egerlach

While that's true, and so First Class and Business Class subsidize private jets more than Economy Class does, that doesn't change the fact that Economy also subsidizes private jets.

As a percentage of the total weight of a plane, passengers and their luggage constitute a much larger percentage of a commercial flight than a private one. So they are "more utilized" than a private jet, and can spread that cost over all their passengers.

Also, larger planes that fly longer distances cross more ATC zones, using up more ATC resources. They also take up more "room" in the sky, as e.g. ATC needs to leave more room for jet wash behind a heavy. So it makes sense from multiple perspectives that bigger planes pay more.

You also have to consider hobby pilots. Charging them the same amount as a 747 would be insane.

So it's a tradeoff: the Canadian system makes smaller planes pay more, proportionally, than a per-ticket model; but not so much more that it harms the smallest personal planes.

It's also just simpler. Personal plane? Private jet? Commercial passenger flight? Cargo plane? Same calculation for all of them.

(Yes, you could try to make it "only for flights with paid passengers", but then pilots of private jets would all of a sudden have a lot of very rich friends with whom they do a lot of personal flying. It's just so much easier if there's nothing subjective about it.)

"Let them eat cake" - Ghislane Maxwell, probably.

You're good. :)

People are hurt right now, and hurt mammals respond defensively (universally AFAIK). Without pretending to understand what's going on in your life right now, I want to let you know that I see you. I'm sure your anger is justified.

And if you think I'm preaching from some pulpit, I'm not. I am using writing this reply to avoid engaging in a situation that has a good chance of triggering some of my own recent trauma. I'm also not someone who uses the word "trauma" in the recent pop-psych sense. I mean it in a clinical sense.

Even though I disagree with some of what you're saying and believe it is counter-productive to the end goals that I think we share (assumption based on your comments), I don't think you're a monster. You deserve the space to be angry and to express that, as does everyone.

If you're willing, I'm interested to learn how I could better express my position succinctly without crossing into the rhetoric that you have read as close to fascism. That's not who I am trying to be and I would like to learn how to do that better. No obligation. I already appreciate your willingness to engage in good faith.

(working on response to other comment, but it's more nuanced)

We don’t have to forgive, but mocking (at first) doesn’t help IMO…

Yeah, but we’re on round 3 for people listening to trump’s campaigns.

Brainwashing is effective. Capital control of mass-media is effective. I would prefer we focused our attention there rather than on the victims of that propaganda.

Honestly, it’s gone so badly the last 3 rounds

But if someone genuinely sees the light after the third round, and their first interaction as they're coming to this realization is to be told that the tragedy that has befallen their family is their own fault... not a great feeling.

There's going to be a round 4, 5, 6, etc. of this shit in the US. There will be other versions of this in other countries, too. The more ppl we successfully deprogram after each round of fascist betrayal, the fewer ppl will be vulnerable to the propaganda the next time. It's a never ending job because we keep making new people and the fascists will always be doing propaganda.

I really think we ought to have a basic “in touch with reality test”

I'm frustrated with the incompetence of many people, too. It would be awesome if we could construct some kind of system that would ensure people are well informed before voting.

I fear any such system wouldn't pass the "would I let the fascists do this" test. There is no system involving a test that we can create that they couldn't co-opt to e.g. make a test requiring Christian Nationalist answers. Societal systems need to be made robust against corruption and constantly defended against the same. We can't rely on good people always being in charge, but if we build our systems well, we can get good people in charge more often and weather the storm when we don't.

Fully agree with you, and touché on the glib use of the quote. I wasn't trying to invoke the full depth of Nietzsche. I'm merely cautioning against crossing the line between condemning disgusting actions and labeling the people themselves as disgusting. I'm appealing to humility and humanity: a recognition that we aren't inherently "better" than the worst of them. In order to be different from them, we have to act differently.

We don't have to agree, we don't have to sympathize, but failing to see their humanity no matter how unconscionable their actions blurs the line between us and them, and that's a line I prefer to keep as clear as possible.

I am curious what you see in my comment that is "libshit", though. I don't personally see how the invocation of human rights and dignity is liberalism by any reading.

Hard agree.

I love this article on the topic: https://www.newsweek.com/trans-man-broken-men-1817169

Thoughts for non-toxic male role models:

• Bernie Sanders
• Zohran Mamdani (looks good so far)
• Jean-Luc Picard
• Tong from Raya and the Last Dragon (watched this with my daughter recently)
• Mr. Rogers
• Aragorn

I recognise that no one here was antagonizing this person, but this genre of Schadenfreude is getting quite popular. While it is satisfying, it isn't effective at achieving the goal of change. (I'm assuming that we agree that change is a more important goal than satisfaction).

If you only antagonize the worst of the worst and your filter for that is perfect my comment wasn't directed at you.

I also agree that if you can establish that they are unrepentant/shameless, then the tactics you refer to (social othering, etc.) are more likely to be effective.

I think your final paragraph makes my point, though. Even in the relative electoral college "landslide" of the 2024 election, a small percentage of votes in the right states would have changed the outcome of the presidential election. If we target that small fraction of regretful voters and welcome them to the side of justice (without absolving them of their prior transgression, but also without mockery), that can tip the scales.

I am trying to encourage you and others here to keep the eyes on the prize: change. We do that by winning hearts and minds. We can't win hearts and minds when we ostracize as our FIRST move.

(Once you find out that they're shameless, no argument from me)

Careful here… while I agree with your anger, you're using the same language used to dehumanize vulnerable populations. Everyone, including horrible people like Steven Miller, deserve basic human dignity. They deserve fairness, due process, and every human right. But unrepentant fascists don't deserve our attention, our sympathy, forgiveness, or reprieve from justice (repentant ones are more complex and not addressed here).

To treat them as less than human is to risk becoming like them. When you fight monsters, you must take extra care to avoid becoming a monster yourself, after all.

Not everyone has the luxury of the free time and effort to pay enough attention, and those people vote. I'm not suggesting absolving them of their individual responsibility. They contributed and they have to reckon with that. I'm suggesting that we recognise the role that the system they exist in plays, too. And that they're human which means they have all the failings that come along with that.

Do we hold Oppenheimer responsible for all the deaths the Manhatten Project caused? I argue we shouldn't, but he still had to personally reckon with the moral weight of it.

Two things can both be true: someone can have been part of the cause of injustice and join the fight for justice. We can both hold them accountable; and encourage their growth, offer them grace, and welcome them to the right side of history. We don't have to forgive, but mocking (at first) doesn't help IMO.

(As I've said elsewhere, no reservations about mocking the unrepentant)

FDR, Churchill, and Stalin made it work...

The right wing is using propaganda tactics that are known to brainwash and dupe many people, and you're not going to treat those who got brainwashed and duped like victims too? Yes, they're adults, and that means that they have to take responsibility for their vote. Once they do, admit they were conned, and express willingness to join the fight, it's important we accept them with open arms so they know our side is better than the other side.

As long as they're doubling down on fascism? Hard agree, they can kick rocks. Once they see what's really going on and are willing to fight it? Welcome to the team, sorry about what happened to your dad, let's see if we can get him back.

Every person like this is an opportunity to gain an ally. It's an opportunity to find out if this person was conned or is selfish. We lose that opportunity if we mock them instead of offering a hand in solidarity.