not deluded enough to think we have free choice under capitalism. We are not only literally indoctrinated from birth and essentially brainwashed our entire lives from that point in to consumerism and “keeping up with the Joneses”, but we are also entirely dependant on participation in the system for survival because it is designed that way. You wanting to think you’re somehow above it (even if you have learned to identify some of the propaganda and try to avoid it, which is simply impossible to do), or wanting to blame those who aren’t “above it” for the system instead of those actively implementing and profiting directly from it, doesn’t change that.

              Freedom, and specifically freedom of choice, is capitalism’s biggest con.

  • Laser@feddit.de
    28·
    6 months ago

    Damn I love Don Rosa comics.

    Is this from the one where they found Croesus’ vault to make the amulet from his lucky coin?

    Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck is also not only a happy story about him getting rich, but also about becoming lonely and somewhat bitter in the later stories.

    Highly recommend reading them, Disney likes sweep them under the rug for whatever reason.

    The treasure hunt series (where I think this picture is from) is a bit more light-hearted in nature, but still very good.

    • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
      3·
      6 months ago

      Disney likes sweep them under the rug for whatever reason.

      Probably hits just the right spot of certain higher ups, who see “commie propaganda”

  • samus12345@lemmy.worldEnglish
    5·
    6 months ago

    Flintheart Glomgold would have been better. Is Magica De Spell rich? I thought she wanted to get rich by using Scrooge’s Number One dime for a Midas Touch spell or some shit.

    • umbraroze@lemmy.world
      2·
      6 months ago

      Don Rosa worked with the various comics publishers, not directly with Disney. This one was published by Egmont (in Denmark). As a result the comics writers actually have a pretty high degree of creative freedom, compared to people in other parts of the Disney empire.

      Though he did decide to retire, partly for health reasons, partly because while everyone feted him like a rockstar when he was visiting Europe, he certainly wasn’t paid like a rockstar by Disney. (…or, given how little money flows toward music artists these days too, maybe he was paid like a rockstar.)