Were I to be supporting PP when Sanger was still alive, I would not have been enriching her, or enabling other things that she believed in (at least not to any extent that would trouble me). Mostly because PP has always been a not-for-profit organization.

Being a Starlink customer, to me, has a straight line connection to enabling that man to do all the things he does.

> I think to assume that humans are these monolithic, logically consistent entities is to badly misunderstand humanity.

I don't think anyone is doing that though. But to decide whether to give someone's business money you do have to come to some sort of decision about their net good vs bad. It's logically consistent for the OP to be aware that Musk is aiding internet connectivity in Iran but still oppose giving him money.

people understandably love to understand complex things as simple logical puzzle pieces. they do it with words too. people have this tendency to act like words are formally-defined mathematical concepts, and then agonise over whether their experiences fit those concepts, then use those concepts as proof for their arguments. this is, of course, essentially simply a description of communicating with language, and for most words it's absolutely fine; the words have so little variance and breadth in definition that it doesn't matter. the issue arises when the words are not clearly defined, and it becomes even worse (and more common) when the words are emotionally loaded. people adore using emotionally, loaded, weakly defined terms to end an argument quickly. it's essentially sophistry. we're all absolutely awash with these terms right now due to the dominance of headlines, tweets, content titles and other short form stretches that demand dense, emotionally charged meaning in a small space. if you'd like some examples, take "fascism", "sexual harassment" and "eugenics".

don't say someone is "essentially a eugenicist". it's such a vaguely defined term that this borders on useless. if you believe something like this, justify it with: "she supported x policy I disagree with" or "she believed in the reduction of y trait in the populace" or whatever it is that triggered you to take on this belief in the first place

As the other poster said, low effort reply. You can start with the Bam earthquake and work your way to the loss of Radio Farda. You beloved Musk put an end to the Middle Eastern Broadcasting Network.

I agree that no person should be offended. Obviously that's not ground truth..

If we could all agree that life would be easier if people were offended less, then instead of only trying to get people to offend other people less by telling them what is acceptable to say we could also get people to try to not take offense as much when they hear what they don't want to hear we'd have solved the offense problem from both ends.

TL;DR: Just be nice. Life's easier when you're nice even when people aren't nice to you but it does take effort.

There is no moral requirement for me to impoverish myself in response to an idiot cutting government/public spending on critical assistance to those in need.

There might be other moral imperatives which indicate that I ought to cash out the 401(k) and give it to people who need support, but this guy and his fucked up "DOGE" bullshit ain't it.

Why is that money I'm hoarding currently being devalued by tax cuts to the ultra-wealthy and bonuses paid out to ethnic cleanser shock troops?

Note the same, maybe if my bank account was equivalent to Elon Musk's it would be a fair argument but hardly the same to expect a shitposter to be equivalent to a man who is a billionaire.

Ah yes the "recommendations" that lead to dismantling USAID and where ~400k people have already died due to those direct cuts:

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-documentary...

Take your pick homie:

https://ph.ucla.edu/news-events/news/research-finds-more-14-...

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-documentary...

https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/usaid-shutdown-has-led-to-hund...

This one is a PDF, so warning:

https://www.medschool.umaryland.edu/media/som/news/news-logo...

So right now, there are nearly 400,000 verifiable deaths due to the cuts of these programs. It's on track to be way worse than what I imagined, several million to 14 million.

I'm sorry but that's just straight up evil behavior.

Huge difference between taking an equity stake in a failing company and nationalizing a successful company. Either way, those seeds were planted well before this admin, though this admin can be seen to have watered/tended them.

The current administration didn’t start that, see the bailouts of the 07-08 financial crisis.