| ▲ | manux 14 hours ago | |||||||||||||
Balanced, sure. Why is 50/50 ethically coherent? | ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | qwerpy 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||
Didn’t say it was. But the headline is implying throwing money at this particular side is noteworthy. However, money is going to both sides. Why isn’t the headline “throwing money at various political candidates”? | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | xp84 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||||||||
One party does not have an indisputable claim on being ethical. Both of our political parties have done highly unethical things. Without getting into a bunch of hot-button political fights, I'll just say: Different people prioritize different issues and the parties (and their politicians) each have a lot to be ashamed of. | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | legitster 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||||||||
The goal is to get a seat at the table, not tip the scale. Even if the government is unethical, it's still a good idea to push for good policy (unless you're an accelerationist). Obviously we're talking about businesses here so what they are pushing for is probably ethically neutral in itself. But supporting everyone equally seems like the least bad option. | ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | sghiassy 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||
I’d also like to know the answer to this | ||||||||||||||