He's been fucking with the gop this whole cycle, he's not bending his knee
I get your point, but how does someone make up for past actions in your moral system? Sure you can't kill someone but you also can't unsay something mean. I guess you may see it as a scale, and smaller offenses can be wiped clean, but I still wonder what you think is supposed to happen once someone crosses that line but also sees their evil and regrets it. Obviously this is not relevant to the revolutionary efforts, someone is either useful or not.
Ali express type thing.
accelerationist garbage. People from privileged background are just less willing to fiht it period, as long as it benefits them, and they're still doing better. Now they'll fight harder for scraps.
And it's also the black girl that went to college, and the asian guy and Native American. Most people that go to college are white because most people in the country are white, it has not been a symbol of class or whiteness in particular for a while now.
getting a degree is not an indication of yuppiehood, do you still live in the fucking 70s? People working hard and getting no return is not a good thing, and these people are workers that you're cheering for the downfall of.
I don't really see why, this has never been hidden even remotely. Republican chuds can't even try and hide their hatred for trans people. they don't even try. They've been banging this exact drum for decades now. I think it's disheartening when so-called "progressives" say things like this, because they've at least held the line on gay rights and receptive to pro-queer moves.
Game theory: how many lives did I SAVE by nuking a population center with little military capability?
Honestly? Marginally better. Oil and gas aren't being wasted on them and more people can enjoy them.
Read the article, talking in the abstract. For the specifics, they can't prove they forgot/stole the brain yet, and saying it with qualifiers sounds weak as hell.
Precision and efficiency seem not to be your strong suit. You could have just responded to my comment, much faster than copy paste the whole thing. Your argument is not strengthened by putting the whole thing.
You're just wrong. Although the obvious assumption is that someone did it, and you're almost certainly correct in that assumption, until you can point out who or why you don't know that for sure. The best way to communicate the case efficiently is to put up the facts. Then you ask the questions who and why in the article. People complain about passive voice too much here. Cops get the same treatment as others by passive voice because "13 dead, 6 injured in school shooting" is just as common as "man killed by cop." The phrasing on cops usually separated then more or makes the victim seem less sympathetic, which is the issue, but the passive voice alone is not the problem. In this case, they are not removing a single bit of blame, just presenting what is known as clearly and precisely as possible.
Least awful: there were dangerous conditions they wanted to keep hidden. Could be lead, drugs, concussion, something the prison they wanted to not get out.
Most likely: medical research on brains
Most evil: someone ate it.
Could be any of the above, or more.
No it fucking isn't. So far they have the body. "Some guy finds prisoner's corpse" communicates rhe same information with the focus on the finder, not the corpse. This is actually a great time to use passive voice because what was found mattered more. Yes I agree it was most likely the prison that stole his organs, but we don't know that yet and "prison may have stolen organs" is an awful headline.
He didn't lie, trick anyone, or steal anything. I can see why you'd dislike it, but people voluntarily giving up their own labor is not something I get worked up over, especially when we don't know if he even used it.
The idea is there's either some project they're working on, or some other problem that's currently out of public eyes they're avoiding.
He's really not. It's clear he's out of the cockpit, and he has no involvement at this point. He made a company and developed a solid formula for video making, carved a nice niche. Why close down the business when he could just leave? Anything that happens at this point doesn't reflect on him, unlike AVGN who was still reading the scripts and claiming the content.
I feel like they'd have a better grasp of the situation than you would, because they're inside and privy to more information and experience of how it works. I can also imagine some people see the same thing they do and are using the strategy you've suggested, but we can't see that. Tom Scott and matpat both try to avoid problems and real controversy, so if they felt something coming they would naturally dip before getting close to it.
Rich people should build more fountains though. That's a statement that doesn't even contradict the idea that rich people shouldn't exist. They do, and they should be building fountains until we eliminate them. I would also say it's not even liberal especially, but definitely not neo liberal. Throughout human history, where there are wealthy people they are financing public works and art to show off their wealth. They make gardens and parks and statues and temples to raise their prestige, as well as support something they like. Part of the reason most American cities look like shit is because all space was either administered by the government with the lowest possible budget and any spending that wasn't functionally essential(and quite a lot that was) got treated as a sin, or it was used by businesses. Vanity projects should be theater companies and artworks, not space flights and warehouses full of cars.
Are you talking about the AI content or something else? Because using it to come up with ideas is honestly not a problem in my opinion. If someone suggests something in conversation it's not stealing to do it, especially if it's vague like the AI prompts usually are
