There are some important nuances and context that deserve to be part of the conversation, especially when we’re talking about a high-profile case like Cuomo’s and the legal battles that have followed.
First off, the article leans heavily into framing the $19 million settlement fund as if it’s an admission of guilt or some sort of legal defeat for Cuomo, but that’s not actually what it is. The settlement was reached between the state and the plaintiffs—not Cuomo personally—and the article itself notes that he wasn’t a party to the settlement and didn’t approve it. This is a crucial point. In legal terms, that means the state essentially made a business decision to resolve ongoing litigation without dragging it through a long, expensive trial, which often happens in cases involving public employees and government bodies, regardless of who’s sitting in the governor’s chair.
Also, the piece emphasizes that Cuomo is launching legal action to avoid personally being held liable for any portion of this fund, and it's written in a tone that suggests he’s dodging responsibility. But from another angle, what he’s doing is challenging the idea that he should be retroactively held financially responsible for a settlement he had no hand in approving and wasn’t even a defendant in. If you think about it, that’s a pretty reasonable legal position to take. If someone agrees to a financial settlement in your name without your involvement, wouldn’t you want to contest being on the hook for it?
The article also makes it sound like Cuomo is trying to silence or punish accusers by going after them through the courts, but the defamation suits he filed are civil actions alleging that some of the statements made against him were knowingly false and damaging. That doesn’t erase or dismiss the seriousness of the original accusations, but defamation is a legitimate legal claim—especially if a public figure believes their reputation has been harmed by falsehoods. Whether or not you agree with him taking that route, the courts are there to evaluate the facts on both sides, and that process is part of the same system that allowed the initial complaints to be aired and settled.
This isn’t about saying Cuomo is above criticism—he’s clearly a complicated and polarizing figure—but it’s worth being cautious about articles that are quick to cast every move as sinister or cynical without giving much space to the legal logic or broader political backdrop. Especially in today’s climate, where media narratives can be shaped by who gets the first or loudest word in, it helps to pause and look at the actual legal mechanisms at play rather than just the headlines.
Talk to more women. I mean, just watch videos where men wear period cramp simulators. Just the tip of the iceberg. It seems to me that basically all of their systems are higher maintenance. Meanwhile men are naturally more muscular, have stronger bones, and don't really have to worry about shit.
For anyone who feels targeted by this meme, be more aware of agitprop. If you can't make donations or attend events, it's okay. Just making your allyship known has material benefit.
I totally get where you're coming from—on the surface, it does seem absurd that so much effort, money, and even space tech is being directed toward chasing a shiny yellow metal that, in practical terms, doesn’t do much for human survival. It can’t feed us, shelter us, or cure disease. And yet, we’ve built entire economies and mythologies around it. But the strange part is, this isn’t unique to gold. It’s part of a much deeper pattern in human economic systems, especially in capitalism, where markets need some way to store and measure value—and that almost always leads societies to latch onto something rare, durable, and symbolic, whether it’s objectively useful or not.
In early societies, people used cowrie shells in the Pacific Islands, huge stone disks in Yap, salt in ancient Africa, and even tulip bulbs in the Dutch Republic. These weren’t chosen because they had immense utility, but because they were scarce, hard to replicate, and symbolically powerful. They allowed people to trade across time and space. Capitalism, being based on decentralized exchange, competition, and accumulation, basically demands a store of value that everyone can agree on—even if the object itself is more symbolic than practical. Gold just happens to check all the boxes: it’s rare, doesn’t tarnish, can be melted and divided, and most importantly, it's extremely hard to counterfeit or mass-produce without massive energy investment.
If gold didn’t exist, we’d be doing the same thing with something else. In fact, that’s basically what happened with Bitcoin. People wanted a store of value outside the control of central banks, and they turned to something even more intangible—just math and energy. It’s the same pattern: we create artificial scarcity and give it value, because we need a common reference point to coordinate vast, impersonal economies.
Now, the asteroid mining thing? Yeah, it sounds wild. But from a capitalist perspective, it actually makes sense. If gold remains valuable, then any untapped supply—even in space—is a business opportunity. The fact that this seems grotesque when we think about all the hunger and suffering here on Earth is a painful contradiction, but it’s also part of the logic of capitalism. Capital doesn't naturally flow toward moral priorities like feeding people; it flows toward returns. And unless there are incentives or systemic shifts to redirect that flow, people will keep pursuing things like asteroid gold, because that’s where the value signal points.
So yeah, it’s kind of maddening. But it's not really about gold being useful—it's about human systems needing anchors of value. And gold, for all its impracticality, happens to be an anchor that capitalism can rally around.
It's universally obtainable but not in ridiculous volumes and not without effort and once obtained it's incredibly durable. It's essentially perfect for the job.
Try mangos with tajin