>>41018831
>>41018715
There are myriad implications spiritual, social, and otherwise. We did put a lot of thought into - as much as HUMANLY possible, (understanding we are merely human). As far as we could figure it was a net-positive by a wide margin, and the rest people would mostly adapt to, (humans are very good at doing so). But like any decision of this magnitude there will always be unknown factors or at least a remainder that can't be eliminated.

It has long been my observation with political policies for example that they're like long division of a prime number. No matter how you do it, you always end up with a non-zero remainder. That remainder of people tend to get screwed to everyone else's benefit.

I contend since you can't prevent it, the real trick is not just to minimise it as much as possible, but make sure those most affected could choose to avoid the consequences or otherwise in some way 'deserve' it.
eg. When it comes to situations like George Floyd, while I'd prefer nobody died in police custody at all, his death seemed largely precipitated by his own actions, before and during the incident. Hardly a situation where I'd 'defund the police' and prefer innocent people be the remainder and get ridden roughshod by criminals.

You might not agree, but I'm sure you can think of situations that are more unfair than they should be where innocent people get screwed to protect scumbags. Another example would be laws where women making demonstrably false accusations go unpunished. That's failing to minimise the remainder AND misplacing it.

I'll tell you something for nothing though, (I'm surprised nobody has bought up yet), the trannies aren't gonna like it when they get factory reset. Or more to the point, the most vocal agenda-driven ones wont like it 'on behalf' of their interest group. Individuals, their mileage may vary - especially if they already regret it. That was never intentional, but frankly, I'm not losing much sleep over shit like that.

>>41018831
>>41018715
There are myriad implications spiritual, social, and otherwise. We did put a lot of thought into - as much as HUMANLY possible, (understanding we are merely human). As far as we could figure it was a net-positive by a wide margin, and the rest people would mostly adapt to, (humans are very good at doing so). But like any decision of this magnitude there will always be unknown factors or at least a remainder that can't be eliminated.

It has long been my observation with political policies for example that they're like long division of a prime number. No matter how you do it, you always end up with a non-zero remainder. That remainder of people tend to get screwed at everyone else's expense.

I contend since you can't prevent it, the real trick is not just to minimise it as much as possible, but make sure those most affected could choose to avoid the consequences or otherwise in some way 'deserve' it.
eg. When it comes to situations like George Floyd, while I'd prefer nobody died in police custody at all, his death seemed largely precipitated by his own actions, before and during the incident. Hardly a situation where I'd 'defund the police' and prefer innocent people be the remainder and get ridden roughshod by criminals.

You might not agree, but I'm sure you can think of situations that are more unfair than they should be where innocent people get screwed to protect scumbags. Another example would be laws where women making demonstrably false accusations go unpunished. That's failing to minimise the remainder AND misplacing it.

I'll tell you something for nothing though, (I'm surprised nobody has bought up yet), the trannies aren't gonna like it when they get factory reset. Or more to the point, the most vocal agenda-driven ones wont like it 'on behalf' of their interest group. Individuals, their mileage may vary - especially if they already regret it. That was never intentional, but frankly, I'm not losing much sleep over shit like that.