SpeakingColors

Thank you for sharing that excerpt! Definitely a concept I had not thought about, makes perfect sense, and is seen demonstrated in the gentrification process.

I believe the spirit of “doing nothing is good for the soul” in the context of the whole, is pointed more at the dissolution of the thought that you ought to be doing something productive.

I would credit you the question, can one ever “do nothing?” Sitting on a park bench is something. Listening to birds in the morning is something. Breathing is something. These things are good for the soul, they are not “productive” in a capitalistic sense and I think that is the point of the list.

I believe the intent discussed in the article is that the U.S. would choose to enter in reparations. The argument being, beyond ethics, that as climate change displaces more and more people the walled gardens of the U.S. will be be beset by humans seeking refuge as well as climate change (catastrophe, crisis, choose your version). Therefore the practical answer is to gird vulnerable nations to survive well on their own for the sheer fact that it’s less work in the end. And account for potential serious action to curb their own emissions as reparations could/should be weighted for potential future emissions.

Your comment does speak to a chilling line of thought that crossed my mind as a dystopian alternative; where the U.S. would rather violently oppose change while the land dies and, those who can, fall back to closed shelters mimicking their nation’s stance. I don’t see how that is a preferable alternative to doing what we can to ensure fair survival for everyone. Surely engaging in war on a dying planet is more costly than providing aid with the justification of historic and future damages.

That was the gist of a fever dream I had as a kid. One penny. It multiplies. I’m quickly dwarfed by a mountain of that which should be small. Sounds benign but I was legit shook after waking up.

The mountains here make it more pleasant🫠

If that’s the same criteria you use for looking for that someone, and you proceed with an open and courageous heart: it won’t be a dream.

And I would say that we have general artistic conventions of depicting elements the previous commentor suggested: smell lines, meat in teeth, etc… Their absence from the scene leads me to believe the commentor’s interpretation is far from the artist’s intentions.

That’s kind of how the whole thing could/should fall apart. “Authority” gives a command and someone down the chain has to enact it, if that person or persons above the chain refused to act - there would be conflict, but hopefully the opportunity for realization that authority gave an objectionable command. The cynical take is that any number of enthusiastic appeasers would enact the command to engratiate themselves to the authority in the system, defeating the message of the refusal.

Unfortunately, much of American machismo includes stepping on others to get a better view, or to be viewed more prominently by favored authority. So to answer your question, there’s probably a dishearteningly large pool of people who would jump at the tasks Trump would dictate.

It does say have to so I think you still can, but you don’t need to sleep to have energy for your day. It’s a magic pill with magic rules

I gather that the “conversation” point is whether being trans has an impact on judgement or something? Because differing from a perceived social norm is an incorrect choice people make…

I wonder if they would feel better if they found out the zodiac killer was cis?