Goldmage263

u/Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works
49 posts · 729 comments

Recent posts

Recent comments

Maybe I'm still too young. Early 30's and asking a lot of questions about "why did we have a restructuring and layoffs if we had a record year for financials?" Not getting any answers of course, but I sure am getting a lot of information. Also getting to be the voice of all my coworkers. Literally all of them. We all hate it.

I agree about the infantalizing part, but not the mixing. There can and should be different factions able to secure space for how people want to live. Majority rule with respect to the minority. Communes should be just as enabled to exist as other groupings, organizations, and jurisdictions.

I think there is value in how those who asked or accepted funding think about it. People who just see the cash, yeah, deplorable. People who feel conflicted about it, but can provide for their aids and families because of funding, maybe not so much. Anyone excited to go interact and associate directly, going to the island; super slimy and needs to be excommunacated from the scientific community.

Knowingly using dirty money is immoral, even if used for a good cause [with the expection of undoing what made the money dirty in the first place]. On a tier-list, it would be a D tier option, above things like stealing toothpaste from a walmart, but below scalping via artificial inflation.

The immoral part is via association. Even if you denounce what the donor has done, you are still allowing them to be partially responsible for any good that comes out of the work/research.

Desperation for funding has often led people to compromise morality for progress, and I struggle to judge what is the correct decision, even if the moral option is clear.