this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2026
287 points (96.1% liked)

Political Memes

11280 readers
1455 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

1) Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

2) No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

3) Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

4) No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

5) No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
all 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Binturong@lemmy.ca 30 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The fact that you used the Drake meme to convey this... wildly ironic. But also, yes, maybe this was some kind of secret fedposty gotcha, but unironically: unrepentant ritual child rapists deserve the death penalty.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 13 points 3 weeks ago

The fact that you used the Drake meme to convey this

Ya i defs forgot about the drake groomer thing. I don't pay that much to pop music so you'll have to forgive.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 16 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

How about stop using pedos for memes?

Like, fuck Drake too

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 weeks ago

Actually good point about drake. I don't listen to pop music so I forget he's a groomer.

[–] IAmYouButYouDontKnowYet@reddthat.com 15 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I think the first option is the second option but with more inclusion.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 weeks ago

lol pretty much. Albeit the latter is a Judicial Resolution while the former is a popular revolution.

[–] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

No, its still eat the rich. If we dont they will pupate into another epstein class. This level of wealth degenerates and harms all.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)
[–] Sanctus@anarchist.nexus 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I know but the meme template usually implies a negative to the top portion, so

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes because eating the rich is vague and more of a slogan than a plan.

[–] ThunderQueen@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Wait, are we not going to actually eat the rich?? Dang it

We are at least actually using them for compost, right????

[–] athatet@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 weeks ago

I mean, I’m definitely getting at least one bite.

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 8 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

No no, eat the rich. It's a much wider net that includes the Epstein Class without missing the other bastards. And if we eat a few hypothetically good ones along the way, the good we can do by redistributing their wealth is an end that absolutely justifies the means. Class warfare is still a war, there's gonna be some collateral damage.

[–] Tetragrade@leminal.space 1 points 3 weeks ago

Action precedes motivation.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca -2 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

They're not mutually exclusive eh?

And lets be real.. Eat the Rich isn't an actionable thing. Like metaphorically yes. But realistically how do you make it happen?

I'm calling for these people to be tried in front of a court and judicially put to death. This would set a legal precedent for 'Eating the Rich.'

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

While "eat the rich" is a metaphor, I'm not above a literal interpretation. 250°F for about 12-18 hours depending on how big a bastard we're talking about.

[–] athatet@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 weeks ago

No I literally want to take a bite out of a rich person.

[–] fantasyocean@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

There will never be a legal precedent for eliminating class "eating the rich" as long as the wealthy control the judicial system. The wealthy overwhelmingly use their wealth to influence politics and law, this can be shown simply by looking at the Oval Office.

And no, the answer isn't just vote harder. That will require education which is controlled by, and you may have a hard time believing this, the wealthy. That doesn't mean that there aren't solutions, there are actually probably many solutions. Community action and organization is definitely one piece of the puzzle. Finding ways to educate people outside of the traditional systems (without abandoning empiricism) might be another. But pretending the state that is actively harming you and protecting the "Epstein class" isn't one of them.

[–] GreenBeanMachine@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

to be tried in front of a court

Less chance of happening than simply eating all the rich.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca -1 points 3 weeks ago

That is ridiculous.

[–] pir8t0x@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago

Both is good.

[–] howsetheraven@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

Just have both be the bottom drake.