Llamalitmus

Aristocrats!

You've misapplied progressive language in such a way as to make me suspect this comment is an example of astroturfing. I almost hope that is the case, because the alternative is that you have allowed ignorance and implicit bias to lead you down a path of self justified racism/bigotry. As the dominant culture, it is not our place to decide to exclude groups of people based on a preconception. Every culture has blindspots. But none of them are absolutes. You tolerate the culture, and try to discourage behavior that is detrimental to the whole. Otherwise we'd ban most religions. Even western ones.

This response feels like it was written by AI. Or maybe someone who has indulged in psychedelics too much and too frequently to be able to communicate ideas in a clear or concise manner.

Because capitalism.
The less glib answer, though a bit of an over simplification, is that the current trend of neoliberalism discourages self limitation and collective collaboration. If regulation is not put in place and enforced by forces (government, social contract, etc) then people are incentivize to push and make use of any advantage available. Not doing it risks being displaced by those who do. Competition becomes toxic and self perpetuating

Defining it as a feature would dispel the myth of there being an ethical way to incarcerate/indefinitely detain people. The "bad apples" argument tries to put forward an idea that something bad is actually fine. It's only bad in 'this instance' because these people are bad/immoral/incompetent.

It's almost like it is in the best interests of one of the political parties to have a less informed populace and that party tends to limit or dismantle that educational infrastructure

Some people act like non-monogamy is easy. That it's just cheating or promiscuity disguised. But, if you're doing it right, it requires emotional intelligence and endurance, the self knowledge to be able to set good boundaries and the maturity and empathy to respect others'. It requires a good amount of time, effort, and resources. Negotiating schedules, balancing the needs and wants of each involved, etc. Even those who do it selfishly (or worst case, abusively) would need to expend energy hiding their ways from the community at large (which honestly seems more exhausting). And it's not like monogamy let's you avoid those types of people.

I get what you're saying. And might even agree with elements. But it is easy to say it's futile to fight when you aren't in a position to need to. Doing nothing in this case means resigning not just yourself to being under their oppression, and not even just your friends and family. It is resigning your entire culture to a slow painful death by attrition. They are losing more and more land, rights, and any hope of progress. Like... if someone is strangling you, do you fight back, or just resign yourself to it? And that's before we even get into the fact that those complying and not fighting are still being killed. Those not fighting and wanting to leave were lured to slaughter. Not fighting is an illusory choice.

I think that way of thinking is why it is so difficult to deal with colonialism. We can commit atrocities, and as long at the people who committed them have died of old age, their descendants are free and clear. I don't really know where ixstand on this. But I can't not acknowledge that I have benefited from the misery of others. Whether it is slave wage labor, the crimes against indigenous peoples, patriarchy, or these proxy wars around the world. I think that pushing back against these injustices when seeing the harm it is causes makes obvious sense. But I think it also makes sense to do it selfishly. These people are making us culpable. Doesn't matter if it was someone we voted for who made these decisions, or even if it's someone we didn't vote for. These decisions are being made in our names and with our money. Idk man. Shit's complicated

If there is anything the last 3 years has taught me, it can always get worse.

From everything I've read/heard about this, it does sound like a bit of a nothing burger. Overblown for political ends. But I think saying "coworker" is a bit intellectually dishonest. A big part of the allegation is that they were involved, and then she hires him. Concerns of abuse of power, misuse of funds, and conflicts of interest. The judge's ruling seems fair. To opponents, dismissing it in this way has the appearance of strawmanning. If you already have a strong argument, you only hurt your position long run

I think Bev Keane was based off this woman

You just gotta take that line of thought one step further. I believe in you.

Sounds like she could do with more bran in her diet >_>

And let's not fool ourselves. I'm sure that at least some, if not most, of these signatories aren't doing this out of some altruistic streak. Doesn't take morals to see that we're headed for class war. That or economic collapse. They are giving up some money/power/control so they don't risk losing it all.

Look at the US. They thought there were all these rules restricting a variety of things relating to governmental powers. Trump ignored a bunch of them, and it turns out there weren't laws in place to prevent or enforce repercussions. Just conventions that most politicians abided by. Now they've got that cluster fuck. Or more directly related, there were laws regulating the stock market. Those regulations have been eroded over time by those who would benefit. We let them, and now inequality is off the charts. Systems this big and intertwined need structure. You can argue about whether you want it centralized or decentralized, but it needs structure. Letting people decide what is right for themselves leads to what we have now. Those with money have the power, and they are free to keep taking from those at the bottom.

What if... she made those comments knowing her son was going to be arrested, so she could say to her base that it was a set up/retaliation for what she had said? (Too conspiratorial? )

Do you think the West is that far off?

If Hamas had the same capabilities, there would likely be less violence because Israel would not be able to oppress, occupy, or encroach on Palestinian life. The one with more power doesn't need to use all of their strength, whereas the one struggling under the boot of the other will fight with all of their strength and use whatever is available to them