Trying to take your own life out of depression and being willing to give your life to a cause differ in intent, goals, context and likely methods.
What benefits do you see from classifying them as the same thing? They seem very different to me.
Gentle nerd freak of the pacific northwest. All nation states are vermin.
Trying to take your own life out of depression and being willing to give your life to a cause differ in intent, goals, context and likely methods.
What benefits do you see from classifying them as the same thing? They seem very different to me.
Starting ones self on fire is a suicide attempt, regardless of political motive.
Is being a soldier assigned to conduct an assault operation also a suicide attempt?
Knowingly doing something that might kill you is not the sole criteria for a suicide attempt. If they weren’t suicidal it wasn’t a suicide attempt.
They were suicidal
I’ve not heard any reporting say this. I’ve seen internet commenters presume this, but just because someone engaged in an action that could result in their death, doesn’t mean they’re suicidal.
I don’t think it’s realistic to assume you understand the mental state of someone who’s already proved they are capable of setting themselves on fire to make a point.
Why would you think that people who have the courage to act on their principles would regret it?
The amount of self determination it must take to smell the gasoline and still strike the match makes me think that the people who do this are capable of living with the consequences of their actions.
I’m not sure I understand your point so if I’m off base let me know.
Firstly, inheriting $200k - $1M doesn’t keep anyone poor. It doesn’t even stop wealth from concentrating at a level that harms others and warps society - it just prevents that level of wealth from passing down to people who did nothing.
Secondly, if everyone was poor who would be controlling them? You have to keep most people poor and a much smaller group of people unassailably wealthy to control them. That’s exactly the problem that high death taxes address.
Estate taxes is woefully small. There should be a 100% death tax on all assets after $1M, excluding a single home.
Nope.
I know it sounds wrong when you first hear it, but power changes your brain. Sociopaths are more drawn to powerful positions, but getting power makes your brain look more like the brain of a sociopath when it didn’t before:
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.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
Becoming powerful makes you less good, neurologically.
It’s reasonable to assume that people with more status are behaving worse than people with less.
Power - status, fame, privilege, wealth, etc. - causes neurological changes that suppress a human’s ability to excersize empathy. The kind of self-centered behaviour that the nurse describes is typical of a high status inidividual.
Also, I used to work in health insurance and this story just jives well with the little personal experience I have with medical workplaces.
It’s unjust that someone who spends their day goofing off and looking at their phone feels entitled to earn twice what a nurse does, just because they had the privilege to get into college.
playing a private show for the obscenely rich while they’re forcing their employees to work for crumbs is way way way way more fucked up than just cheating on your spouse
Yep, it definitely is!
Don’t accept it. It’s fundamentally unjust and you’re right to be upset.
They’re just regular fuck-ups like us, but with obscene amounts of money.
They’re much worse than regular people.
Having money, fame or power causes changes in the human brain that reduces the ability to perform empathy. The rich are always at least a little more evil than normal people and if any one of us becomes rich, we’d also be a worse human.
That said, humans fuck and sanctity of marriage is made up nonsense. To paraphrase principal Skinner: No, it’s the monogamy that’s wrong.
I’m a renter, so I’d throw a brick through each window of my property manager’s tesla.
Our electoral system is just shit.
She’s way more popular and so are her policies, but having the support of the majority of voters doesn’t guarantee victory like it would if we lived in a democracy.
Threaded messages seems fine to me, as you said that usage is more well understood than threadiverse which risks conceptually-centering a billionaire controlled platform.
The existence of threads makes threadiverse an inappropriate name for fediverse content aggregators, is the point I was being overly sarcastic about.
Defederating from threads seems like the best way to make it nice. That way there’s less influence from psychopathic billionaires who happily stoke genocide for clicks.
I’m of an age where I agree with almost everything on this list. I don’t know that It deserves a place though, and despite extensive media consumption I’ve never heard of The Dollars Trilogy or Child’s Play.
I don’t think you can presume to know what he expected when he hasn’t said what he expected, or to know the effect it’s had within a handful of days.