*whoosh

Predictably, people are arguing if violence can be an answer. But the best rule of thumb is “speak softly, but carry a big stick”. If peaceful demonstration and diplomacy ran its course, then violence is the only path forward. I mean, the abolition of slavery in the United States could never be done by peaceful means (unlike what UK had done) so war was the only way.

I do something similar but yours is more comprehensive and elaborate.

Thank you for your response.

Capitalism also exploits the inherent nature of humans to please and feel validated by others through work. However, the system initially stems from the idea that individuality is sovereign and the cornerstone of successful being and society as a whole. However, no one notices or questions this paradox. Capitalism promotes individualism, and yet if you are not immersed in the grind, hustle and productivity culture, you are deemed lazy and unproductive by society. In other words, even in a system that touts individuality, the worth of someone is still tied to impressing society at large. At the end of the day, you’re not pleasing yourself or your colleagues, you are pleasing those at the top who are earning more than you ever will.

South Park video game’s difficulty level is directly tied to the skin color as well.

Precisely. The problem with some original movies is that they’re not great. Of the thousands of movies made every year, probably only a hundred will receive wide recognition and praise, let alone a tidy profit. There is a reason why people are typically skeptical of indie movies.

I knew this line will come up.

Look, I abhor billionaires who exploit workers and people (I don’t condone the murder of the UnitedHealth CEO but i understand), but is there evidence that Chuck Feeney underpaid his staff? So far, I hear nothing. I will change my opinion when I hear good evidence against him.

But here is the more important question, do cashiers or cleaners deserve director level salary? All people deserve to earn decent wage to keep food and roof over their heads, but all this rhetoric about increasing wages because the owner is billionaire is ridiculous. Up to what level should cleaners, security guards, farmhands or labourers should be paid? Leadership roles are also administrative in nature which requires a lot of effort than most people realise. You have to organise, manage people and logistics, do meetings, conduct finances, problem-solving, do legal work, ensure compliance, and if you have a family that is already another work on its own, etc. Having done various jobs in my career, I would argue that administrative roles are harder than manual labour. This is not to diminish the importance of blue collar and labour workers, but the human brain alone consumes 20% of energy that an individual takes from food. A lot of mental work will get someone tired easily in just two hours at least. That is why college-educated folks are paid more because of the intellect required for the job. Again, this is not to undermine the role of blue collar workers, but being operator or a janitor doesn’t require as much work. I know because I have worked as blue collar and labourer. I certainly don’t expect to be paid a lot for those jobs. The pay among the low, middle and high earners should be proportional, which is why it’s important to look at the ratio of CEO pay versus the lowest

Duty Free is a private company, so the owner decides how much of the profit goes to paying the workers more. But if a person wants more equal pay regardless, there are co-operatives to work in. Everyone basically gets equal income in co-ops. I’m a supporter of co-ops but I am aware of its limitations. It may be democratically run with one vote per one person, but co-ops are known to always elect increasing their wages which could affect the net earnings and may not be able to cover the operating costs.

The article and author is very layman shall we say, and has obvious libertarian bias, but it has a point:

According to Forbes, this nefarious tycoon “has aggressively tried to avoid taxes at every stage in his career– from setting up his early business in Liechtenstein, incorporating his holding company in Bermuda. . .”

Feeney transferred his business interests to his charitable organization in 1984. And for the last 30+ years he’s given away nearly $ 8 BILLION through the foundation.

While the US government has been using your tax dollars to bomb children’s hospitals by remote control, Feeney has been building them.

He has endowed entire universities, funded cancer research, invested hundreds of millions in AIDS benefit to Africa, built a $ 300 million medical center in California, and developed a new technology hub on New York City’s Roosevelt Island.

These aren’t the actions of a narcissistic robber baron.

Th**e entire concept of taxation is grounded in the idea that some politician knows how to spend money better than you do. ** But Feeney opted for a different path: taking completely LEGAL steps to stay in control of his savings and make a huge difference in people’s lives.

I’m not trying to fanboy Chuck Feeney. If it had been proven that he was very exploitative of human lives and dignity to amass billions, I will change my opinion of him. However, the results speak for itself.

I would also add that the article has a point about it. In my home country, there is tax for citizens leaving the country. I was appalled not because I will lose money, but I know that my taxes will go to the then president and his family’s fortune who unabashedly orders extrajudicial killing.

A lot of goods sold in Duty Free shops probably would have been manufactured in North America and Europe at that time, which has good labour standards. So, there isn’t much of a concern for exploitation of sweat shops in third world countries, and most of those countries at the time have too much instability to attract foreign direct investments.

You would not know who Chuck Feeney is, but you know the business he set up: Duty Free. He made billions during the golden age of air travel. I think you could become rich ethically by setting shops in places where millions of people run across 24/7.

I don’t condone the murder of the CEO of a healthcare insurance company who reject 32% of claims…

But I understand.

Yes, of course you are right. But for those less experienced on discourse, there is the principle of charity. It is important to give the benefit of the doubt that the interlocutor is acting in good faith. But when you exhaust all the good-faith and sensible arguments, and that person resorts to either providing irrational points or acting unreasonably and/or disingenuously, then it is completely safe to assume that the person is actually a bad-faith actor. It’s on that person, not on you.

But you should not readily accuse someone a troll unless you could calmly point out why the person is such and such. Trolls exactly want you to do that.

All tankie users are in .ml, but not all .ml users are tankies.

You should always judge the merit of the comment, not whether or not the person is from .ml. If you see a comment that is pro-CCP or pro-Kremlin from an .ml user, then the point of the meme is valid. But a well-thought, benign, good-faith or wholesome comment from an .ml user should not be dismissed.

As much as I want religion to be gone, you can’t force people to change their beliefs overnight. We frown upon forced conversion by one religion on another; why can’t atheist apply the same standard to theists? That was the mistake of communist Afghans and it only led to a severe backlash of inducing the mostly conservative Afghans to become ultra-consenservative Islamists. Every reaction has an opposite but equal reaction. Social changes has to be organic.

Forcing someone to change their beliefs is considered progressivism and secularism? I did not get the memo that progressives are authoritarians. What were the Afghans resisting the Soviets for then?

The Soviet-friendly Afghan government wasn’t a) progressive and b) wasn’t secular. The government is explicitly Marxist-Leninist who oppressed and forced people to drop their religion as part of state atheism.

The progressivism and secularism you refer to was during the kingdom era before being overthrown by the communist Afghan military. The more liberal attitude is only contained in a bubble in the capital city of Kabul. The rest of 80% of Afghans are still religious conservatives living rural and in poverty. An Afghan female former politician lamented not seeing this because she grew up in liberal Kabul.

Also more importantly, it’s a misconception that the US helped the Taliban. The mujahideen was composed of various factions, some are secular, some are conservative, while some are more Islamists. But, the ultraconservative elements only came later in more definite form under the Taliban, which defeated both the secular and conservative forces.

It’s similar idea with the evil gods of ancient Mesopotamia. Unlike in most religions where evil deities tempt humans to commit evil acts, evil Mesopotamian deities represent the evils of humanity.

Edit: wording

Hamlet is a remake of and Old Norse legend Amleth.

I don’t know what age you are, but if you’re too young to have known, some people have medical conditions that make them struggle to pee.

There are exceptions of course but IMHO, you shouldn’t block toxic contents, you call them out instead. Doing so basically puts a red flag to any would-be readers that this person and the associated content is harmful and dangerous.