@freemo ,
Indeed it was fictitious, as it was neither my words nor implied by them, but rather I explicitly contradicted that fictitious reason in my first comment on this thread.
I wonder whether you're mixing me up with other people (that is to say, blaming me as an individual for arguments of other people you consider similar).
@freemo
> Except you arent blaming a rich person for their own actions beyond the act of simply being rich
Please do not put fictitious reasons into my mouth after I have explicitly given different reasons. 🙂 I understand it's easy to do unconsciously because the fictitious reasons are more emotional.
I don't think it's "out of touch" to blame someone for their bad actions, even if they've also done good actions.
@freemo , I'd reject the analogy of course, since blaming one black person for the actions of others of the same race is morally invalid, but blaming one rich person for their *own* actions is entirely appropriate.
The individual billionaire could have done much good with their wealth; they did not. They could have supported a more just economic system that gave them less unearned wealth and better protected the rights of the weak & poor; they did not (indeed they did the opposite). These choices deserve moral blame, especially since they are now individually in the public eye.
@freemo I'd say those who have expressed satisfaction at the death are expressing anger rather than hatred. The anger is not at others merely possessing money, but at the system that gave it to them and which they heavily supported, and at the good they failed to do with the money.
@henryfarrell
Whenever I waste time on Twitter and see the trolling blue check responses there, it does create doubts in me about the competence as voters of some folk at least, heh. That's mere anecdote of course, but the book 'Myth of the Rational Voter' does seem to me like it addresses that kind of concern and brings a lot of compelling statistics to bear, even if its conclusions are highly overstated.
(e.g. it seems to me that democracy in practice only needs a few people to be paying attention to each big issue as long they talk to each other and know who they trust. But that kind of collective social process is often invisible to right-libertarians.)
At home we've slowly been watching Mrs Davis, a new comedy about a nun trying to kill a powerful AI. 😁 There have been many surprises within the show, but one of the chief surprises of the show to me is how deferential it is to Christianity.
I would have expected a popular show so close to the "bad nun" trope to lean into the dark side of religion & spirituality, and especially the dark side of the church. But Mrs. Davis does not. The protagonist Simone is an unconventional nun but her faith is straightforward and realistic.
The future could be unbelievably full of life. 🙂
> Our familiar, warm, yellow sun is a relative rarity in the Milky Way. By far the most common stars are considerably smaller and cooler, sporting just half the mass of our sun at most. Billions of planets orbit these common dwarf stars in our galaxy.
>
> To capture enough warmth to be habitable, these planets would need to huddle very close to their small stars, which leaves them susceptible to extreme tidal forces.
>
> In a new analysis based on the latest telescope data, University of Florida astronomers have discovered that two-thirds of the planets around these ubiquitous small stars could be roasted by these tidal extremes, sterilizing them. But that leaves one-third of the planets -- hundreds of millions across the galaxy -- that could be in a goldilocks orbit close enough, and gentle enough, to hold onto liquid water and possibly harbor life.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/05/230529171755.htm
@pixx@merveilles.town Any sufficiently predictable magic is indistinguishable from science.
@TruthSandwich
I literally did nothing but ask you for examples, and you ignored the question.
@TruthSandwich
OK. Since there's apparently (based on this conversation at least) no content backing it up, I'm going to assume the "it was designed to resist Republican attacks" line of argument is just empty slogans.
@TruthSandwich
hm? That's not an answer to the question (unless you mean to imply that ACA defended itself without human intervention due to the metaphysical property of not being a different law 😁)
@TruthSandwich
Well now we're repeating ourselves. In what sense did the design of the law resist repeal, separate from being defended by people?
a quiet nerd with a head full of ideals