Making it cheaper doesn't change people's taste, it's still mostly for the rich, now they're just getting a subsidy they didn't need from the taxpayer. If people want to spend their money on art that's perfectly fine, what I'm objecting to is the taxpayer being obligated to do so.
ThrowawayPermanente
joined 1 year ago
That a private enterprise wouldn't be able to make this work should give us a hint that it doesn't benefit enough people for it to be worthwhile, opera is a luxury good consumed by relatively few, relatively affluent people. Why should the taxpayer subsidize their hobby? Actors don't need a billion dollar opera house to perform, they could do it in a school auditorium if necessary. Those tax dollars could have been spent on any number of other things like healthcare and education.
He's already kind-of dead, what's the worst that could happen?
She's strong, but is anybody who loves coffee that much truly independent?
We need to make the presidential and vice presidential USPSA match happen
I just checked my comment history for the last 2 months and I'm not seeing anything like that. I also checked the modlog on Lemmy.World and this is all I can see.
At this point I'm going to have to assume you're just gaslighting me.
Fine, I'll bite. Which one?
Post pictures of the tree and GPS coordinates. Name and shame.
When the original comment is unserious I don't think un unserious reply is out of line.
It's the former. Anyone checking your history would be able to see a pattern of bad faith misinterpretation of other people's comments, so I'm going to assume that's what's going on here, too.
We're going to keep doing the Genocide Joe thing until Donald Trump has the nuclear codes
LinkedInLunatics is leaking