It’s amazing how often comparing the deaths in a given event to 9/11 is called distasteful, but the actual event that kills those people is not. Or how comparing two different death tolls is distasteful, but having 9/11 held up to justify god-knows-how-many civilian deaths across the globe is not.

Doing what you love is it’s own reward.

I think “fair share” is what’s up for debate. (Rather than the disingenuous “HamNo wants everyone to be a communist and not have personal possessions” argument.)

Uh... I think you misunderstood his point. Or you purposefully shot your own argument in the foot.

The government using it to pay for extra services (universal health care, guaranteed universal income and housing, much more affordable post-secondary education, etc.) would be of great benefit. You don’t just have to write everyone a cheque.

That’s what it boils down to.

Depends which ones. Also I would argue less that the actively helped whatever president (although, Fox), and more that they didn’t focus on the right issues (not always, but a lot.)

I’m glad that Michael Anson and Mikegrills, two definitely different people, have found common ground in not understanding a Youtube video.

1. “Necessary”

Did you watch the video after your initial comment, realize you were wrong, and decide to double down? Or did you watch it before, not understand it, and not really read the comments explaining why you were wrong?

Dude, lose the Holocaust metaphor. It’s a poor one, no need to stick to it.

I can see film studies programs wanting to remove Birth of a Nation from their curriculum, maybe (and that would be on a university level). But I have trouble thinking of any other ban that would be related to liberal politics. Any actual sources or examples or... are you just saying stuff?

Yeah. Star Trek can kind of hand wave that away, since they had the Vulcans show up and help rebuild (which gives you all manner of sci-fi bullshit excuses), but I don’t think that we should rely on that, given that reality is well-known to be a bummer.

Apologies.

You could make the argument “What right does anyone have to excessively profit off the labour of others without fairly distributing that profit?” But that would be more of a moral argument, rather than a legal one, and I don’t suppose that was what you were talking about. (And let’s not get into the “morals are…

I mean they have to go through a nuclear Armageddon in Star Trek before they get to where they are so... here’s hoping we won’t?

Or nuclear war. Who the fuck knows?

Yeah but I’m not sure middle of the pack qualifies to be paid 500 or 1000 times what the janitor gets paid. I just don’t think their job entails that much more work or risk. (And I don’t think the work it takes to get to that point is worth that either.)

It almost seems like it would have to be paired with a guaranteed universal income, but that doesn’t seem like it would ever happen in the US.