Seems incredibly irresponsible of them to include it in a blue chip fund.

So I’ve read.

They still blew up their launch pad and showered a protected wildlife area with particulate, metal, and concrete debris.

They then built and operated their water deluge system without obtaining permits.

Typo or no, they’re still taking a fast and loose, “better to ask forgiveness than permission” approach that is a detriment to a protected natural environment. They intend to test the limits of the Texas government’s ability to show disdain for the environment in favor of private enterprise.

It’s not just blind hate for Elon, they’re genuinely terrible stewards of the environment in south Texas. They constantly lie about their intentions and impact to avoid having to take responsibility for anything. Say what you will about how independently they operate from his input, this is definitely a company culture that he cultivates and promotes.

Eastern District of Texas is extremely favorable to patent trolls. It’s not a coincidence that they filed the suit there.

Here’s a rather informal interview with her from just last year.

Not surprising. Musk has referred to the entirety of Bellingcat as “a psyop” before.

In my limited understanding of California property taxes, I believe property values are only reassessed on the sale of the property, so if he was living in a house deeded to him by his parents, he might have been paying taxes on a decades-old appraisal. So even if they bought his exact house back for him, he’d still be stuck with significantly higher taxes, which he’d have to fight to be compensated for as well.

How do you think smoking went from something nearly everybody did to being taboo? Maybe the labels don’t do anything for the last 10% of the population who still smoke today, despite the taboo, but those labels played a big role in reinforcing public awareness of the health effects of smoking.

As the holder of roughly $45 worth of Tesla stock, I voted against his pay package and every other shady, bullshit proposal on the ballot. My vote counted for almost nothing and I’d probably be considered an “activist shareholder” anyway, but it was worth the money I’ve lost to get to click that button anyway.

Not that it changes your point about representation in this case, but I’m pretty sure that photo is at least 20 years old. This is the current, equally diverse Oklahoma Supreme Court:

The more solid red states there are, the easier it is for them to enact their bullshit at a federal level. Then it’s your problem, too.

Texas has been trending bluer in the last decade and the fact that these laws also get blue voters to leave is not by accident.

For that matter, isn’t it sacrilege to pray to some rando? These are pretty flimsy justifications for miracles even by Catholic standards.

Are you in the US? I wouldn’t dissuade anyone from being an organ donor, it’s obviously a great necessity and saves thousands of lives, but I’m always amazed that the bottomless skepticism of our for-profit healthcare system dries up on certain topics.

We all love to moan about greedy health insurance companies and hospital administrations putting profit above the actual health of patients and outcomes of procedures, so why is it taken for granted that, when faced with a decision to go to extraordinary lengths to save a badly injured, uninsured person, or get expensive organs for 3 or 4 insured people at the top of the recipient list, that the responsible parties will make the right decision? Hell, even without a profit motive, that can be a difficult decision that can be influenced by personal beliefs and biases.

I certainly don’t know enough about exactly how these decisions are made to have a strong opinion, but I don’t think it’s fair to characterize potentially warranted skepticism as moronic.

Pierce Brosnan, too

It’s illegal in Jamaica?!

There’s absolutely no shortage of shitty, authoritarian millennials. I don’t think there will be any “sigh of relief” moment when millennials are in majority of control.

Hell, back in high school my boomer Government teacher was telling us how US politics would move to the left once the Silent Generation died off. It just never happens that way.

Unfortunately, I think he knows what he’s doing. He’s counting on being able to make all his troubles go away if he’s elected and he knows that maintaining the premise that these are unfounded, politically-motivated attacks by the deep state is exactly what his devotees want to hear. He just has to keep them living in his version of reality long enough to take the throne.

That’s certainly not a flaw in the philosophy. As it pertains to the voter, you’re not expected to know the future, but you do have a civic duty to be informed when voting. If you have made a good faith effort to understand the context of the choice and the most likely outcomes of the options available, you can’t be faulted for not foreseeing the exact outcomes that unfold. If nothing else, because you can’t possibly know exactly what the outcomes of the alternatives would have been. Ignoring the most likely outcomes in favor of the most desired outcomes is what seems unethical. “Letting perfect be the enemy of good” and all that.

I genuinely “Kant” see how someone can justify a moral framework where only the action has intrinsic morality and the consequences are completely irrelevant. Sure, the morality of an action should be considered, but ultimately, real-world choices have to be made from a holistic consideration of the entire situation.

Similarly, I also reject the idea of perfectly objective morality. There are extreme shades of grey, but never black and white. No action can be said to be universally good regardless of both intent and context, except in religious moral frameworks.

I’d hardly call that comic a middle finger. Just a succinct way of expressing my disagreement. But since you asked, here’s the empathetic version:

Please appreciate that you’re not the only disappointed idealist. Everyone wants things to be better and I genuinely understand the desire to only vote for what you can defend to yourself morally. However, that’s not the framework we have to work within. The realities of American politics require pragmatism that is incompatible with stubborn idealism. My argument is that the deontological approach is unethical because it prioritizes how the voter feels about their vote over reducing total harm to the greatest number of people. Votes aren’t love letters and they aren’t prayers. To the extent that any of us as individuals have any influence on the mad, chaotic world that we all have to live in, consequences are more important than intentions.