You probably didnt know but marijuana is a racist word invented to blame Mexicans for cannabis consumption.

I never said he was ethical in every way. I said he helps people more than someone who doesnt have the resources he has. You said you could spend a million on charity to seem nice andd I said do it. I dont care if youre an asshole in every other aspect, if you spend a million on charity thats still a good deed. Judging someone based on the idea of them being a hypocrite instead of accepting their good deeds as such is a little pathetic, its like hating vegans because they ‘think theyre morally superior’.

I also never said being a nice guy means receiving government aid, I just said Id rather have an asshole helping millions. There are enough nice guys that dont have a positive impact on poverty around the world.

Capitalism is pretty good at creating wealth, its been successfully increasing the average living conditions of people for centuries. The problem we currently have is that, while the average is still growing well, the median is decreasing because the richest hold most of the wealth and most of its gains, so the poor effectively get poorer. Why hate on the one guy that uses capitalism to help millions? If every billionaire donated most of their wealth, this system could actually work out pretty well.

So if monarchs would have succeeded in suppressing democracy until today (not very far fetched by the way), that would be proof of Democracy being a bad system?

Think about what youre even saying.

What is this bullshit argument?

Your argument.

What is this bullshit argument? If a lightbulb stops working after 10 years, is it as useless as a lightbulb that breaks after 10 minutes?

Did I write they have to be impossible to overturn?

Why are you implying that real communism would be easily overturned? Its never been implemented.

So just to be clear, there doesnt currently exist a political system that works, as they all have been overturned multiple times?

A political and economic system is not some random piece of infrastructure, like a solar panel.

And its also not a magic potion.

A padlock that can’t hinder an intruder is a bad padlock.

A political and economic system is not some random piece of infrastructure object, like a solar panel padlock.

Youre saying a political system can only work if there is not a single aspect that can be taken advantage of? Thats equivalent to every single person being controlled 100% in their actions. If thats your idea of ideal, sure. I guess some people currently being in leading positions would agree with you.

The US is currently in the middle of a fascist takeover, while being a Democracy (in the past at least). Are you saying Democracy is not a political system worth pursuing because it doesnt work?

This is like saying the idea of solar panels is bad because capitalists work against them to destroy their reputation. Judging a system based on the assumption that theres someone else trying to destroy it is very simple minded.

While all of that is true, I dont understand how it contradicts my statement that a person spending billions on helping people has higher impact than another person that doesnt.

That his carbon footprint being way higher than that of an average person is outweighed by the positive impact. If every billionaire spent a majority of their wealth on charity we would live in a completely different world.

And a car has a smaller climate footprint than a ship transporting solar panels, or the factory producing them. What is your point?

By all means do so then, please. An asshole spending millions on charity helps way more people than a nice guy receiving government aid.

Fuel consumption is not the deciding factor here. Airplanes use kerosene, which has a higher greenhouse coefficient. Admittedly, it is only 10-20% higher. Way more importantly, emitting at high altitude increases the greenhouse effect by 2 to 4 times.

There have been studies analyzing aviation emissions in the past and even back then, flying had higher emissions. Newer studies suggest those numbers were extremely underestimated (by a factor of 2-3):

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02847-4

So just going by basic math, if we assume those numbers you posted are correct (didnt check them as I dont think absolute fuel consumption has any relevance for climate effects), we should multiply air plane fuel consumption by 4-12 to get a more accurate number, resulting in an equivalent of 8-36 litres per passenger per 100km. Dont quote me on this last part, it is probably not accurate, I just wrote it in reponse to your fuel comparison.

Even if they ALL drive instead, every person alone in a car, thats more climate friendly than flying. Flying is so incredibly inefficient.

Edit: to specify, with inefficient, I am referring to the resulting effects on climate, not cost or absolute fuel consumption.

Did they say it was?

Sorceress ;)

The land of the free hahaha

Cant even paint your house however you want lmao

Are people told what color to paint their house? By whom?

You I can leave salt out of 90% of dishes without noticing.

Thats what you meant to say.

So if Mamdani is a successful mayor everyone will accept socialism is a good thing, right? Right?

Bro please stop. You are absolutely 100% wrong and have no idea what you are talking about. Just accept it as a an opportunity for uncovering some of the bullshit propaganda your patriot bubble creates.