Huh, I never read too much into it but it definitely sounds like that might be the case.

This Billboard article from the time of the 2005 legal settlement mentions:

"The settlement ends a legal dispute that some of Parks’ own relatives had criticized, saying she wouldn’t have minded the use of her name in the song “Rosa Parks” had she not been mentally impaired. "

…

“After that lawsuit was filed, some of Parks’ relatives began questioning her well-being and the actions of her caretaker and the lawyers who filed the suit, and alleged she is probably unaware of the lawsuits.”

So perhaps while she did technically live long enough to sue OutKast, she was suffering from dementia at the time and it’s possible that she was unaware of the actions taken in her name.

The more you know!

I’ve posted about this before but Rosa Parks lived long enough to sue OutKast in 1999 over their use of her name in their song ‘Rosa Parks’.

Boooo!

We can’t blame chatgpt for the change in headline writing over the last few years, though.

Bahahahaha!

I see what you’re saying, the tokens represent access to a finite amount of resources and creating more tokens won’t create more resources. I get that.

But if the problem isn’t with the amount of resources but with their distribution, then redistributing the existing tokens out of the hands of the greedy hoarders must help the rest, mustn’t it?

Edit: I can’t believe I’m sitting here arguing with someone on the goddamn Internet. Must be out of my damn mind

Ok but the way I see it there are 100 people and 1000 tokens. Instead of every person getting 10 tokens, one guy has 998 tokens and everyone else argues over the remaining 2. Would killing the one rich guy not free up some tokens for the rest of us?

Imagine being so naive as to believe massive wealth hording deprived others! What turkeys! Amirite?