I think it’s indicative of the capitalist mindset that there are still 36 hours left and already nobody has bothered to leave space for latecomers. Obviously it’s just a game and it doesn’t matter, but it does make the Western housing market make a lot of sense.
The whole concept of tipping is really just institutionalized bribery. It associates the idea of paying more with getting treated better. Like the man who slips the maitre d’ money in order to get a table without having reserved one, it punishes poor people by un-leveling the playing field. If I’m paying the amount that has been agreed upon, I shouldn’t have to worry that a server might neglect me to lavish more attention on someone who’s bribing them. If I’ve reserved a table according to the correct procedure, I shouldn’t have to worry that my reservation will be “accidentally double-booked” as a result of somebody else being willing to bribe the maitre d’. Rich people should not have an easy means to steal what they want from poor people.
So why is the frontline not receding?
Yes. Large-scale sabotage is, well, large-scale. And it tends to be investigated until the saboteur is found. Whereas a widespread movement of many small individual acts of sabotage can often be harder to detect as having been sabotage at all. For example, clogging a coolant system with adulterants that are plausible to have found their way in through laxity in operation, so that when the machine it cools goes kaput, a post-mortem makes it look like the work of wear-and-tear, operator error and insufficient maintenance. Such a saboteur can go undiscovered and live to sabotage another day.
And the same principle applies to non-mechanical sabotage. As mentioned with “every decision by committee”, it can often be done entirely in the open and still be undetectable as sabotage.
If you accept the concept of objective morality, then yes, it’s a moral issue. But I’ve already pointed out that population size is not the cause nor the solution. These are not actual percentages, but if I say “20% of the people cause 80% of the waste”, hopefully you’ll understand the underlying concept I’m trying to communicate.
The concept that either life must be perfect or else we’re all better off having never been born, is a hell of an extreme.
There is no such thing as “objective morality”
Then there’s no such thing as morality, but personal preference.
deleted by creator
In 1944, the US Office of Strategic Services published the Simple Sabotage Field Manual; a document aimed at the unhappy citizens of fascist nations, to instruct them on how to sabotage the economic and military capacity of their own nation. I’m not saying that Oskar Schindler ever read it, but the movie line “Stern, if this factory ever produces a shell that can actually be fired, I’ll be very unhappy” is definitely in the same spirit.
One need not work in weapons manufacturing, either. The manual suggests sabotage techniques for every kind of worker. For example, office workers could help decrease their fascist nation’s economic power by insisting that every decision be made by committee, slowing output.
The manual is fascinating in that it’s focused on people who are afraid to be “heroes”, instead suggesting sabotage methods that entail little to no personal risk.
https://archive.org/details/SimpleSabotageFieldManual/page/n2/mode/1up
Not gonna lie: I have no idea what you’re talking about.
If it depends on how you view it, then it’s not a moral obligation, it’s a personal preference. Which is fine, but just acknowledge that.
This is a much better reason, frankly.
“I couldn’t bring a child into a world like this” is a bit of mental gymnastics that people use to convince themselves that they’re being noble and selfless with this decision, when in reality it’s neither noble nor ignoble, neither selfless nor selfish. Every child eventually hits their parents with the classic “I never asked to be born!”, and while it’s certainly true, NOBODY asks to be born, and life has ALWAYS sucked in some way or another. Should pre-humans have refused to have kids because it would be cruel to bring them into a world where they have to kill to eat? Nonsense.
If people simply don’t want to have kids, they should simply say that and own it. They don’t OWE it to anybody to have kids - but they don’t owe it to anybody to not have kids, either. It’s not a moral decision in either direction. It’s simply a case that some people don’t feel up to the responsibility, and that’s fine: not superior, just fine.
And before anyone says that not having kids helps to keep the surplus population down: no problem on Earth is a result of the population being too high. There’s enough food for everyone; the problem is distribution. There’s enough land for everyone; the problem is that some people are hoarding. If the population starts using renewables and just generally going green, corporations build more data centers and invent other novel ways to waste resources.
The ironic thing is that by the time his second term is over, this probably would be the only legal play left to the USA to actually get him inside a prison.
There’s an interactive map of the war here: https://liveuamap.com/
It gets updated with the latest reports, albeit with about a day’s delay so as to not inadvertently leak operational info to Russia.
PS: if you’re on mobile, you have to select the tab with the map pin.
My general policy is to always be wary of lending too much credence to something I want to be true. You have to be aware of your own biases.
I think they have Argentina still.
Mitch is alive and apparently mostly well.
Bold of you to assume I’m gonna be able to afford a back yard.
Maybe I’ve just been traumatized by the cutthroat nature of r/place