Lol, good one.

His first love be the C

You’re misunderstanding my point. I have no doubt about your position on a trial. My critique is not about your legal conclusion; it’s about your rhetorical choice.

You simultaneously said ‘he needs a trial’ and ‘don’t forget his philanthropy.’ My argument is that the second part (however well-intentioned) functions to change the subject. In a discussion about alleged sex crimes, any addition of unrelated positive accomplishments (be it philanthropy, art, or scientific work) shifts the frame from the victims and the allegations to the balancing of a person’s moral ledger.

You can believe both things, but introducing the philanthropy into this specific conversation is what I’m questioning. That’s not a figment of my imagination; it’s a direct observation of your words. If you believe that addition is necessary, please justify it without retreating to your stance on a trial, which I already understand.

I understand your concern about backlash. But doesn’t that approach inadvertently prioritize Gates’ reputation over the gravity of the allegations themselves? If the allegations are true, the victims and the pursuit of justice deserve the central focus. Introducing his charity work, even to prevent ‘villainization,’ inherently shifts that focus. It suggests the story about Bill Gates is more important than the facts of the case.

I understand the principle you’re applying (that a person’s positive and negative actions can be judged separately). My question was more about the conversational relevance.

In a discussion specifically about serious criminal allegations, introducing a person’s philanthropic work often feels like a deflection tactic, whether intended or not. It shifts the focus from ‘Did this bad thing happen?’ to ‘How do we weigh the good against the bad?’

So my ‘why bring it up?’ was really asking: In a conversation about alleged sex crimes, what is the purpose of directing attention to his charity work? Is it to ensure the allegations aren’t overstated, or is it to steer the discussion away from the allegations themselves?

That’s the distinction I’m trying to understand.

Agreed. So why bring it up?

yup, the original owner sold out and it belongs to some super shady company now. I had used nova* launcher from my days of using the HTC wildfire (I think) so I felt the loss too.

Even less. Google’s net worth recently passed the $4 trillion mark.

so; $135 million is ~0.003375% of $4 trillion.

So it’s more like fining a regular person… I don’t know? But yeah, big figure to impress the ants and literal crumbs to them.

“Gone”? To prison, right?

Thanks for that. I’ve permanent donkey-brains and overlooked that entirely.

It sounds like we’re on the same page, I appreciate you clarifying you point for me. Stay safe.

Sure, I absolutely agree with you.

In my previous comment I was trying to highlight a slightly different topic: the fact that “the official story” and what has happened are often mutually exclusive and that it’s not important the official story is correct but that it’s believed.

Nice comfy retirement for him now.

I was explaining this to my partner last night. It doesn’t matter it’s a blatant lie, what’s important is the average dolt believes the lie.

“Oh, a domestic terrorist with a gun? I’m glad they dealt with him”.

“Oh, she tried to run an ICE agent over? I’m glad they dealt with her.”

Remember the ‘big lie’: if a lie is large enough and repeated frequently, the masses will eventually believe it.

Why is OpenSUSE at the bottom? I’d heard good things about it. EndeavourOS is my current OS but I’m always looking for a new distro.

Hope they picked their nose clean while they had the chance.

“Suddenly”?

Where are you pulling that from? People have been denouncing ICE and the detention facilities way before those two events. Performative outrage or just a bad memory?

Huh, mind-boggling.

Spaced is the best.

Brian: Do you think I should lose the waistcoat?

Tim: I think you should burn it. Because if you lose it, you might find it again.

You might be interested in the Time Team Classics channel on YouTube. (link)