Time is priceless. If it were me, I'd rather have my taxes go up than have 5 years of my retirement taken away from me. And I'd definitely rather see the taxes of people who are clutching their pearls over affording a 4th house go up.

If the rich can evade taxes so easily, that's the problem the government should be trying to solve. How is it fair to just throw up your hands and say "sorry everyone but we've tried nothing to tax corporations and we're all out of ideas, so you'll be retiring 5 years later than you thought."

But we all know why they're putting the burden on the middle and lower classes, and they know too. Which is why they're rightfully protesting.

Don't think of it as mad, think of it as passive-aggressive ego padding lol

On reddit, you're not allowed to ask questions if too many people think the answer is obvious.

Score is meaningless anyway.

Realistically, it won't.

a) reactor meltdowns don't cause nuclear explosions like a bomb does. They just get radiation all over the place. Chernobyl was a pressure explosion, and it was an exceptionally badly built and operated reactor.

b) the amount of radiation that the sun puts out that hits the earth is orders of magnitude greater than anything man-made could ever create.

The thumbnail of the ship made me instantly remember.

Oh shit was really tired whoops

Narcissists give people things to reassure themselves and those people that they aren't narcissists, because "narcissists are bad and I'm not bad, I'm the greatest person who ever lived"

Rest assured they won't give away any more than they feel they have to.

What you're describing is already unacceptable. It's needlessly petty at best.

Besides, it's also different. This case is more like Pepsi refusing to sell to someone who once worked for an advertising firm that made a commercial for Coke. The person affected is not a Pepsi employee, nor have they done anything except their job. And that's still disregarding how weird/disturbing it is that MSG apparently has access to the facial recognition data to bar anyone working at specific companies and is allowed to use it at will.

That's all kinds of not how any of this works

That's kind of my point. I also saw posts about how using "defund" was 100% necessary to get the point across, which doesn't really make sense. Which is why I think there was an effort, on some level, to insist on the word "defund" in order to undermine what should have been unifying energy.

I don't think most people would say that author speaks for them, even most people who were saying to defund the police in 2020. Yes we'd all love to live in a post crime society where there are no criminals to arrest but the realistic path to that is definitely not to start by eliminating all police.

I remember at the time seeing posts about how "defund the police" actually meant "reduce the militarization of the police and redirect excess funds to social services to decrease crime at the source", radicals like that author were never the driving force, they just took the momentum and tried to run with it and they got their opinions disproportionately boosted because the headline "Abolish all law enforcement" gets clicks.

Elaborate on this cabal of anarchists that you purport exists.

I will go to the grave saying that the use of the specific language "defund" rather than anything else like "reform" or "replace" was at least partially an astroturfing op. It was so ridiculously easy to paint "defund the police" as unreasonable because for some reason the movement used step one of a multi step plan as their rallying cry.

If your local community decided they wanted to remodel the library, the campaign phrase wouldn't be "shut down the library".

If you're tired of crime boys putting the mayor in a clock call me, John Batman, I don't have a phone so put a light in a cloud.