I basically agree with this, with one important distinction worth mentioning that being black is not a willful choice, but having billions of dollars absolutely is. I would argue that if someone has so much money there is no possible way for them to spend it all in their and their progeny’s lifetime, the only ethical thing to do is give the excess that can’t be spent away.

In general, though, I understand not all ultra wealthy are equally bad, and those who just inherited their money and sit on it aren’t anywhere near the level of those that actively influence policy for the negative. Yes there is nuance there, and yes stereotyping the whole group is reductive.

The general sentiment in OPs comment is usually rooted to in the notion that there is really no way to run a business that makes billions of dollars without underpaying or overcharging people along the way, and there is no way to justify having 100bn+ dollars all for yourself when there are so many people without. If that means those offences are extreme enough to justify murder is another question, and I agree should probably not apply categorically to all rich people equally with no deeper discussion.

That’s fair. The line is clearly harder to draw than I am making it seem. For the sake of argument, can we both agree that a line exists somewhere? Or would you putting forward that there is never a situation in which killing someone is morally justified no matter what the situation is?

And a follow up question, would you instead prefer that for certain extreme offenders, a life imprisonment sentence is used? I believe an argument could be made that, as the prison system exists in many countries now, this may be worse.

Or perhaps more broadly, for someone guilty of rampant repeated murder with no demonstrated indications of potential remorse or reform, what would be the ideal punishment or societal repercussion?

I think the part of your original comment that I find upsetting, and I understand this is a lot my own biases at play here too, is this idea that if we start killing the ultra wealthy then we or people we like and care for will be next. It’s not that that is incorrect per se, it’s more a cause an effect thing. Living in the US, it’s been made abundantly clear that the ultra wealthy are not waiting on violence to justify their violence, they are just doin violence as often and eagerly as they feel like. In my state, it is officially, government certified legal to run over a protester who blocks the road. This ruling was made after a truck decided to do it. Police here kill people for being the wrong skin color. The ultra wealthy kill us albeit more indirectly by paying starvation wages and denying medical care for life saving treatments, and restricting housing access and making homelessness functionally a crime. People here get to watch their friends and neighbors already having extreme violence and sometimes murder done upon them already.

I know that an eye for an eye is not a great approach. But for most it feels like self defense, and it’s worth remembering that no lasting societal change or revolution in the world’s history has ever been successful without at least some violence. Hearing “hey you shouldn’t be violent” can be hard to take for people who just watch it happening all day every day to everyone around them, especially when not paired with an alternative, preferable suggestion that works.

So I guess I would ask what alternative you are advocating for, and what you might tell people like me and, presumably, op, who are so sick of all of it that violence is starting to look like an ok option

I get what you are saying and it is a slippery slope, but it is very doable to draw clear, objective lines around it. “Anyone with so much money there is absolutely no way they got it without heavy worker exploitation, ie 10bn+” for example. Nothing even remotely close to the average working class individual or even minor wealthy individual

I’m not sure this is categorically true. If you are in a situation where another person is clearly and obviously killing everyone around you one after the other and you could stop them by killing them, I think most would argue it is morally ok to do so. Same for a situation of like a home invasion where someone means to do immediate harm to your family and loved ones. Murder in self defense is often considered morally ok. When people in the world through their actions are killing people in enormous numbers, it is not too hard to see how someone could make a parallel to self defense.

Soooooo replies will begin right away then sounds like

I’ve heard “rug” is weird for many Europeans

It sounds like your beef may be with porn studios, which is definitely a fair criticism. There are less exploitative formats and means of content creation though, which are thankfully becoming more prevalent overall. Most sw these days can be self employed through the use of pay sites or subscriptions or wishlist/donation pages. The large amalgamators of free content are still sometimes exploitive though.

To be fair, this post is down voted there too. The average .ml, like the vast majority of the world population, does not support the ongoing genocide.

Did you make these? Or just a fan of the artist? I love this one

Me too. Wasn’t particularly relatable but reading the comments i kinda get it. Finding other board game people who want the same style and complexity of game is hard, even narrowing down to just people who say they like board games

The trick here I think is parenting in a way that passes along whatever good you may have to your child. Unfortunately (or fortunately, in some cases) the moral compass and general ethics of the parents don’t always translate to the kid. How to do that effectively is a whole other psychological debate. Either way, congrats and best of luck!

Having children is borderline unethical given the capitalist hellscape they will be born into, the relatively high likelihood that they will not be able to live to old age due to risk of large parts of the planet becoming uninhabitable with climate change, and considering that reduced birth rates is the most ethical path to a lower population on the planet, which, though technically not a strict requirement of a greener future, certainly makes it a lot easier.

No shade for any kids living today or parents who choose to have them despite the above. I understand why people do it and I don’t blame anyone for it. But it is worth pointing out that current birth rates in most countries are not sustainable, and the seemingly constant fearmongering about falling birthrates in places where it’s low needs to go away. Yes, it’s bad for the economy if the new generation is smaller than their parents. That’s a problem with the system and its design (one of many), and not at all a rationale for having kids.

That and sweeping generalization with a baked in assumption that education is similar/comparable in all European countries

Can it be shipped to me?

You’re hired

I am more referring to late game when properties are largely bought and developed and the losing player is statistically more likely to have to pay more to opponents going around the board than they are to receive money from them. It becomes a stalling tactic to collect more money. UBIs are very important early game but barely relevant once the average hotel visit costs you 4+ of them

Admittedly it is also popular due to the free parking house rule that seemingly most everyone uses, but is not in fact an actual rule.

pushes up glasses

Typically people losing at monopoly actually prefer going to jail and sitting there since it is preferable to having to pay for hotels.

Not that it makes the analogy much less dark though

I tried to play it like a normal RPG and remember just trying to walk around the neighborhood to find every random person I tried to talk to would just beat me up for getting close to them so I noped out of it

I think most are carried by their modding communities at this point which can be so involved they fundamentally change every aspect of the game.

While I mostly agree, for many kinds of ads there isn’t a great way to correlate particular ads with efficacy, so there absolutely are as campaigns that the c suite is convinced are working that are just practically not at all.