why not both?

  • xantoxis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    14 days ago

    Err, you actually can’t kill 1.3 billion average americans. There aren’t 1.3 billion Americans.

  • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    Going to need to pump up those 2500 numbers. You take out the first wave they will be quickly replaced with descendents and opportunists. Maybe after the second wave the guillotines can be retired.

  • taiyang@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    14 days ago

    You know, if there was a practical way to round up all billionares and remove them, I think I’d be for that. Not sure how one goes about it at this rate, though.

  • ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    14 days ago

    Billionaire hands down. No need to think about it. No moral dilemma here.

    The only stress would be making sure th trolley actually runs the billionaire over.

    For added bonus, I will even dress up like the traditional villain with the cape, top hat, and th twirly mustache.

    • ooli@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 days ago

      but think about all the smart innovation from those brilliant billionaire brain you’ll be missing out on! And with 1.3 billion American less, that would be a lot less of trump supporters

      • ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        13 days ago

        The one benefit of the Black Plague was that decimation of workers shifted power into the hands of workers as there was fewer of them. While eliminating 1.3 billion people would massively change the power dynamics. However, 1.3 billion gone would cause major society upheaval.

        Removing one billionaire allows society to continue with minimal disruption.