I have no chips in that discussion but I'll give it to you, you're excellent at straying off-topic instead of answering the question. I think the term is whataboutism.

The justice system is supposed to give us justice. Do you think it is just that the individual(s) are essentially immune to that form of justice?

To your point, is there evidence supporting your claim? For example I think there's many occurrences of lawsuits related to police abuse, where people earn substantial sums of money in reparation for abuse from the police. Is there evidence that the professional life of the police agents who cause these situation becomes significantly harder afterwards? Or do they keep their job?

Following that logic, there is no reason anyone rich should be entitled to not being stolen from while others are starving. You don't get to cherry-pick the psychopathic rules. I don't care how much you worked for it, you being rich is never more important than poor people having a home and food.

Great points. I will add that even if we need oil for some things, it doesn't imply that we need all the oil for everything we currently use it for. We could reduce our oil consumption and reduce the subsidies while still having *some* use for oil.

What do you aim to achieve with this comment? This is the most literal case of "blaming the victim" I can think of. There are things to be outraged about in this story. The character of the victim, or of her family, is irrelevant to the injustice that person suffered.

Isn't it a problem though, that the individuals who made the very avoidable and life-changing mistakes won't suffer consequences? I mean in general people should have some kind of protection for what they do during paid work. But too much protection means certain bad people don't even care, which is not a good outcome.

I am not saying that we don't need fuel at all, that would be silly. But I am observing that all of a sudden working from home becomes acceptable again. So we were consuming some of that fuel without a need to do it, since home office is fine after all.

All this shows is that society does not need to consume that much fuel, we can adapt.

Can you think of many countries where the cops wear masks?

My experience is that bank employees have no clue about security. And neither do banks. Here are some examples.

My bank used to have a 2FA mobile app for logging into their web interface ("netbanking") and for signing transactions. A few years ago they released a new mobile app that does both the netbanking and the 2FA. These days you can't use the old app anymore, you have to use the new unified app. They will however allow you to restrict it to only work as 2FA, but that's opt-in. So it's just there for people like you and me. You still need a PIN/fingerprint to validate transactions so it could be worse, but most people who have this app could easily be mugged for a lot of money. Thankfully this bank operates in a country where mugging is uncommon.

A few years ago I was in a foreign country trying to pay for a rental car but the payment wouldn't go through. I called my bank. They told me to raise the weekly cap with netbanking. I told them I only had the old 2FA app on my phone. Their advice was to use the web version from my phone, which makes sense but I didn't have it bookmarked. I asked them to send me a link. They told me to Google it and take the first result.

I don't think my experience is unique. Bank employees have no awareness of security risks. And why would they, they don't suffer the consequences.

Wouldn't it be enough if the pentagon simply took its business elsewhere? What additional value is achieved by officially declaring it a supply chain risk? I mean beside petty vengeance.

People who were born poor, overwhelmingly.

So Iran would be justified in sinking a US ship in the Indian Ocean, if they could manage it?

Same here, and I do believe that the world is now a better place for having one less tyrant in it. Yet I also feel that my outrage at the bombing of that school is justified, and that countries should generally not attack other countries. I don't really understand how the death of a tyrant is supposed to make all the accompanying horror palatable, especially when they are so disconnected from each other.

You realise the ones doing the attacking are the US and Israel, yes?