I really think that “killed” is the wrong term. It is far too neutral. The correct word here would be “murdered”.

Who’s dying on what hill now?

That would be wonderful. The current way that the world has been “working” for a good while now makes me think it unlikely, unfortunately. The vast majority of technological innovation in the last half-century has been used to extract wealth and replace options available to the non-ultra-wealthy with inferior substitutes that are cheaper to make, often for the same effective cost.

I would say that I think it’s weird because I think shaved pubes are weird (and experienced horrific razor burn when I tried it back in college).

Sounds like you are a fucking rockstar dad though. That’s a very vulnerable thing to think about asking your parent for a teenage boy. Lots of self-consciousness and trying to figure oneself out. That he felt comfortable asking you says a lot. That you stepped up to ensure that he knew how to do so safely says a lot too.

When you realize that most extremely to ultra wealthy people are idiots propped up by their underlings, it makes more sense.

So… Judging by recent trends in AI, this will be used to devalue the labor of surgeons and be provided as the only option available to people who are not rich. People will die from what would get a human charged with neglegent homicide but, it will be covered up and, when it comes to light just how dangerous it is, nothing will happen because all of the regulatory agencies have been dismantled.

Cat in the Hat. Kid’s got a while life ahead of them to get depressed about the vile things humans have done (and still do) to each other. Let the kid have a few months of happiness.

Cat in the Hat. Kid’s got a while life ahead of them to get depressed about the vile things humans have done (and still do) to each other. Let the kid have a few months of happiness.

(Even though it is the law)

Autistic things are sometimes truly depressing.

Absolutely. And figuring out how to interact with people, especially if they are people that you may find attractive for now intimate companionship (not trying to assume) is something that isn’t generally explicitly taught. It probably should be though as doing so would significantly reduce interpersonal strife.

If wanting or receptive to some advice from someone with AuADHD, I can share something that helps my brain in some in-person social situations. Sometimes, I reframe it as a “scene” where I am playing the character of Me. Not an exaggeration or non-authentic version of myself, more like “method acting”. This tricks my brain into being more present and not worrying about possible futures or cringey things of the past.

People of this kind I’ve heard of seem very energetic. They may not always do the smartest thing, but they do it all the way in. Maybe that’s what’s wise.

For their benefit and the role that they in company structures, it is one approach that pays out for some. And it is one that’s heavily promoted. However, it does effectively amount to gambling, albeit with minimal personal risk to the CEO, considering the level of connections and wealth required for the position, not to mention the Golden Parachutes that they have in their contracts, should they be replaced.

Though then why be a corporate executive. Doesn’t seem anything desirable.

Generally, it’s about accumulation of personal wealth and power, rather than actually believing in a given service or product. While to you and I, that may not seem desirable, to a certain percentage of the population, it is a principal drive. Unfortunately for us, and humanity at-large, there’s also a statistically-significant increase in the incidence of anti-social personality disorder in those who pursue such positions, compared to the population average.

Maybe they really believe into that “replace everyone with AI” thing.

A lot of ultra-wealthy people are incredible stupid, so, yes, this is likely.

Conservative morality is generally based on one’s place in the hierarchy. They see him as a moral person for being higher in the hierarchy than them, actions don’t come into account.

I would say that it is cowardice to demand that others risk their lives while enjoying relative safety. And anyone attempting to force another to risk their lives for any reason is attempting to rob others of their agency over the most fundamental thing that any human has right to: their life.

Maybe it’s nice sentiment for a healthy teenager or 20-something that isn’t responsible for anyone else’s well-being. However, is that reality doesn’t fit neatly into black and white; bravery and cowardice (and glory is just a lie that the rich and old tell the young and poor to get them to fight and die for them). Sometimes the braver and more just thing is to fulfill one’s responsibilities to their spouse, children, or dependents and ensure that they are able to live to help others. And other’s have had so much taken from them by a place that asking for them to also give their life is pure sadism.

Beyond that, not everyone is physically, mentally or socially equipped for warfare, which is a good thing because humanity also needs farmers, doctors, teachers, and other builders.

If, somehow, US democracy survives, it’s going to take generations to undo the damage. Noone alive today is likely to see life “as good” as even 2015, in the US.

Everyone has one life to live. Most people younger than 60 have had next to no control over the US government through any phase of their lives - hard to rationalize this being “their own” mess. Telling these people that they must risk their lives, rather than seeking better ones is pretty ethically problematic.

And on the other side of the coin, that is the exact same rhetoric used by racists and xenophobes to argue against asylum seekers.

(Note: This really doesn’t apply to the tax-dodging shitheads who are avoiding paying for the societal benefits that they enjoy.)

And there it is. You wanted the fascist to get elected.

Jail them!

In prison gen pop. Make execs afraid to break the law for profit and/or fund reform for the prison system.

Unfortunately, the gutting of USAID and foreign aid programs is projected to kill millions in the developing world.

Now, either knock it off and get those nonvoters on our side

I honestly don’t believe that is possible. These are people who refused to oppose fascism in the least dangerous, lowest effort manner. I have no faith in them putting themselves in any actual danger to help, when they still do all manner of mental gymnastics to absolve themselves of any responsibility for their actions.

The other guy might not be mad but I am. Maybe when they accept responsibility for contributing to the millions that are going to die globally and the genocide ramping up domestically, we can talk. Until then, they’re just a step shy of collaborators, having refused to do the bare minimum to oppose fascism. There were only two possible outcomes in the general election:

1. Fascism.
2. Whoever the dems nominated

Pretending otherwise is just the fallacy of Denying the Correlative. There were no other options and abstaining only increased the chance of a fascist win.