If you murder a murderer, you don’t reduce the total number of murderers. You have to murder more than one, but then you’re a serial killer, which is arguably worse. If you’re a serial killer who only kills serial killers, then you are starting to maximize the offset. But once you fuck up and get close to being caught, so your serial killer girlfriend blows up Doakes to keep your secret safe and you pin all your murders on him, you’ve gone too far.
I agree, you’re making zero sense. Nazis didn’t make money selling uniforms. Maybe Hugo Boss did, but that’s not at all analogous to a car.
The point is not to destroy a uniform, the point is to stop driving a Nazi car. If someone wants a Nazi car, they can either buy a new one or buy a used one. If there are more used Nazi cars available, then this drives the price down, reduces the aura of scarcity, and reduces the number of new Nazi cars sold, and thus reduces the amount of money going into Nazi pockets.
I keep seeing this talking point, and I can’t tell if it’s just bad faith propaganda, or if so many people really are this obtuse.
Where did anyone get the idea that selling a car because the head of the company is a Nazi is intended to reduce the number of extant cars? It’s such a specifically stupid argument that I have a hard time believing more than one person came up with it on their own. It’s like if you were debating coke vs pepsi, and suddenly there were hundreds of people chiming in, “Have you tried standing on your head and peeing into your own mouth?” It’s neither intelligent nor relevant in any way. That’s what you sound like. Having one person say it is weird, but seeing multiple comments makes you wonder if you’re not just mindlessly repeating something somebody told you to say.
Cars are worth what someone is willing to pay. More used cars on the market means lower prices means fewer new cars are purchased. The biggest drop in value on any car (bigotry aside) happens at mile 1 when you drive it off the lot. But manufacturers love scarcity when there is high demand, so some manufacturers explicitly forbid buyers from selling their cars (Tesla and Ferrari are the only ones I know of, but there may be more.) If you want one, you must buy it new, and you better buy it quick because it won’t last. They don’t want buyers leaving the lot and shopping around, they want to create an atmosphere of panic and exclusivity.
Fortunately, they cannot enforce the requirements that you don’t sell your car. What they can do is refuse to sell you another one, which Ferrari is famous for doing. With Tesla, if you’re selling because you don’t want to be associated with Nazis, you’re not going to care if the Nazis won’t sell you another car. Yes, you’re probably selling to another Nazi, but most people cannot afford to simply abandon or scrap a functioning* car on principle. Selling is the next best thing, as it undercuts the aura of scarcity, drives the price down, and reduces the number of new cars sold.
He’s featured in an episode of What If…? and he makes a cameo in the GotG3. It could make for a great holiday special.
I mean, that’s kinda what they said about Lost, but then they had to fill 3 seasons because the network wasn’t ready to end it, and by the time they got to the end, everyone had guessed the twist and it went out with a whimper.
Of course we’ve had other terrible endings to massive shows since then, so
Musk is getting $8 million each day from the US government to destroy the US government. He was given $44 billion to destroy Twitter. He’s not worried about money.
Ask yourself a question, have you ever heard of a toddler accidentally shooting someone with a bow? Firing a gun is so easy that you have to keep them away from babies or the babies are likely to kill themselves.
Are you using superglue to close cuts on your fingertips? Or are you trying to create a thick pad of glue to act as a protective layer? Do you already have a blister or cut? Or are you trying to prevent one?
To close a cut or cover a blister, superglue works in a pinch.
As padding to avoid blisters or cuts, it doesn’t really work. If you’re playing enough to cause a new blister, it just cracks and flakes off anyway. It might get you through a song if you’re desperate. Long term, you’re better off getting your fingers calliused and learning to play with different fingerings to take the pressure off an injury.
Pros have to go on stage and play. If you’re playing for yourself, for fun, you can take a few days off and let your fingertips heal.
Trump looked so pathetic next to Zelensky.
Right, but they’re conservatives. Complaining about their hypocrisy is like complaining about clouds blocking the sun. Redefining your values based on your identity is the unifying feature of conservativism. That’s what makes it appealing, you don’t have to adhere to any fundamental values or policies. Whatever helps you win today is good, because you’re a good person because you’re a conservative. So whatever you say now is good, and if you have to say something else tomorrow, it will be good then, too.
States’ Rights is especially fraught because progressives also vacillate on the issue depending on how much of the government they can influence. I’m not a bOtH SiDeS person, but on that one issue, both sides ride that pendulum.
FWIW states rights have never once been a left or right, conservative or progressive issue. People like states rights when they control the state, and they like federal power when they control the federal government. That’s consistent across all times, issues, and political parties.
That’s a pretty big loophole. I mean, imagine the same exact video with Kamala Harris and Nancy Pelosi. It takes a significantly different subtext when the subjects are women. But the subtext doesn’t really matter to the morality of the act.
Either involuntary AI generated pornography is wrong or it isn’t. I think it’s wrong. Do Trump and Musk deserve it? Sure, but it’s still wrong. Do I feel bad for them? No, because they deserve it. But it’s still not something I would do, or suggest anyone else do, and if the creator is prosecuted, I’m not going to defend them.
“Deserved” is a bit loaded. Americans are exceptionally stupid and ill-informed, but that applies to our elected leaders, as well.
Does someone who is easily manipulated deserve to be manipulated? If so, isn’t that precisely the form of myopic conservativism that has overrun the right wing? Government for the people, by the people, is intended to protect all the people and enshrine our rights. Protecting victims from predators ought to be a primary function of law, and if you don’t believe that, then yeah you deserve the leadership we got.
Wait, is that why Lindt chocolates don’t taste the same in the USA?