They prefer this:
And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Genesis 1:28)
It doesn’t look like Trump plans to discuss his way out of the constitutional crisis:
Just like when the Weimar Republic was stress tested.
There has always been a big disconnect between the USA’s fantasies of its values and its actual values.
In my experience the engineers usually hate the motivational bullshit that managers dream up because they have too much time and no actual skills. The best thing you can do is give the engineers a bit of respect and some quiet time to do their work.
Microsoft seems to be attempting this with the new Copilot in Windows. You can ask it to open applications, etc., and also chat with it. But it is still pretty clunky when it comes to the assistant part (e.g. I asked it to open my power settings and after a bit of to and fro it managed to open the Settings app, after which I had to find the power settings for myself). And they’re planning to charge for it, starting at an outrageous $30 per month. I just don’t see that it’s worth that to the average user.
I think we’re not disagreeing but just using “normal” in different senses. I mean “not unusual” (half of the population leans conservative) while you mean something like “well adjusted” or “healthy”.
The best protection from Nazism is to recognize that Nazis were normal people like us, not some strange nonhuman species. If we recognize this we can see that many people can be turned that way when the circumstances push them towards it. So we should watch ourselves. It’s when this gets forgotten and Nazis become caricature movie villains that we let our guard down. It’s no coincidence that fascism resurges when the WW2 generations have mostly died out, taking their memories with them, and Nazis in popular culture have become cartoon baddies.
Thanks for the reply. It makes sense, though I would jump off at a different point from you. I tend to feel that if it comes to life vs property, even the life of a robber who is making others miserable and afraid, life generally wins no matter what the property is. That is, I don’t myself feel like it is ever worth taking a life to preserve property, and I hope that if I found myself in the situation of being robbed of something dear to me, I would be able to let the property go and the robber live, painful though it would be. But I also don’t believe ethical questions can arrive at a final answer. There’s too much nuance in every situation so I wouldn’t propose this as “the right answer”. It’s just how I currently feel on the matter. Another aspect of this view is that while I wouldn’t condemn in advance anyone who shoots in such a situation, I’d understand it better if they were afraid for themselves rather than just for their property.
Thankfully I’m not a legislator so I don’t need to try to codify this into law, and I appreciate your position, which seems that be that although you probably wouldn’t yourself shoot in this situation, you don’t think others should be branded criminals for doing so. I don’t want to pronounce on that matter, but just to observe that your position is probably more common in the USA than in, for example, many European countries, hence it seeming unusual to many of us non-Americans.
in the longer run.
I have yet to work for a company where management cares about this. It’s always about what can be sold next week if we rush it enough. Or, more commonly, what was sold weeks ago without any consultation with the technical team.
What you say in this comment seems inconsistent with what you said in the previous one, namely that if you try to break into someone’s stuff (e.g. an unoccupied parked car in this case) you should expect to be shot at. Going straight to deadly force to protect one’s property is the bit people (at least, many non-Americans) think is not normal.
My favorite rodent-and-pasta dish.
Faith is just trust. To do anything at all involves some element of faith. To have no faith would turn a person into a deranged control freak. The problem is not faith but religious organizations who try to warp “have faith” into “don’t ever use your own intelligence to second guess what we say.”
Traditional conservatism is really a flavour of classical liberalism.
That’s an important factor, but another is the shift from print to the internet. With print you bought a paper then looked to see what was inside. You could know which papers had more reliable reporting. With the internet there’s no audience loyalty and most people are not paying, so they’re always desperate to get you to click on their article instead of someone else’s for the sake of the advertising views. So shock, outrage and clickbait win every time, not responsible reporting.
That’s the adult interpretation - stewardship and care. But lots of fundamentalists seem to read it as “do whatever you like with the Earth and its other inhabitants, because you’re in charge and you’re better than them.”