This is a funny take. I'm imagining you unironically telling yourself that ONLY immigration laws matter and you're happy the administration is breaking other ones.
It is going to be tough to get me to think the plaintiff is responsible for John Deere the company continuing to be dickheads.
When I hear these kinds of "blame the consumer" apologetics it never resonates with me - I'm just not going to get on board with some hypothetical natural state where corporations are inherently bad like some sort of sick animal and it's on consumers to sacrifice and plan with care in order to help the rest of society deal with them.
Corporations are just big groups of people. If their victims can choose self sacrifice in order to help the group then the corporation people could just as easily do the same and that feels far more just to me.
I'm not saying John Deere isn't responsible for their own bad behavior. I'm responding to the bit about John Deere not admitting wrongdoing. It'd basically be legal malpractice for a lawyer to allow their client to do such a thing if they didn't have to.
Wanting them to behave better is really a very different topic, and I wholeheartedly agree that they should. I also don't mind that the plaintiffs took settlement money instead of going to trial; that's certainly their right.
You joke but I got bbb involved with a scammy business insurance company that is easy to sign up for but you can't cancel or stop renewal or change billing info. Company has an infinite hold line and never responds to anything. Filed a complaint on BBB and it was responded to next business day.
I assume you're a human but wow this is the type of forum bot I could really get behind.
Take it a step further and do kind of like that xkcd where you try to post and it rewrites it like this and if you want the original version you have to write a justification that gets posted too.
Why would the people with control of things go out of their way to keep the rest of us alive via UBI?
I get your point but what about a step before that - since when is that anyone's goal? From a sociopathic leader perspective, vast populations are only great for armies and tech has surpassed the need for raw manpower at that scale (and the AI you fear would make militaries require even fewer people).
In your AI scenario is it more likely the ruling class gives everyone free living standard or just lets like 40% of the population die? If all the leaders get together this is the ideal outcome for them -- vast power and control without enough civilians to rise up, climate change becomes easy to reverse with vastly lower power and food needs, and reduced threat of global war because nobody has an occupying size army anymore. This is like the new version of "mutually assured destruction" as a strategy for global peace. I can't speak for the world but I can imagine some of the twisted folks currently in power in the US seeing this route as their destiny and simply them doing the best thing for humanity as a whole -- longtermists are in, nazis know a final solution when they see one, and Christians are honored to have the duty of bringing forth the second coming.
reply