I don’t think you have to look very far to see discussions of guillotines and the like - I’m not sure that the discourse is as restrained as you think.
Yes, you can find people straight up advocating “we should sharpen the guillotine”, but even then it isn’t “the rich don’t deserve to live” but more of a directly implied threat of dying just like what happened in the French Revolution, and that was quite literally class warfare.
So even saying “let’s sharpen the guillotines” (which I’m all for), it is a restricted form of threat. It’s not about the lack of implied threat, that’s my point. I think we all know that eating a person unalives them.
The point I’m making is that while the implied threat is death, the way the threats are made really do show how much more moral the working class is compared to the capitalist scum who genuinely don’t mind saying inhuman things and straight up advocating for inhumane working conditions and whatnot.
It’s not about “restrained discourse”. It’s the way the death threats are made. “Eat” reminds people that the reason to attack the rich is literally hunger, not anger. “Guillotine” reminds us of how effective the brutal revolution of France was for them.
Both situations that the rich ruling class can willfully avoid if they choose to share.
They just never fucking do.
So while there is a direct threat of death, saying “eat the rich” / “sharpen the guillotine” is still a humane response which gives the people under threat a chance to resolve the situation peacefully. It’s not like some genocidal rightwing rhetoric of “the only good [enterraciststereotype] is a dead [enterraciststereotype]”.
You see the difference there? (Not asking sarcastically, I’m trying to communicate something that I haven’t written much on so it’s still prolly coming out a bit incoherent at time.)
I don’t think you have to look very far to see discussions of guillotines and the like - I’m not sure that the discourse is as restrained as you think.
Yeah you’re still doing it. Euphemism, that is.
Yes, you can find people straight up advocating “we should sharpen the guillotine”, but even then it isn’t “the rich don’t deserve to live” but more of a directly implied threat of dying just like what happened in the French Revolution, and that was quite literally class warfare.
So even saying “let’s sharpen the guillotines” (which I’m all for), it is a restricted form of threat. It’s not about the lack of implied threat, that’s my point. I think we all know that eating a person unalives them.
The point I’m making is that while the implied threat is death, the way the threats are made really do show how much more moral the working class is compared to the capitalist scum who genuinely don’t mind saying inhuman things and straight up advocating for inhumane working conditions and whatnot.
It’s not about “restrained discourse”. It’s the way the death threats are made. “Eat” reminds people that the reason to attack the rich is literally hunger, not anger. “Guillotine” reminds us of how effective the brutal revolution of France was for them.
Both situations that the rich ruling class can willfully avoid if they choose to share.
They just never fucking do.
So while there is a direct threat of death, saying “eat the rich” / “sharpen the guillotine” is still a humane response which gives the people under threat a chance to resolve the situation peacefully. It’s not like some genocidal rightwing rhetoric of “the only good [enterraciststereotype] is a dead [enterraciststereotype]”.
You see the difference there? (Not asking sarcastically, I’m trying to communicate something that I haven’t written much on so it’s still prolly coming out a bit incoherent at time.)