100% death tax on all assets over $1m excluding a single house. That my final offer.

There’s no justification for a birth lottery that awards democracy-warping levels of wealth to whoever had the evilest parents.

That’s just completely not true though.

The only way this gig is ethically justifiable is if the support act is a guillotine.

Across time, space and cultures, to be ruled is to be ruled by villains.

That much power fucks with your head, even if a well adjusted person manages to make it to that position, they won’t stay well adjusted for long.

Neuroscience supports this. Giving someone power causes changes in your brain that makes your brain less capable of empathy, closer to the brain of someone born with psychopathy.

https://www.npr.org/2013/08/10/210686255/a-sense-of-power-can-do-a-number-on-your-brain

https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/how-power-erodes-empathy-and-steps-we-can-take-rebuild-it

https://hbr.org/2015/04/becoming-powerful-makes-you-less-empathetic

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/social-empathy/201909/power-blocks-empathy

https://www.livescience.com/1128-mere-thought-money-people-selfish.html

https://blog.ted.com/6-studies-of-money-and-the-mind/

I agree that dems have cause for concern broadly, but I’m not sure that a 10% drop during an uncontested incumbent primary translates to a “10% drop in reliable D’s electoral engagement”.

Thierry’s district … is not a swing district. … Previously, Thierry had beaten a Libertarian candidate 87%-13%, with no Republican running in the race.

In case anyone thought this might have been a tactical ploy by a dem in a heavily republican area, it was not. Just a crazy person shooting themself in the foot with their own cruel thoughts.

Nuns in her order were forbidden from forming friendships with each other, and were transfered and punished if they showed warmth or spent time with each other.

This was for the obvious reason - having friends is the first step on the slippery slope to being gay.

Isolation and alienation are hallmarks of a controlling cult.

Turns out when your main business is crime and you commit dozens of obvious crimes in public and you leave plenty of evidence of your crimes and you piss off the people you asked to cover up your crimes, you may eventually have a hard time proving you didn’t commit crimes.

He’s not clever though.

He’s brazenly stupid. He never thinks things through and is incredibly easy to read and manipulate. He has almost no self control.

He’s dangerous, but not because of anything that could be confused for cleverness.

35000+ tragic mistakes and counting.

It looks like it’s supposed to be more greek, since the romans weren’t known for fighting naked, whereas we think ‘greek’ and we think shirtless. Also romans weren’t involved in egypt in any serious way till much later. Whereas the ‘sea peoples’ seem to come from roughly the sphere of mycenean influence, even if they don’t all seem ‘greek’.

Not in the late bronze age.

The Mycenian Greeks probably wrestled control of Crete from the Minoans ~300 before the late bronze age collapse of greek and hittite power structures.

Cultural elements and settlements of these “Eteocretans” remained, but I don’t think the Minoans were in any place to halt anything at that point. During the period we call collapse they seem to have been doing a lot of fleeing into the mountains.

I don’t think he upset dick cheney.

how easy it is to procure

For sure. I grew up in australia. If I could snap my fingers and ban all guns I would in a heartbeat. But I live here and I know that’s not possible.

The most feasible way to reduce the ease of getting guns is to hit the pocketbook of those who profit from how easy guns are to get. Our country is too corrupt for legislation to work. We have to sue companies and hope we like the changes they suggest.

Holding companies responsible for how their products are used is the closest thing we have to fixing the issue.

Being able to sue both the makers and marketers of guns designed for massacres creates pressure for a solution to be found because now someone who matters is losing money.

Focusing on AR-15 is ridiculous. They’ll use what ever the best thing is they have access to.

No, because an AR-15 was used in this specific case, and these specific companies were involved in making and aggressively marketing this specific gun to the specific person who used it to kill these people.

This isn’t a “Marilyn Manson/video games/anything-but-guns is the real reason” type argument.

These specific companies’ obviously dangerous practice of marketing guns to teenaged boys contributed to the events at Uvalde, or so the suit alleges.

It’s an argument worth hearing the details of before judging.

Gun manufacturers specifically market guns and lobby for laws that make it easier for children to access guns.
Activision does not.
Meta does not.

Activision and Meta are vital parts of how gun makers market guns to children, this suit alleges.

If they are (which is definitely within the capabilities and inclinations of both those companies), then they should be held liable for their role in contributing to the epidemic of children killing people with guns.

Bauxite is the obvious one. Bringing bauxite to Australia. How could you forget about bauxite?