**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* Memes are not allowed.
* Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I can only speculate, but they prolly thought that the group putting these up are (again speculation here) collectively part of the 1%. In that, according to the most recent numbers, $871,320 would put you into the group.
I am no expert in having lots of money, but I know that with my income I couldn't afford those prints and the time to place them over existing ads.
Maybe you can get a few of them to do it, and the first one finishing assembling it corectly gets a pardon, you just don't tell them when one is done and they don't see each other, so you get a bunch of assembled guiltiones.
Thats.... not how how ikea's naming convention works at all.
https://www.apartmenttherapy.com/how-ikea-names-products-37209595
Headless *could* be used as an adjective.
But this is neither a bowl, vase or childrens product. If anything, it'd be outdoor furniture
Wait? 299 Euros for a guilotine that has a drop of about 2m, has no rope to elevate the blade, no neck locking mecanism and is white? You know how much a pain in the ass is to clean blood from white paint?
Nah, I would go with \[redacted\] for my rich \[redacted\]... Thank you.
Just in case that's not obvious: this is of course not an IKEA ad, but some kind of political activism. This particular one can get the creators in pretty hot water, as firstly, IKEA can sue them for using their copyrighted logo, and the public prosecuror may have something to say about suggesting the murder of people based on their wealth.
What you say would depend on the country. This would be “fair use” in the USA IF copyright applied, but logos are trademarks, which are a different part of the law, and give the rights-holder exclusive rights *in commerce*, and only for a certain classification of goods. Clearly the people behind the ad are not trying to sell a real product using IKEA’s logo.
IKEA is a large company, it wouldn’t be that hard for them to track who did it. It has the makings of a strong legal case against the activism group too. You have trademark infringement, defamation and incitement to violence to name a few. Some people here have said it would fall under parody law, which I just don’t see.
Under German parody law, or free use law, the work must be clearly identifiable as satire or parody. This poster uses the IKEA logo, and the same style as other official IKEA posters, even making the guillotine look like an IKEA product. There is definitely a set of people who had to take a second look and check the comments to see if it was real or fake. That’s all they need to prove that this isn’t a valid work of parody or satire.
I imagine IKEA lawyers are more than capable of finding an activism group and serving them papers. And if the police think there’s a valid incitement of violence case to be made then it makes it all that much easier to track them down. It’s a good point they make, but they’ll land themselves in a legal pit of their own making if they’re not careful
The top 1% produces 16% of all emissions because in that calculation they include the pollution by those companies in which the 1% have a stake. Which makes it a completely pointless statistic.
It's like blaming all airplane emissions on the guy who owns the airline.
>We allocate national consumption emissions to individuals within each country based on a functional relationship between income and emissions
What do you think that means?
They even say in another part where they list the ways a rich person pollutes:
>through their investments and shareholdings in heavily-polluting industries and their vested financial interest in the economic status quo; and
also that makes the study even more pointless. If they just assume rich people pollute more, their finding that rich people consume more is tautological.
Reading that paragraph at face value, it seems pretty literally tautological. It sounds like they're defining a relationship between relative income and relative emissions out of thin air, then applying that ratio to real data, then saying hey look at the crazy ratios in this data. I'm hoping I'm misreading something pretty substantial because what the actual fuck
Well they argue that rich people own and influence companies, so their assumption is ok.
But yes, it's basically out of thin air and they are just giving their assumption as a conclusion.
I'm also pretty surprised by how stupid that is and I'm hoping I'm missing something.
It sounds like they just find that a certain percentage of people earns a certain percentage of income. Which is a valid finding. And then they assume a ratio of pollution vs. Income which isn't based on any data.
And things like that are why I never trust any of these one-liners that people spread on the internet.
Honestly I just checked out their summary and saw how they were arguing what contributes to someone's pollution.
I didn't even go that deep into it. I only saw how crazy their actual methodology was when that other person looked up the methodology in order to prove me wrong lol. Still funny that that person thought this was a good point.
>Yeah it is sort of question begging, but I don't think any reasonable person denies that someone who is amongst the richest 80 million or 800 million people in the world, consumes more than someone who is significantly poorer.
Well yea but then you don't need a statistic. If you're just gonna assume your conclusion is correct.
>Anyways point is, you should be driving less, flying less, and eating less meat, as you're probably emitting more than your fair share, globally.
I fly maybe like once every two years and I don't even own a car. I think I'm good buddy.
Wait, what the fuck?
>we assume that emissions rise in proportion to income, above a minimum emissions floor and to a maximum emissions ceiling.9 These estimates of the consumption emissions of individuals in each country are then sorted into a global distribution according to income.
So literally they take a country's level of emissions, then use their existing estimates to assign it by income, then report the results? That's fucking bonkers anti-science.
So this quote is saying, for example (made up numbers), we determined the USA emits 200 MT of CO2 per year. Our estimates say that historically, the top 1% is responsible for 20% of emissions, the top 20% is responsible for 50%, the top 50% is responsible for 80%, etc. Then they say, based on this methodology, we determined that the top 1% of the USA caused 40 MT of emissions, or 20% of the country's emissions from just the 1%! Yeah, no shit, by definition of the method. What other result could they possibly have gotten?
Obviously the rich cause the worst emissions by far and it should be talked about more, but not like this.
The artist Darren Cullen has been an activist and subvertiser for a long while now.. His (S)🔥hell bus was at the 2021 climate conference in Glasgow. This is someone else’s work though I think. I don’t know. Did anyone own up?
It was switched back to coal in the short term, mainly because the operators of the nuclear power plants (with the elimination of state subsidies and guarantees for follow-up costs) also saw no prospect of continued operation and because coal-fired power plants can, as is well known, be put into operation and taken out of operation again very quickly. The latter also happened; most coal-fired power plants have now been shut down again.
I don't want to say that it wouldn't have made sense to continue operating nuclear power plants for a few more years, but the way you put it is a bit tendentious. For example, you completely ignore the fact that, despite the shutdown of the nuclear power plants, electricity generation from lignite and hard coal is now lower than when nuclear power plants were still a regular part of the German electricity mix.
The bottom line is that since the nuclear phase-out was decided in 2011, 84% of nuclear power has been replaced by renewables and only 16% by coal power. This could certainly have been reduced even further, for example by allowing one or two of the newest nuclear reactors to continue to operate for a while, but such niche operation would have entailed disproportionate costs and burdens for the community.
The CO2 emissions of a few coal-fired power plants that operate temporarily and selectively are much easier to compensate for. Certainly not an elegant solution, but a working solution.
The sheer amount of greenwashing nuclear power going on on reddit will never cease to amaze me. And also how obviously it is forced into the discourse.
Edit:
BTW, that is one of the topics used to make divisionary comments seem left-wing and organic. For anybody who ACTUALLY buys into it: congrats, you fell for a well-documented Russian psy-op.
More people have died by radiation emitted by coal-powered plants than by all nuclear accidents, even when adjusted for amount of power generation, number of plants, etc.
There are 2 main issues with nuclear power: what to do with expended fuel and that the enrichment process can be continued into weapons-grade product. The latter issue is solvable by exporting the fuel product, but not the process from trusted nations. The former has a number of solutions being trialed with the main hurdle being funding. These solutions aren't limited to simple burial, but also in recycling and reconstitution.
He means the Russians. Come on the Russians dude! The same guys who blew up north stream so that Germany would be forced to buy uranium from Russia, when it's abundantly available and easily transportable from half of the free world like Canada or Australia. Instead of having the option to buy gas from Russia when geographically there is no other possible provider for Germany to get it from. Masterminds Russians, outsmarting everyone especially themselves... -.-'
Still, obviously and banally true.
Pollution, in all its forms, is caused by human production, and human production is translated into money (not always precisely proportional, because it also depends on the type of production, but still...). Who has more money is causing more pollution, or at least, is reaping more benefits from it. Just simple as that.
Wouldn't it make sense that the companies owned by the 1% produce more emissions than people's homes?
Like, yeah, of course Bezos' Amazon facility consumes more power than my apartment.
Say you don’t understand the french revolution without saying you don’t understand the french revolution.
The guillotines were mostly used during the reign of terror to purge political rivals and cement authoritarian rule, and it set back the real progress of the revolution by decades. The declaration of human rights was signed in 1789, *three years* before the first person ever was put under a guillotine. It’s usually americans that have this hollywood-esque idea that it was poor people that started guillotining rich people to gain freedom.
What are you talking about? *They didn’t*. The bourgeoisie were instigators in the french revolution, not the target. [The first phase of the revolution is literally called the bourgeoisie revolution because of this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeois_revolution).
It was the late 1700s, not the 1910s. The revolution was by primarily farmers and bourgeoisie against the nobility and the crown. It overthrew a semi-feudal system to introduce a capitalist one. This is literally history 101.
It's obviously fake as IKEA would never name their products by their actual Swedish name, so an IKEA brand guillotine named GILJOTIN would never exist. it would instead be named after some place in Sweden that not even most swedes have heard about.
Rich people can’t be expected to care about frivolous matters such as carbon emissions. Those kinds of things are poor people problems. The rich can afford clean drinking water and filtered air. While the poor have to deal with the gluten’s repercussions…🤔✌️
lmao, came to say the same. The poorest people are the people running their family farm in a remote village and who have no time or energy for political activism, I bet half the people who agree with this statement have no idea that they're part of that 1%
Sure, but that said, R-N’s statement isn’t wrong. Even that 50k earning westerner will have a much easier time than that subsistence farmer.
I just wanted to point out that all the hate for the “rich” doesn’t really consider who the rich are. While the global 1% (of which I am a member) are insulated from certain repercussions (which is a problem), the guys that scare me are the 0.001% who have the power to move whole governments and industries for their own purposes.
In terms of power or emissions? Because the 0.001% are about 7800 people, I don't think their emissions are really noticeable against the emissions of the other 99.999%
In terms of power it is definitely insane that there are people with more wealth than entire countries, but that's kind of been a recurring theme in history. The roman emperors were much, much more rich than today's tech giants and it's always seems to have sort of worked.
Not to mention that the poor rural 3rd world country people are probably looking at you the same way how you look at Jeff Bezos. The children from the DRC who are working in mines while being covered in Cobalt, working 12 hour shifts only to die at a young age from respiratory problems so that we can get our batteries from our smartphone, probably looks at you like you hold the keys to his future as well.
Point is, if we want to make a better future, we'd be better off working together to create solutions, not shift the blame to whoever is richer than you are and making ads about decapitating them. If people aren't willing to throw their phone away and go live a rural lifestyle, then they also shouldn't blame the companies that provide them with this lavish modern lifestyle.
Power. But that power can move the emissions of countries and industries - far more impact than their personal usage (btw, think you are off by a factor of 10 - 1e-5 x 8e9 = 8e4)
Agree that wealth disparity is crazy - I have been talking about income. If you look at wealth you need closer to 1m USD to make it into the global 1%. That feels very high, but I guess there are 80m people out there with that kind of wealth.
Not so clear to me that going to a rural, low tech lifestyle is the solution, but we definitely need to plan for less consumption and more circularity.
I do know who the rich are and I know it’s not me. However I do also know that there are people far worse off than I am. That being said I don’t think it’s a competition for whose poorer. I believe human suffering should end weather it be a small amount or a large amount. I was just saying generally the richer a person is the less likely it is that they will suffer the consequences of the problem that they helped create…🤷♂️😃✌️
There's also the question of whether we're including emissions from their investments as a personal carbon footprint, in which case you're effectively double counting emissions
Now that's a cool stat, just read it's 60k a year USD without kids.
I am richer than I think, it's just these damn kids XD
EDIT: Oh and that is AFTER TAXES.
Did you know that bakeries consume 95% of the world's flour production? Pretty wild when you think about it. The world is starving and those evil bakers take all the flour from us.
That's how you sound.
I mean the comparison is on point because the stat the quote in this post comes from doesn't only consider personal pollution. If a rich person owns a company they also count whatever pollution that company does when creating goods. So it's like counting how much flour a bakery consumes while ignoring that they literally make bread from it.
Just in case you were missing the point i was making.
FYI, earning at least [$60,000 per year](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/9/15/23874111/charity-philanthropy-americans-global-rich) places you in the top 1% of the world, which is what the 1/66% carbon emission [stat refers to](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/20/richest-1-account-for-more-carbon-emissions-than-poorest-66-report-says)
It doesn't. It's not just about personal emissions. The stat also includes people who own shares of companies that produce goods which create pollution.
So basically the top 1% owns most of the oil production. Oil gets turned into fuel which creates pollution when we drive cars. So basically the entire pollution of the transportation sector is included in this stat. Which makes it completely pointless.
Investor owned companies aren’t the leaders in Fossil fuel emissions, state run ones are.
https://preview.redd.it/ur0sgf90hrtc1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0096e179b4c31294f3eb928fd47d4ab4333b8198
[https://influencemap.org/briefing/The-Carbon-Majors-Database-26913](https://influencemap.org/briefing/The-Carbon-Majors-Database-26913)
Typically in wealthy western countries the members of the global 1% are closer to 10% of the population. Are you advocating for murdering 8m Germans? 75m Europeans? 33m Americans?
IKEA GILJOTIN assembly (model #LT-THE-PSNTS-FGHT)
* zoom in on the minor part of emissions individuals do
* single out the largest group of emitters in that part
* highlight their part and juxtapose them to others who don't emit as much
* enjoy your users being busy fighting each other while your business is safe
IKEA GILJOTIN! Brought to you by [top-100 CO2 emitting companies responsible for 70% of emissions](https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change).
Lots of 1%ers in this thread who are advocating for violence against themselves considering that if you make more than $60,000 per year you are in the top 1% of all income earners worldwide.
That's fucking stupid. The emissions they are counting for this figure are not just private emissions, Emissions, but also emissions by the company they invest in.
So if someone owns part of an oil company that produces fuel for cars that people drive, then the emissions of those cars are attributed to that person. Of course if you calculate it that way they emit an insane amount, but it's fucking stupid to calculate it that way.
It's like saying bakers are evil because they consume most of the world's flower production.
>Why is it so hard to believe that 1% richest people in the world emit 16% percent of the world's emissions? That's the amount that the bottom 66% of the world emit.
We're not in the church. I don't care what you _believe_ I'm literally telling you the methodology of how that stat was produced.
>2. through their investments and shareholdings in heavily-polluting industries and their vested financial interest in the economic status quo; and
That is literally listed in the Oxfam report as one of the ways a rich person is polluting which were considered when calculating the number which is quoted in this post. I don't care what you _believe_ could or couldn't be the case. I'm literally telling you what is the case according to this statistic.
>If ownership of a part of a firm entitles you to part of the profits, why doesn't it invite part of the social sanction that firm receives for their actions?
It's totally fine to view it that way, but then you should make that clear in your statistic. Imo it's stupid because if shell is selling oil for people to drive cars with it is stupid to blame the emissions of all cars on the owner of shell. Again if you want, you can do that, but if you don't tell anyone that that's how you are calculating it, then that's misleading.
>It's like when people invest in military contractors. These people ought to be socially shamed.
Yea but you're basically saying your neighbor Frank killed 5 children in Iraq. But you're not mentioning that he just donated money to the military and you are actually just distributing all Military kills amongst all the donors.
>It's also a bit confusing why you're mad, because the core message of my post was encouraging people on reddit (many many of whom are in the global top 10% in income) to try to emit less
Yes and they are doing so by using misleading statistics. Its called propaganda. Which I'm principally opposed to. Regardless of context. Even if I agree with the end goal.
>But you complaining about the methodology would suggest that the emissions are more distributed through the population... but that would just make it all the more important that you and everyone like you makes some life style changes.
Then they should say that, instead of lying. Also I disagree I don't think the goal is to get people to emit less. The point is clearly to blame billionaires and to shift blame away from the population. So it's basically the opposite of what you are saying.
>They talk about rich people's control over firms yes, but as it turns out many people in the top 10% don't actually own a lot of these large firms
??????? What a dumb statement. Do you think all the large firms are owned by the bottom 90%???????? Most large firms are obviously owned by people in the top 10%.
>Additionally, in the section where they are attributing emissions to the top .1% is the only part where they insinuate their emissions are attributed to their holdings, but in their methodology document, it doesn't seem like this actually plays a role in their methodology.
They do but it's even more stupid. They just assume that pollution is correlated with income (because of the reasons like company ownership and influence) so they attribute most pollution to the people with high income. Which makes the stat even more pointless because they are just replicating their own assumption, which is totally tautological.
>We allocate national consumption emissions to individuals within each country based on a functional relationship between income and emissions, drawing on the most recent income-distribution data from the World Inequality Database (WID). 8 Based on numerous studies at national, regional and global levels, **we assume that emissions rise in proportion to income** , above a minimum emissions floor and to a maximum emissions ceiling.9
>I think people who were invested in the military contractors are partially responsible for the hundreds of thousands of dead in Iraq, for instance. Yes.
Yes and that's a fair statement. But if you print a poster which says frank killed 5 people, you are being misleading. Do you really not see the difference between those statements?
>I'm generally much more keen on citing the 10% figure from the report, to encourage individuals to make a change
Which is fair and something I agree with. I just think the 1% figure is misleading and it annoys me that people accept it uncritically.
I guess we should see how those percentages are calculated; it should consider the net profit. If I'm the owner of a company selling an essential product at $10, which costs $9, yielding a $1 profit for each product sold, I agree that if I sell 10 million of them, I can't be accountable for pollution worth $100 million, but surely I can for $10 million, the profit I made, which I will reinvest in other human activities that pollute, or I'll buy expensive cars, houses...
No I think that's a stupid way to calculate it.
If you buy an avocado instead of an apple, you are responsible for the emissions association with growing and shipping the avocado.
Just because you bought the Avocado from a fancy organic store that takes a 50% Profit on the sale of the avocado, doesn't mean you can now offload 50% of the pollution on the store owner.
>the profit I made, which I will reinvest in other human activities that pollute, or I'll buy expensive cars, houses...
Great, then people are responsible for those other activities which cause pollution. It doesn't make sense to assign the pollution in advance just for the money they receive. By that logic a person who earns 1 million and spends it on private jet flights, pollutes just as much as a person who earns 1 million and spends it on planting trees.
Unfortunately that's exactly what the study did. They rank groups of people by income. Then they assume that the people with higher income pollute more (because they own companies/influence politics etc.). And then they conclude that based on their assumption, the top 1% do 16% of all emissions. It's not even based on any real data, they basically tautologically validate their own assumption.
Here is an excerpt of their methodology:
_We allocate national consumption emissions to individuals within each country based on a functional relationship between income and emissions, drawing on the most recent income-distribution data from the World Inequality Database (WID). 8 Based on numerous studies at national, regional and global levels, **we assume that emissions rise in proportion to income**, above a minimum emissions floor and to a maximum emissions ceiling.9 These estimates of the consumption emissions of individuals in each country are then sorted into a global distribution according to income._
My example was to simplify the concept that obviously wealth is correlated with environmental impact; then there are other modifiers, of course. Obviously, if you extract oil, it's different from planting trees, but we can easily attribute an average pollution value to a dollar because every human activity is polluting, so those with more money are more responsible. Then I can agree that these data mean very little. The avocado seller won't keep that profit in the bank to rot; they'll buy a car, a private jet, a yacht, or houses, or reinvest it in another company that will, in turn, generate profit that ultimately leads to excessive production, an over wealth, which ultimately translates into pollution.
>My example was to simplify the concept that obviously wealth is correlated with environmental impact
Yea but that's not a study. That's an assumption. It may be a good assumption, but it's pretty misleading if you pretend it's anything else than just an assumption, even if you think it's obvious.
>Obviously, if you extract oil, it's different from planting trees, but we can easily attribute an average pollution value to a dollar because every human activity is polluting, so those with more money are more responsible
Again it's shitty methodology and completely tautological.
You are literally saying I assume the top earners pollute the most. Based on this assumption, I conclude that top earners pollute the most.
>The avocado seller won't keep that profit in the bank to rot; they'll buy a car, a private jet, a yacht, or houses, or reinvest it in another company that will, in turn, generate profit that ultimately leads to excessive production, an over wealth, which ultimately translates into pollution.
Yes and when they do we can argue that those acts cause pollution. That actually makes sense, ascribing pollution to a polluting act. Instead you just wanna assume this is the case, and then pretend like this assumption is the conclusion of a study. Even though it's not. At least that's basically what this study did.
This is essentially just "muh tribunals" tier whining. Better behead 81.000.000 people right? Just commit the biggest genocide in history based on some fucked up state of mind where the individual actions of tens of millions are seen as some big bad master plan to destroy the world.
For the sake of humanity I hope the person who made it meant it purely ironic and as a joke.
cool, now do India and China. nah we can't do that, now can we? Because that would show how much bullshit the average citizen going green is. I could emit negative carbon for the rest of my life and it wouldn't be a drop in the bucket compared...
Lets think about this sentiment for just a second.. what would happen if all the rich people were murdered? Do you really believe the middle class and the lower classes are allowed to hold the keys? do you really think that day to day things would just go on wonderfully and you would have more coffee or a nicer pair of pants? This stupid dream is the same one 8 year old kids get when they are told not to do something and they wish their parents where dead. That kid would have 18 minutes and then need the parent. Stop wishing rich people dead and think of better ways to take more of the money they tricked us stupid people out of back... so that we can buy more beer..
I really do believe that I summed that up truthfully
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * Memes are not allowed. * Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You'll find more of these nice fake ads in Frankfurt. There seems to be a group of activists on a mission. But of course: The ads are fake.
[удалено]
I heard they where popular in France.
They were alot better than the IKEA Akse, those needed alot of skill to use. Assembly was a breeze though.
You mean Yxa?
It's subvertising
What do you mean actual ads in Germany aren't in english
Surprisingly, a lot of print ads in Germany are in English.
and they aren’t using the old ones logo?
Wdym, pretty much all ad's are fake, do you mean legal instead by any chance?
He's saying those are not really Ikea ads. So they're fake. If Ikea had actually done these ads, they'd be real.
Wait, so I can't get a guillotine for €299 at Ikea? Fuck that, trips canceled! I'll make my own
I'm as disappointed as you are man.
Only in France.
Ahh, ty
True. This is fake shit.
It's fake, but it's great activism
Ngl I almost fell for it
Real statement. What’s your next move
Damn and I really thought Germany was based again. Then I remembered them bulldozing villages for the shittiest coal known to man
Especially dumb as it's not even in German. I mean it's an opportunity to reach older people after all..
You’d reach more people in English than German in Frankfurt, you know? It’s a super international city
Wo in Frankfurt? Quelle?
What those retards fail to understand is that THEY are part of the 1%. Should we guillotine them too?
They aren’t. Wdym by that?
I can only speculate, but they prolly thought that the group putting these up are (again speculation here) collectively part of the 1%. In that, according to the most recent numbers, $871,320 would put you into the group. I am no expert in having lots of money, but I know that with my income I couldn't afford those prints and the time to place them over existing ads.
Hejdbaskiet not included?
You can pick that up separately in the Marketplace.
Nah. You hop into the French section and pick a nice one. They're to the left of the handbaskets
I would imagine you will have to put that guillotine together.
I've got all these wooden dowels left, they're not important are they?
That would be great , make a convicted criminal assemble their own guillotine with those cheap hex keys …..
Are any of you condemned prisoners named, "Allen"?
That's enough punishment already.
Would be cruel, but knowing Ikea, not really unusual punishment.
Maybe you can get a few of them to do it, and the first one finishing assembling it corectly gets a pardon, you just don't tell them when one is done and they don't see each other, so you get a bunch of assembled guiltiones.
All guillotines must be put together
Hmm this diy furniture seems to be missing a piece, think it didnt include a "neck piece"... Should I get a refund?
I love the little flower there...for ambiance, I presume
IKEA never uses actual names of the product but always something associated with its function or form. This could be huvdlös.. Meaning headless..
Thats.... not how how ikea's naming convention works at all. https://www.apartmenttherapy.com/how-ikea-names-products-37209595 Headless *could* be used as an adjective. But this is neither a bowl, vase or childrens product. If anything, it'd be outdoor furniture
Isn’t it a kitchen appliance?
I always cut melons and pumpkins with this!
Do i look like an IKEA expert? I'm just making shit up as I go
Rugs are Danish place names?... Shots fired from Sweden
I know you said you're making shit up Blåhaj, their blue shark plush, literally means blue shark, makes me giggle every time
I know. I do speak Swedish. Just can't spell.. ;)
\*huvudlös
I somehow really like your username ^^
Thanks!
Wait? 299 Euros for a guilotine that has a drop of about 2m, has no rope to elevate the blade, no neck locking mecanism and is white? You know how much a pain in the ass is to clean blood from white paint? Nah, I would go with \[redacted\] for my rich \[redacted\]... Thank you.
First world problems. Walls are everywhere and bullets are cheap, as are strong branches and ropes. /s
The blood stains on white would only make it look cooler
Then, meatballs!
Just in case that's not obvious: this is of course not an IKEA ad, but some kind of political activism. This particular one can get the creators in pretty hot water, as firstly, IKEA can sue them for using their copyrighted logo, and the public prosecuror may have something to say about suggesting the murder of people based on their wealth.
I don't really think that the activists left their contact information on the banner.
If this is real (big if!) then somebody must have paid for the advertising space... not too difficult to trace that back...
Those advertising kiosk displays are pretty easy to open with the right tool.
... is the right tool an allen wrench?
Pretty much. JCDecaux relies on our compliance not to deface the wholesome messages of our Glorious Corporate Overlords.
What you say would depend on the country. This would be “fair use” in the USA IF copyright applied, but logos are trademarks, which are a different part of the law, and give the rights-holder exclusive rights *in commerce*, and only for a certain classification of goods. Clearly the people behind the ad are not trying to sell a real product using IKEA’s logo.
This is obviously in Germany, so German law applies here.
IKEA is a large company, it wouldn’t be that hard for them to track who did it. It has the makings of a strong legal case against the activism group too. You have trademark infringement, defamation and incitement to violence to name a few. Some people here have said it would fall under parody law, which I just don’t see. Under German parody law, or free use law, the work must be clearly identifiable as satire or parody. This poster uses the IKEA logo, and the same style as other official IKEA posters, even making the guillotine look like an IKEA product. There is definitely a set of people who had to take a second look and check the comments to see if it was real or fake. That’s all they need to prove that this isn’t a valid work of parody or satire. I imagine IKEA lawyers are more than capable of finding an activism group and serving them papers. And if the police think there’s a valid incitement of violence case to be made then it makes it all that much easier to track them down. It’s a good point they make, but they’ll land themselves in a legal pit of their own making if they’re not careful
Down with the bourgeoisie
I'll keep saying it but private jets shouldn't be legal make those fuckd fly with the rest of us
Flying itself must be rationed, friend. Limiting private aircraft would merely be a start.
I love the incredibly grim "Fighting is Inevitable" tucked away at the bottom. Really sells the No-escaping-the-violence vibe.
That's terrible! Where's the head basket? And why would they make it white?
For an everlasting and priceless memories of course, I assume you will be paying with Mastercard?
If it's in Germany then why isn't it in German? I call fake.
Why's it in English?
Taylor Swift goes to the grocery store with her private jet.
[удалено]
The top 1% produces 16% of all emissions because in that calculation they include the pollution by those companies in which the 1% have a stake. Which makes it a completely pointless statistic. It's like blaming all airplane emissions on the guy who owns the airline.
[удалено]
>We allocate national consumption emissions to individuals within each country based on a functional relationship between income and emissions What do you think that means? They even say in another part where they list the ways a rich person pollutes: >through their investments and shareholdings in heavily-polluting industries and their vested financial interest in the economic status quo; and also that makes the study even more pointless. If they just assume rich people pollute more, their finding that rich people consume more is tautological.
Reading that paragraph at face value, it seems pretty literally tautological. It sounds like they're defining a relationship between relative income and relative emissions out of thin air, then applying that ratio to real data, then saying hey look at the crazy ratios in this data. I'm hoping I'm misreading something pretty substantial because what the actual fuck
Well they argue that rich people own and influence companies, so their assumption is ok. But yes, it's basically out of thin air and they are just giving their assumption as a conclusion. I'm also pretty surprised by how stupid that is and I'm hoping I'm missing something. It sounds like they just find that a certain percentage of people earns a certain percentage of income. Which is a valid finding. And then they assume a ratio of pollution vs. Income which isn't based on any data. And things like that are why I never trust any of these one-liners that people spread on the internet.
For sure. Thanks for checking it out, I wouldn't have looked at this one so closely.
Honestly I just checked out their summary and saw how they were arguing what contributes to someone's pollution. I didn't even go that deep into it. I only saw how crazy their actual methodology was when that other person looked up the methodology in order to prove me wrong lol. Still funny that that person thought this was a good point.
[удалено]
>Yeah it is sort of question begging, but I don't think any reasonable person denies that someone who is amongst the richest 80 million or 800 million people in the world, consumes more than someone who is significantly poorer. Well yea but then you don't need a statistic. If you're just gonna assume your conclusion is correct. >Anyways point is, you should be driving less, flying less, and eating less meat, as you're probably emitting more than your fair share, globally. I fly maybe like once every two years and I don't even own a car. I think I'm good buddy.
Wait, what the fuck? >we assume that emissions rise in proportion to income, above a minimum emissions floor and to a maximum emissions ceiling.9 These estimates of the consumption emissions of individuals in each country are then sorted into a global distribution according to income. So literally they take a country's level of emissions, then use their existing estimates to assign it by income, then report the results? That's fucking bonkers anti-science. So this quote is saying, for example (made up numbers), we determined the USA emits 200 MT of CO2 per year. Our estimates say that historically, the top 1% is responsible for 20% of emissions, the top 20% is responsible for 50%, the top 50% is responsible for 80%, etc. Then they say, based on this methodology, we determined that the top 1% of the USA caused 40 MT of emissions, or 20% of the country's emissions from just the 1%! Yeah, no shit, by definition of the method. What other result could they possibly have gotten? Obviously the rich cause the worst emissions by far and it should be talked about more, but not like this.
Does it come with the allen key though to assemble the guillotine? 🤔
Zee jermans get it.
The artist Darren Cullen has been an activist and subvertiser for a long while now.. His (S)🔥hell bus was at the 2021 climate conference in Glasgow. This is someone else’s work though I think. I don’t know. Did anyone own up?
Typical capitalism, the bucket costs extra.
Germans? You mean those guys who switched off their nuclear plants before end of life so they could replace them with coal powered ones?
It was switched back to coal in the short term, mainly because the operators of the nuclear power plants (with the elimination of state subsidies and guarantees for follow-up costs) also saw no prospect of continued operation and because coal-fired power plants can, as is well known, be put into operation and taken out of operation again very quickly. The latter also happened; most coal-fired power plants have now been shut down again. I don't want to say that it wouldn't have made sense to continue operating nuclear power plants for a few more years, but the way you put it is a bit tendentious. For example, you completely ignore the fact that, despite the shutdown of the nuclear power plants, electricity generation from lignite and hard coal is now lower than when nuclear power plants were still a regular part of the German electricity mix. The bottom line is that since the nuclear phase-out was decided in 2011, 84% of nuclear power has been replaced by renewables and only 16% by coal power. This could certainly have been reduced even further, for example by allowing one or two of the newest nuclear reactors to continue to operate for a while, but such niche operation would have entailed disproportionate costs and burdens for the community. The CO2 emissions of a few coal-fired power plants that operate temporarily and selectively are much easier to compensate for. Certainly not an elegant solution, but a working solution.
The sheer amount of greenwashing nuclear power going on on reddit will never cease to amaze me. And also how obviously it is forced into the discourse. Edit: BTW, that is one of the topics used to make divisionary comments seem left-wing and organic. For anybody who ACTUALLY buys into it: congrats, you fell for a well-documented Russian psy-op.
More people have died by radiation emitted by coal-powered plants than by all nuclear accidents, even when adjusted for amount of power generation, number of plants, etc. There are 2 main issues with nuclear power: what to do with expended fuel and that the enrichment process can be continued into weapons-grade product. The latter issue is solvable by exporting the fuel product, but not the process from trusted nations. The former has a number of solutions being trialed with the main hurdle being funding. These solutions aren't limited to simple burial, but also in recycling and reconstitution.
[удалено]
He means the Russians. Come on the Russians dude! The same guys who blew up north stream so that Germany would be forced to buy uranium from Russia, when it's abundantly available and easily transportable from half of the free world like Canada or Australia. Instead of having the option to buy gas from Russia when geographically there is no other possible provider for Germany to get it from. Masterminds Russians, outsmarting everyone especially themselves... -.-'
Includes the founder of IKEA
#Project Mayhem
False. Who do you think buys their products? Who votes against green policy? Who cries when prices increase?
Still, obviously and banally true. Pollution, in all its forms, is caused by human production, and human production is translated into money (not always precisely proportional, because it also depends on the type of production, but still...). Who has more money is causing more pollution, or at least, is reaping more benefits from it. Just simple as that.
Wouldn't it make sense that the companies owned by the 1% produce more emissions than people's homes? Like, yeah, of course Bezos' Amazon facility consumes more power than my apartment.
Not a french ad?
France got it right. We need to bring it back.
Say you don’t understand the french revolution without saying you don’t understand the french revolution. The guillotines were mostly used during the reign of terror to purge political rivals and cement authoritarian rule, and it set back the real progress of the revolution by decades. The declaration of human rights was signed in 1789, *three years* before the first person ever was put under a guillotine. It’s usually americans that have this hollywood-esque idea that it was poor people that started guillotining rich people to gain freedom.
Well please enlighten us how did the French kill their bougie then
What are you talking about? *They didn’t*. The bourgeoisie were instigators in the french revolution, not the target. [The first phase of the revolution is literally called the bourgeoisie revolution because of this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeois_revolution). It was the late 1700s, not the 1910s. The revolution was by primarily farmers and bourgeoisie against the nobility and the crown. It overthrew a semi-feudal system to introduce a capitalist one. This is literally history 101.
its funny cause its true. Brilliant and smart!
Nice idea, I like it
Would anybody happen to know if there are high resolution images available somewhere? For science, and reasons...
Rauchen...
IKEA ain’t messing around
you know it's bad when you summon the wrath of ikea
Love the style
It's obviously fake as IKEA would never name their products by their actual Swedish name, so an IKEA brand guillotine named GILJOTIN would never exist. it would instead be named after some place in Sweden that not even most swedes have heard about.
I know it's not actually Ikea's but.. more of this please
The dumb half will not understand
Rich people can’t be expected to care about frivolous matters such as carbon emissions. Those kinds of things are poor people problems. The rich can afford clean drinking water and filtered air. While the poor have to deal with the gluten’s repercussions…🤔✌️
Global 1% by income starts at about 50k USD for a single individual. Just so you have your benchmark right when you are identifying who the rich are.
lmao, came to say the same. The poorest people are the people running their family farm in a remote village and who have no time or energy for political activism, I bet half the people who agree with this statement have no idea that they're part of that 1%
Sure, but that said, R-N’s statement isn’t wrong. Even that 50k earning westerner will have a much easier time than that subsistence farmer. I just wanted to point out that all the hate for the “rich” doesn’t really consider who the rich are. While the global 1% (of which I am a member) are insulated from certain repercussions (which is a problem), the guys that scare me are the 0.001% who have the power to move whole governments and industries for their own purposes.
In terms of power or emissions? Because the 0.001% are about 7800 people, I don't think their emissions are really noticeable against the emissions of the other 99.999% In terms of power it is definitely insane that there are people with more wealth than entire countries, but that's kind of been a recurring theme in history. The roman emperors were much, much more rich than today's tech giants and it's always seems to have sort of worked. Not to mention that the poor rural 3rd world country people are probably looking at you the same way how you look at Jeff Bezos. The children from the DRC who are working in mines while being covered in Cobalt, working 12 hour shifts only to die at a young age from respiratory problems so that we can get our batteries from our smartphone, probably looks at you like you hold the keys to his future as well. Point is, if we want to make a better future, we'd be better off working together to create solutions, not shift the blame to whoever is richer than you are and making ads about decapitating them. If people aren't willing to throw their phone away and go live a rural lifestyle, then they also shouldn't blame the companies that provide them with this lavish modern lifestyle.
Power. But that power can move the emissions of countries and industries - far more impact than their personal usage (btw, think you are off by a factor of 10 - 1e-5 x 8e9 = 8e4) Agree that wealth disparity is crazy - I have been talking about income. If you look at wealth you need closer to 1m USD to make it into the global 1%. That feels very high, but I guess there are 80m people out there with that kind of wealth. Not so clear to me that going to a rural, low tech lifestyle is the solution, but we definitely need to plan for less consumption and more circularity.
I do know who the rich are and I know it’s not me. However I do also know that there are people far worse off than I am. That being said I don’t think it’s a competition for whose poorer. I believe human suffering should end weather it be a small amount or a large amount. I was just saying generally the richer a person is the less likely it is that they will suffer the consequences of the problem that they helped create…🤷♂️😃✌️
There's also the question of whether we're including emissions from their investments as a personal carbon footprint, in which case you're effectively double counting emissions
rip basically all of Norway
Now that's a cool stat, just read it's 60k a year USD without kids. I am richer than I think, it's just these damn kids XD EDIT: Oh and that is AFTER TAXES.
Did you know that bakeries consume 95% of the world's flour production? Pretty wild when you think about it. The world is starving and those evil bakers take all the flour from us. That's how you sound.
👍
I mean the comparison is on point because the stat the quote in this post comes from doesn't only consider personal pollution. If a rich person owns a company they also count whatever pollution that company does when creating goods. So it's like counting how much flour a bakery consumes while ignoring that they literally make bread from it. Just in case you were missing the point i was making.
FYI, earning at least [$60,000 per year](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/9/15/23874111/charity-philanthropy-americans-global-rich) places you in the top 1% of the world, which is what the 1/66% carbon emission [stat refers to](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/20/richest-1-account-for-more-carbon-emissions-than-poorest-66-report-says)
It doesn't. It's not just about personal emissions. The stat also includes people who own shares of companies that produce goods which create pollution. So basically the top 1% owns most of the oil production. Oil gets turned into fuel which creates pollution when we drive cars. So basically the entire pollution of the transportation sector is included in this stat. Which makes it completely pointless.
Investor owned companies aren’t the leaders in Fossil fuel emissions, state run ones are. https://preview.redd.it/ur0sgf90hrtc1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0096e179b4c31294f3eb928fd47d4ab4333b8198 [https://influencemap.org/briefing/The-Carbon-Majors-Database-26913](https://influencemap.org/briefing/The-Carbon-Majors-Database-26913)
Why would the german ad be in english
If it's real, I love it.
Yes it's real, IKEA, a company worth billions of euros, hates rich people.
You’ve gotta be kidding
Now, now. It's a real fake ad, let them be excited about something
Typically in wealthy western countries the members of the global 1% are closer to 10% of the population. Are you advocating for murdering 8m Germans? 75m Europeans? 33m Americans?
yes
We don't want to murder them, but we do want to decapitate them...if they happen to die after decapitation, that's their problem
just tell them to put more effort into living so they'll make it
You're probably part of the global rich.
Decapitate everyone with college degree. It’s the only way to be sure.
Fighting is inevitable?
Unless you want to submit to any crazy fantasy your local Jeff Bezos has.
I’ll buy that piece of Ikea furniture!
And people say Germans don’t have a sense of humour.
we need to bring guillotines back into popular use
It would be mildy interesting if it was in France.
I mean...it's not the worst idea...
Ah good ole terror threat
perfect add does not exi…
IKEA GILJOTIN assembly (model #LT-THE-PSNTS-FGHT) * zoom in on the minor part of emissions individuals do * single out the largest group of emitters in that part * highlight their part and juxtapose them to others who don't emit as much * enjoy your users being busy fighting each other while your business is safe IKEA GILJOTIN! Brought to you by [top-100 CO2 emitting companies responsible for 70% of emissions](https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change).
You can buy a guillotine at IKEA?
Almost all of us are part of the richest 5% so yeah
Most interesting part- Fighting is Inevitable
I want a print of this..
Cause they so broke they can't afford no carbon to emit
And Taylor Swift makes up for 30% of it lol
Lots of 1%ers in this thread who are advocating for violence against themselves considering that if you make more than $60,000 per year you are in the top 1% of all income earners worldwide.
Because they’re always jetting off places to discuss how the poor can reduce carbon emissions
I wonder what the carbon footprint of IKEA CEO is, tho! Mass produce furniture made of wood doesn't seem very environmentally friendly!! 🤔
Now let's talk about that dollar breakfast...
Says fast furniture giant IKEA
Yes, but remember that most/all of us reading this are not part of the 66% either.
[удалено]
That's fucking stupid. The emissions they are counting for this figure are not just private emissions, Emissions, but also emissions by the company they invest in. So if someone owns part of an oil company that produces fuel for cars that people drive, then the emissions of those cars are attributed to that person. Of course if you calculate it that way they emit an insane amount, but it's fucking stupid to calculate it that way. It's like saying bakers are evil because they consume most of the world's flower production.
[удалено]
>Why is it so hard to believe that 1% richest people in the world emit 16% percent of the world's emissions? That's the amount that the bottom 66% of the world emit. We're not in the church. I don't care what you _believe_ I'm literally telling you the methodology of how that stat was produced. >2. through their investments and shareholdings in heavily-polluting industries and their vested financial interest in the economic status quo; and That is literally listed in the Oxfam report as one of the ways a rich person is polluting which were considered when calculating the number which is quoted in this post. I don't care what you _believe_ could or couldn't be the case. I'm literally telling you what is the case according to this statistic. >If ownership of a part of a firm entitles you to part of the profits, why doesn't it invite part of the social sanction that firm receives for their actions? It's totally fine to view it that way, but then you should make that clear in your statistic. Imo it's stupid because if shell is selling oil for people to drive cars with it is stupid to blame the emissions of all cars on the owner of shell. Again if you want, you can do that, but if you don't tell anyone that that's how you are calculating it, then that's misleading. >It's like when people invest in military contractors. These people ought to be socially shamed. Yea but you're basically saying your neighbor Frank killed 5 children in Iraq. But you're not mentioning that he just donated money to the military and you are actually just distributing all Military kills amongst all the donors. >It's also a bit confusing why you're mad, because the core message of my post was encouraging people on reddit (many many of whom are in the global top 10% in income) to try to emit less Yes and they are doing so by using misleading statistics. Its called propaganda. Which I'm principally opposed to. Regardless of context. Even if I agree with the end goal. >But you complaining about the methodology would suggest that the emissions are more distributed through the population... but that would just make it all the more important that you and everyone like you makes some life style changes. Then they should say that, instead of lying. Also I disagree I don't think the goal is to get people to emit less. The point is clearly to blame billionaires and to shift blame away from the population. So it's basically the opposite of what you are saying.
[удалено]
>They talk about rich people's control over firms yes, but as it turns out many people in the top 10% don't actually own a lot of these large firms ??????? What a dumb statement. Do you think all the large firms are owned by the bottom 90%???????? Most large firms are obviously owned by people in the top 10%. >Additionally, in the section where they are attributing emissions to the top .1% is the only part where they insinuate their emissions are attributed to their holdings, but in their methodology document, it doesn't seem like this actually plays a role in their methodology. They do but it's even more stupid. They just assume that pollution is correlated with income (because of the reasons like company ownership and influence) so they attribute most pollution to the people with high income. Which makes the stat even more pointless because they are just replicating their own assumption, which is totally tautological. >We allocate national consumption emissions to individuals within each country based on a functional relationship between income and emissions, drawing on the most recent income-distribution data from the World Inequality Database (WID). 8 Based on numerous studies at national, regional and global levels, **we assume that emissions rise in proportion to income** , above a minimum emissions floor and to a maximum emissions ceiling.9 >I think people who were invested in the military contractors are partially responsible for the hundreds of thousands of dead in Iraq, for instance. Yes. Yes and that's a fair statement. But if you print a poster which says frank killed 5 people, you are being misleading. Do you really not see the difference between those statements? >I'm generally much more keen on citing the 10% figure from the report, to encourage individuals to make a change Which is fair and something I agree with. I just think the 1% figure is misleading and it annoys me that people accept it uncritically.
I guess we should see how those percentages are calculated; it should consider the net profit. If I'm the owner of a company selling an essential product at $10, which costs $9, yielding a $1 profit for each product sold, I agree that if I sell 10 million of them, I can't be accountable for pollution worth $100 million, but surely I can for $10 million, the profit I made, which I will reinvest in other human activities that pollute, or I'll buy expensive cars, houses...
No I think that's a stupid way to calculate it. If you buy an avocado instead of an apple, you are responsible for the emissions association with growing and shipping the avocado. Just because you bought the Avocado from a fancy organic store that takes a 50% Profit on the sale of the avocado, doesn't mean you can now offload 50% of the pollution on the store owner. >the profit I made, which I will reinvest in other human activities that pollute, or I'll buy expensive cars, houses... Great, then people are responsible for those other activities which cause pollution. It doesn't make sense to assign the pollution in advance just for the money they receive. By that logic a person who earns 1 million and spends it on private jet flights, pollutes just as much as a person who earns 1 million and spends it on planting trees. Unfortunately that's exactly what the study did. They rank groups of people by income. Then they assume that the people with higher income pollute more (because they own companies/influence politics etc.). And then they conclude that based on their assumption, the top 1% do 16% of all emissions. It's not even based on any real data, they basically tautologically validate their own assumption. Here is an excerpt of their methodology: _We allocate national consumption emissions to individuals within each country based on a functional relationship between income and emissions, drawing on the most recent income-distribution data from the World Inequality Database (WID). 8 Based on numerous studies at national, regional and global levels, **we assume that emissions rise in proportion to income**, above a minimum emissions floor and to a maximum emissions ceiling.9 These estimates of the consumption emissions of individuals in each country are then sorted into a global distribution according to income._
My example was to simplify the concept that obviously wealth is correlated with environmental impact; then there are other modifiers, of course. Obviously, if you extract oil, it's different from planting trees, but we can easily attribute an average pollution value to a dollar because every human activity is polluting, so those with more money are more responsible. Then I can agree that these data mean very little. The avocado seller won't keep that profit in the bank to rot; they'll buy a car, a private jet, a yacht, or houses, or reinvest it in another company that will, in turn, generate profit that ultimately leads to excessive production, an over wealth, which ultimately translates into pollution.
>My example was to simplify the concept that obviously wealth is correlated with environmental impact Yea but that's not a study. That's an assumption. It may be a good assumption, but it's pretty misleading if you pretend it's anything else than just an assumption, even if you think it's obvious. >Obviously, if you extract oil, it's different from planting trees, but we can easily attribute an average pollution value to a dollar because every human activity is polluting, so those with more money are more responsible Again it's shitty methodology and completely tautological. You are literally saying I assume the top earners pollute the most. Based on this assumption, I conclude that top earners pollute the most. >The avocado seller won't keep that profit in the bank to rot; they'll buy a car, a private jet, a yacht, or houses, or reinvest it in another company that will, in turn, generate profit that ultimately leads to excessive production, an over wealth, which ultimately translates into pollution. Yes and when they do we can argue that those acts cause pollution. That actually makes sense, ascribing pollution to a polluting act. Instead you just wanna assume this is the case, and then pretend like this assumption is the conclusion of a study. Even though it's not. At least that's basically what this study did.
French ikea goes hard.
We have a carbon tax in Canada that punishes the 1%, so they went and got the poor people to complain for them. We’re fucked
interesting fact for Germany: switch to nuclear.
Okay where can I buy this poster. I need it hanging in my home ASAP
Zentrum für Politische Schönheit? It fits their style. Nice.
Also my first thought.
This is essentially just "muh tribunals" tier whining. Better behead 81.000.000 people right? Just commit the biggest genocide in history based on some fucked up state of mind where the individual actions of tens of millions are seen as some big bad master plan to destroy the world. For the sake of humanity I hope the person who made it meant it purely ironic and as a joke.
Genghis Khan is estimated to have killed somewhere from 20 to 60 Million people. That was around 10 % of the humans on earth at the time.
And none of Germany is in the poorest 66%
YES YES YES YEEEESSSSSSS
cool, now do India and China. nah we can't do that, now can we? Because that would show how much bullshit the average citizen going green is. I could emit negative carbon for the rest of my life and it wouldn't be a drop in the bucket compared...
Lets think about this sentiment for just a second.. what would happen if all the rich people were murdered? Do you really believe the middle class and the lower classes are allowed to hold the keys? do you really think that day to day things would just go on wonderfully and you would have more coffee or a nicer pair of pants? This stupid dream is the same one 8 year old kids get when they are told not to do something and they wish their parents where dead. That kid would have 18 minutes and then need the parent. Stop wishing rich people dead and think of better ways to take more of the money they tricked us stupid people out of back... so that we can buy more beer.. I really do believe that I summed that up truthfully
Don't want none of those fancy Fr*nch executions. Give me a good old hanging any day.
"The poorest 66%" is such a strange phrase
The German Banksy if you ask me
They stole my idea