deleted by creator

Billionaires usually are business leaders.

Musk and Bezos etc. There’s a few exceptions like Swift but for the most part you’re talking about the same people.

Scared people want strong leaders (a daddy) to tell them it’s okay, it’s not the climate, it’s the queers, migrants, etc. And Daddy’s going to fix it.

Blame may not be the right word. But the destruction of our environment and everything that goes with it, certainly gives authoritarianism an opening.

Judith Butler goes pretty deep into this in Who’s Afraid of Gender? Of course their analysis focuses mostly on how gender queer people end up being targeted. But the unnamed fear of climate destruction is a big factor. And trans people one of many scapegoats for power hungry demagogues.

That’s fair. I don’t trust her to actually do anything either.

“Everyone must seize this opportunity to finally end the war in Gaza, bring the hostages home, and end the suffering once and for all.”

The rest of her statement. Which is in the article.

Cannot or will not?

You really live in an imperial bubble.

Colonial capitalism captures countries in one way or another and keeps wages depressed in those countries so that the finance sector can extract wealth. Non-wealthy people in the imperial core live in relative privilege off the table scraps.

Your argument only works when you forget about the rest of the world and discount imperial hegemony.

China is way ahead on this kind of automation.

Athletes should have their DNA made public information so you can gamble? This is really your position? That a person’s DNA should be public so you can profit off of it? Would you be cool with a boss doing this to you or your family?

And if phenotype is what’s important, your female - male pheno is already competing as a male FYI.

Yeah I figured it wasn’t really about the money. My thought was if you offer them a discount then they still feel like they’re being treated special, and maybe they’ll be more willing to pay you using methods that you can track better for your business purposes.

Maybe offer a small friends and family discount while stressing things can’t be under the table for tax reasons.

You were a cloud before and will be a cloud again.

Perhaps when you were a cloud before you asked yourself, how do I become a human? :)

And paradoxically, the more you can admit that, the more free you are.

But yeah, 99.99% of our species is ignorant. And the .01% of us who aren’t realized holding onto impermanent stuff (and it’s all impermanent stuff) is the exact irrational behavior keeping us in chains. So they’re not the ones in power anyway.

I agree with most everything you’re saying.

But what’s meant by drugs is a big umbrella and depends on context and nuance.

The way the media is using drugs here is along these lines.

drugs - something and often an illegal substance that causes addiction, habituation (see habituation sense 2b), or a marked change in consciousness

to be drugged - to affect (a person or animal) with a drug (see drug entry 1) especially : to stupefy (someone) by an intoxicating drug

They don’t mean Australia seized medicine or something that could be medicine. They mean the State seized drugs that drug people. Of those two drugs they seized, only one I ever watched first hand destroy lives and the other I mostly saw help people. One, in my opinion and within the context of the article is a ‘drug’. As in, something that drugs people or makes them stupid.

This imprecise language I believe to be intentional on the part of the State. Because the purpose of the drug war, at least in the U.S., is mostly about control and political violence and not based on the medical definition.

a substance used as a medication or in the preparation of medication

What I’m trying to turn you onto isn’t a semantic debate, but the propaganda I am seeing around this word. And how that propaganda shapes our narratives and the world around us.

Then you include sugar and caffeine as drugs or only things that are illegal?

Point being, drug is a word we use rather arbitrarily and it doesn’t match up with how we actually use different chemicals. By drug we generally mean a chemical with the potential to heal or harm dependant on dose. But we also use it, as we do here, to primarily mean something society has made illegal.

If they had seized knock off antibiotics. Illegal antibiotics. The headline would read that specifically. Instead it basically says, a medicine that the State outlawed was seized.

And that’s a rather arbitrary distinction, imo. So I use my own terms To be drugged is to be taken away from yourself and your core values. I’ve taken both meth and MDMA. One affirmed my values. One jeopardized them.

MDMA isn’t even a drug. Drugs take you away from yourself. Alcohol is the drug the West was most familiar with so they put everything else ‘dangerous to society’ in that box.

MDMA has low abuse potential and can heal trauma. It can also help you forge deeper bonds with the people important to you.

Finally, because MDMA is illegal, it’s often cut heavily with a much cheaper and more dangerous chemical. One I do classify as a drug. Meth.

In other words, this happened because the world wanted to make illegal the very medicine that helps cure some things you mentioned.

The Australian State is as much the villain here as the syndicates.

I wish this would have happened ten years ago, when we first found out about their cover up and before the planet was burning.

Down voters didn’t read the book and missed the joke.

Humor can be a defense mechanism when things are bleak.

They’re easy to catch with a plastic cup and a piece of paper.

I don’t think I have killed a fly in nearly a decade.