Hmm - a self evident non sequitur that fails to address a real point about the actual world and the assumptions made by people about both violence and cannabalism.
That's a poor comment from yourself- I'd hoped for better.
If you'd like a higher quality response, sophistry and performative disappointment isn't the way to get it. I'm not going to give a serious detailed response to an unserious comment, I'm going to find a better use for my time.
If you need further clarification about why I don't take it seriously when I talk about a meme about a violent uprising and you pivot the conversation to ritual cannibalism, I encourage you to consult your preferred dictionary regarding "sophistry".
If you want to convince me that you're earnestly trying to have a real conversation, being insulting isn't going to help.
I didn't pivot at all, if you scroll back you'll see for a fact that it was yourself that introduced the topic of eating the rich.
You advocated for raising that as a thread topic.
I'm familar with several dictionares, nothing I have said has been false.
Be explicit - what exactly do you consider to be sophistry here?
We can talk about prion disease and its relation to eating brain matter (the Fore and mad cow disease), the history of funerary practices, the European fad for eating ground up mummies, the UK practice of eating parts of executed criminals, etc.
All of these relate to the topic that you suggested .. and the topic you apparently wish to tap out on when faced with someone happy to take it on.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not interested in taking the bait today. Good luck finding the kind of discussion you're looking for. Have a pleasant day.
On the off chance this is a genuine misunderstanding (which, given you indicated that you understood I was referencing slogans, that cannibalism is a nonsequiter to a discussion of HN's political bias, that my initial response to you contained further clarification I was referencing a political slogan, and that you then peppered me with insults and attempted to bait me into an argument, I don't believe to be the case, but I've been wrong before), here is the misunderstanding:
> "Eat the rich" is a political slogan associated with anti-capitalism and left-wing politics. It may variously be used as a metaphor for class conflict, a demand for wealth redistribution, or a literal call to violence. The phrase is commonly attributed to political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, from a quote first popularized during the French Revolution: "When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich".
Remember, you're the one who introduced the brilliant idea of eating the rich into this conversation, and you're the one who replied even after you said you wouldn't, so you not only took the bait, you baited the hook with deliciously irresistible rich human flesh! Now that's some fine anthropophagic trolling!
> You do realize that sometimes rich right wingers advocate cannibalism too -- just not eating the rich
This book looks like satire. I have never met or heard of anyone who discusses "political cannibalism" literally. I think it's vanishingly rare.
> You're the one who introduced the brilliant idea of eating the rich into this conversation
I will not relitigate this. See above.
> You're the one who replied even after you said you wouldn't
Tend to your own knitting.
I'm a little confused why you took the time to respond to an old thread during the course of what looks like digging up receipts on a troll (which I have no complaint with, I agree with what you said about them). This is ancient history in my book.
Is there something specific you'd like me to take away from this? Did you just not like the cut off my jib? I honestly can't tell, I'm getting a chaotic neutral vibe.
ETA: I see, you feel that I am a troll, and you want to call me out for trolling. Well, noted. I disagree but it's not my proudest set of comments, I can't fault you for thinking ill of me because of them.
That's a poor comment from yourself- I'd hoped for better.