![](/static/253f0d9/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/8f2046ae-5d2e-495f-b467-f7b14ccb4152.png)
I get what your point, and is a fair one. Except there is evidence that he wouldn’t have been voting their way, since he was thinking of leaving the court, or at least gave that impression to others to get a raise. Then the gift tap turned on…
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-money-complaints-sparked-resignation-fears-scotus
Maybe try Antarctica as an example? There are a few people there, and it seems quite possible to settle without conflict (assuming some treaty alterations). Some atoll no one uses all the time? Maybe a lost cause, bloodfart doesn’t seem all that interested in the good faith distinction you are pointing out.
I see your point though; the distinction, to me, motivates using less neutrally connoted wording. Something like “invaders” or “raiders”. Nice and clear to everyone.
B seems rather intent on making sure the neutral word is seen as a morally charged one. Seems like making one hard project into two projects and thus just increasing the difficulty to me.