I thought it was the Shakers who were fully celibate, not the Quakers. I’m reading through the Quakers’ wiki page now and not seeing anything about views on sex/procreation. Any suggestions where to find more about that?

I’m not trying to challenge you, I’d just like to learn more if I’ve missed something here.

The choice is “help people from systematically disadvantaged groups” or “don’t.” I’d argue that the “don’t” would be the easier choice.

Extend to gender, ethnicity, LGBTQ, whatever…the key is the “systematically.” We can’t assess relative (dis)advantage at an individual level, but we can recognize it at a systemic level and develop programs that counter it systemically.

I’d say X is more like “disproportionately and systematically disadvantaging people of color.”

He’s kinda been crushing it. Definitely a pleasant surprise. I think putting 50 million of his own dollars towards campaigning for a tax system that would dramatically raise his own taxes was a pretty impressive demonstration that his approach is a bit different from Trump’s.

Also women’s healthcare, refugee support structures, LGBT inclusivity, legal recreational weed, union support, Election Day as a state holiday…the dude doesn’t suck.