Technically it is

You are not wrong, but I don’t really think abusing the disenfranchised to the extent that they aren’t getting paid at all while food rots away is what I would call a “good path” to living wages.

First off, no one is getting living wages for the work yet, and we have no evidence to suggest they will.

Secondly, even if this does lead to that, maybe we could have found a path forward without all the unnecessary added suffering?

I dunno, it just feels really fucked up to be spinning this like the only outcome is “living wages” when all it has actually done so far is cause additional harm.

Laughs in A Tale of Two Wastelands.

The point was obvious…

Chinese censorship is planned and targeted, with the intent to control and suppress dissent. It works hard to maintain a narrative and prevent excessive and rapid shifts so as to achieve a long term goal of control.

The billionaires running American social media (with a special shout to Musk) are mercurial and subject to the petty whims and feelings of the owner.

So while yes, obviously both change and the heads of the CCP are also occasionally subject to emotional responses, the differences between the two are stark and obvious. So no, “everything technically changes” is not a valid counter to the significant differences in intent and volatility.

Claiming you don’t understand the point they were making is just being intentionally obtuse.

Weird, I said this shit for years, and I was upvoted into the heavens, agreed with, called a hero, and acknowledged as a result.

Maybe is not what was being said?

Not that I’m fully on board with the theory, but you might be surprised how often “solving” a high profile case is placed above actually getting the right man.

This is a publicity nightmare for the police, and getting someone in custody “achieves” placating the public and key stakeholders.

Repeating things about this kids views on the Uni-bomber and referring to his writings as a manifesto “achieves” diminishing his status as a folk hero.

So while I won’t endorse any particular theory until more evidence comes out, it wouldn’t be the first time putting a scapegoat in jail was deemed more important than letting people think the “perp” got away. Even if the hypothetical real shooter kills again, controlling the narrative can be it’s own goal in cases like this.

It’s from the BBC, they are using the British spelling.