CarbonIceDragon

To be fair, everyone's views are shaped by propaganda of some kind, it's quite literally unavoidable if you exist within any society. Lots of people like to think that their ideas are just the product of their own independent thinking, but that isn't really how people work.

I don't think it's performative to want the bigots to become people that aren't bigots rather than wanting them dead. I mean I'll take dead over spreading the sort of hate he was in a case like that I guess, and I get that the later is something other people have much more control over than the former, but still.

Fashionable

The riddle doesn't say that the Shakira that possess the lying hips must lie herself, so you could just ask her and hope she's nice enough to be honest about it

Most of the solid bodies in the solar system are literally a bunch of airless, irradiated, toxic rocks, with either no life at all or potentially some rare bacteria-like stuff hidden somewhere we haven't been able to conclusively examine yet. They already are in a more "fucked up" state than even the most polluted wasteland we've created on earth. What could we possibly do to them to mess them up further?

Depends on the time frame. In the period immediately following such a venture, sure, but if you actually properly establish settlement off earth, the total resource base and thus carrying capacity of civilization as a whole increases and continues to increase until we either hit the limits of that part of the universe one can theoretically reach (which is so big as to make the entire earth less than a speck of dust by comparison), you decide to just stop space colonization (which gets more difficult the further on you go, because the number of potential polities to launch a new mission increases the more space is populated), or you find yourself boxed in by alien civilizations in all directions (since we haven't seen any, they're most likely far enough apart on average for this to still leave an extremely vast chunk of space). A hypothetical spacefairing civilization should be able to reach sizes so vast that it would be physically impossible to create enough jobs on just one planet to equal it, even with just this solar system even.

Job creation by itself is not exactly the best motivation to pursue this though, since the jobs created will after the initial period be generally far away and therefore not likely to be worked by anyone except the people that end up in those colonies, who wouldn't even exist otherwise.

I used to love grapefruit, more than any other citrus fruit. Then I learned about pomelos. I still generally like grapefruit, but don't get them so much anymore because they always seem vaguely disappointing by comparison.

I am well aware of those types, they're the type of person that comes into futurist communities and start frustrating arguments by unironically claiming that chatgpt is already ASI, or crap like that, in my experience.

Space exploration, development, and eventual human settlement has such a high potential future utility that it effectively becomes a moral imperative, therefore, we should give NASA (or a different space agency for those in other countries) many times more funding and resources than they currently have available

"Somehow, Han Solo returned"

Plot twist; they cancelled because their convention had to be rescheduled due to unforeseen circumstances.

For that matter, does it really matter what group he was a part of? Theres a tendency to try to declare anyone that has done anything objectionable as being part of a group one doesnt like, or at the very least not part of one's ingroup, but that's a bit pointless.

If a group it large enough its more or less statistically certain that it will contain whatever sort of horrible people you can think of, and this includes things like the group of people with roughly the same political alignment as you. Whatever you support or believe in, if it isnt incredibly niche and rare, there are going to be murders, rapists, bigots, and whoever else is terrible out there who agree with you.

It doesnt make sense to fret over that, or to take the existence of one such guy as an argument that a position must be wrong somehow. If a position inherently requires such things, like the position of someone advocating genocide, or if it inherently increases the risks that excess deaths will happen, like with an anti-vaxxer, one can point those things out and say that the position leads to harmful societal outcomes. But the ideology of an individual murderer is almost irrelevant to if the rest of the holders of that position have a point or not.