That’s cute to you? 🤮

Are you joking? Not even close.

When the state fully controls your property, it’s not private property and thus not capitalistism. It’s not socialism either, because they still give deference to the original “private” owner.

China is a perfect example of how a fascist country would operate, honestly. It’s frankly annoying that people don’t routinely call it a fascist state and instead call it communist.

Fascism is a modern iteration of an old problem. Not even the worst version of it. Plenty of theocracies and empires in history promoted similar strong group/national identity paired with subjugation of individuals to an authoritarian state.

And fascism is not even compatible with capitalism as it requires state control over industry. It would be more compatible with socialism except that it’s not nationalizing industry for the benefit of the working class explicitly, just the benefit of the nation/state.

Implementing climate control will be costly and is still controversial, especially proposed solutions that require polluting the stratosphere with chemicals.

I’m still optimistic about geoengineering research.

Of course, nobody will want to foot that bill until they’re staring the threat in the eyes.

It’s common knowledge that humans are accelerating climate change, they’re not the sole source of it. 🤷

You’re right, and there is no consensus. Companies, and even current governments, are ill-equipped for solving long-term problems. Especially a problem that won’t be a net harm for like 60 years.

My point was that all that money could’ve gone to a real long-term solution which requires a lot of research (and which humanity will need to finance eventually anyways). Reminds me of people who spend more money on car repairs than what the car is worth. They see a mechanic bill of $400 and think it’s cheaper than buying another vehicle. It gets it running for another 4 months. Then a dozen bills later…

“Another 4 months” for current climate change policies is like “another 50 years”… being generous.

Reducing carbon emissions is a temporary solution, buying a couple thousand more years. Taken to its most extreme, it requires human industry to ultimately cease and thus make it even more difficult to solve the problem permanently.

That would help, but definitely not stop climate change.

Humanity’s carbon footprint has been a distraction. All that money and effort (green energy legislation, carbon caps, etc) could’ve been funneled into geoengineering for proper long-term solutions.

Even if humans were eradicated, the habitability of Earth would only be prolonged a bit. So the idea that we just need to emit less carbon is just kicking the can.

If people willingly choose to shorten their life, I don’t consider it a problem.

Now, lying and manipulating people into choosing it, similar to what the cigarette industry did, is obviously a problem.

But at this point, everyone knows cigarettes and processed foods are unhealthy. People just don’t care.

Which is…?

Yeah. Those problems totally didn’t exist before capitalism.

Sometimes lawyers do preliminary motions like to suppress unconstitutional search warrants or change of venue and stuff. If it’s complex, it can take a while, and defense cannot request speedy trial if they’re filing things, but you also don’t necessarily want to forgo filing useful things.

Also, if they violate the constitutional right to a speedy trial, you can file a habeas corpus or something and, even if you win, there’s still no consequence except them shrugging and saying oops.

Yeah, been like this for quite a while. They can drag you for a while, lose their case, shrug it off, and continue as normal.

Meanwhile, you lost your job after your arrest, maybe even were denied bail and had to stay ~2 years in jail waiting for trial, and spent $100k on legal expenses. Winning at trial gives you no restitution for those massive losses. You’re expected to also shrug it off and continue life.

Important for those who don’t know: police can legally lie to you. Happens all the time when they’re trying to get a confession. In a discussion, they’ll be like “we have your fingerprints matched and we have video of you, so it’s better if you’re just honest with us.” But they often don’t have anything which is why they’re desperate for a confession.

Weird to me that people are taking issue with the cameras more than the police work.

The problem here is charges being made with weak evidence and officers legally allowed to lie. I had a similar experience, but she was smarter than me. I was 22 and naive, thinking I didn’t need to prove my innocence because they have to prove my guilt in court (logically seemed impossible when I wasn’t guilty). The presumption of innocence is a lie. And juries and judges don’t operate with pure logic and reason. I had to learn the hard way, losing many years of my life.

The inverse is also true, but it’s still not particularly relevant to my point outside of the rough example i gave previously.

Yes, the inverse is also true. Which is why it was necessary to investigate it to see why he died, as it was not clear why.

You, however, just saw the video and assumed the cop’s actions caused his death. It’s unclear why considering his actions would not normally kill someone.

But unlike the bullet that killed Thompson, being knelt on like that would not kill most people.

irrelevant , A peanut wouldn’t kill most people.

Entirely relevant. If you saw a video of them feeding him a peanut butter sandwich and he died right afterward, you have no clear evidence without autopsy that he didn’t have a heart attack or something. You can’t just assume the cop’s actions caused it.

Not an assumption, dictionary definition of killing.

How is it not an assumption to say the cop’s actions caused his death prior to autopsy?

I’m an not talking about manslaughter, murder, none of that. I’m not talking about intent. I am talking about the same definition of killing that you are.

Unless he was going to drop dead in that moment of whatever it was that ended up killing him, the people involved in the actions that exacerbated or expedited the death, killed him.

I don’t disagree with that. But you’d be operating with the unfounded assumption that he would NOT have died without the officer’s pressure on him. Prior to an autopsy or expert analysis, you could not accurately claim that.

Certainly, before people knew all the drugs he was on, and how he was struggling to breathe while in the car, it’s not an unreasonable assumption to think he was killed, as it looked like it. But unlike the bullet that killed Thompson, being knelt on like that would not kill most people. So calling it unequivocally a killing prior to additional evidence, like you are, is unreasonable.

You’re proving the point on why it was hard to give him a fair trial, as everyone had seen it reported as a killing. Millions protested for justice against his killer.

He died on video while under the influence of multiple drugs. Someone dying does not mean they were killed. Some people still believe he wasn’t killed, focusing on his fentanyl intoxication, though that runs a bit counter to the expert’s interpretation which called it a homicide.

We didn’t know if Floyd was killed though until autopsies, whereas we know Thompson was shot intentionally on camera.

They managed to with Derek Chauvin, and the public prejudice was much worse, even from public officials. Their mayor also called him a killer.