newsroom
Discord ID: 398858182455459853
87,357 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Prev |
Page 295/350
| Next
wow, tucker gets really loud
he just kind of bursts out sometimes
dang, my ear drums
he did the same thing when being interviewed by Dave Rubin
I like how he rekt Ben
and somehow Ben doesn't look that good
Seen the threesome on Rubin?
Ben, Jordan and Eric?
Ben is kind of bland.
propaganda
<:TimThink:482277772497125378>
so wait are we not losing anymore because the dems are cheating
clearly this is the russians <:NPC:500042527231967262>
"Republicans are rigging the election!" *while democrats are getting dead people to vote, getting non-citizens to vote, and now trying to literally hack the election*
@Timcast This is in the description of the Bannon Frum debate.
``` Note: Due to a technical error, the Munk Debates announced incorrect voting results at the conclusion of the event. The final official audience vote on the resolution was 28% in favour and 72% opposed. The Munk Debates have announced that the debate ended in a draw and apologized for the error. ```
Lol
that reeks of damage control
Lol
Ministry of truth in full swing
Also tempted to say this is fake news given that they try to link trump to anti-government groups which you know, makes sensr
A lot of Republicans seem confident they're going to have a "red wave" but I don't think so, I think it'll be close between parties.
It's gonna be close
https://epik.com/blog/why-epik-welcomed-gab-com.html it's nice to see there are still companies that value freedom of speech (like epik).
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/11/05/uc-davis-holding-eight-faculty-searches-focused-candidates-contributions-diversity
"
Davis is funding the program with some $422,000 of a $7 million University of California System-wide investment in faculty diversity, in addition to existing campus funds.
...
The idea is that a diverse search will lead to a diverse candidate pool. Instead of a focusing on a particular disciplinary expertise, search teams will look for candidates with proven commitments to diversity, equity and inclusion among underrepresented groups, namely black, Latino, Chicano and Native American applicants.
...
Participating programs are the Colleges of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Biological Sciences, and Engineering, along with the Graduate School of Management and the Schools of Education, Law, Medicine and Veterinary Medicine.
...
Search committees will soon be formed, with the goal of hiring these new professors by July. Davis will pay up to $85,000 toward the salary of each hire. Individual schools or colleges will be responsible for pay above that, and the professorsโ entire salaries after five years
...
While the open-search approach isn't appropriate for all searches at all schools, Kass said, โwe do want to see if it can augment these other processes to accelerate the diversification of our faculty.โ Beyond that, he said, โfaculty may be hired in disciplines that departments had not contemplated but now want.โ
"
In other words, instead of hiring faculty based on the needs of a department to cover a research or teaching need, they'll now look for people with diversity qualifications first and foremost. Literally, the needs of diversity trump the needs of the institution to cover important areas in disciplines like Biology, Engineering, Management, Medicine, Education and Law
Perhaps they can hire based on diversity of ideas next
Nazi.
\s
Press F for education.
Show your work for full marks
When I was at UC Davis it wasn't that bad, but Davis is a lot different than most of California.
It's out in the boonies.
Sacramento wants to be part of the bay area, but really it's just cheep place for people to stay when they want to go to Tahoe or Reno.
@Timcast have you seen this?
"NASAโ said earlier this year observations from their Hubble Space Telescope confirmed the object had an โunexpected boost in speed and shift in trajectory as it passes through the inner solar systemโ.
Scientists have now concluded that the asteroid โmight be a lightsail of artificial originโ using solar radiation to propel itself forward."
https://www.universetoday.com/140391/could-oumuamua-be-an-extra-terrestrial-solar-sail/
bros
we're gonna explode into particles
?!?! Really Facebook?
http://wnynewsnow.com/2018/11/05/facebook-pulls-sharpe-ads-ahead-of-tuesdays-election/
I know itโs late... but the title is perfection. The actual article however, complete garbage. Typical guardian crap and could have been written in a non partisan way alas... here it is anyway
oh the Trump season of AMS wasn't woke as fuck?
that is a surprise
@ryuplaneswalker the cult season had so much potential. Cults are fucking scary. Instead they Injected their utter bullshit straight into it like Trump being elected was scarier than... DPRK, Maoist China, any of the various pseudo religious cults within America or other countries. There was so much potential
Itโs so cringe and utterly pathetic but when itโs not the political parts of it (which are so incredibly forced itโs unbearable) the shows actually alright. Itโs unfortunate because I donโt actually like Trump but Iโm not a zealot and the partisan politics shits me
Christ, this cringe bullshit is even praising the SCUM manifesto and the psycho that wrote it... fuck me dead
jesus fucking christ
the left has become a bunch of pathetic weaklings
TIM IS ABLEIST AGAINST PEOPLE WITH PTSD CONFIRMED
<:NPC:500042527231967262>
yuri bezmenov explains it in detail how thats by the desing of eduacional system.
TDS is real
first trump was meme'd into presidency, now TDS was meme'd into an actual condition
Well, I will say I'm still dealing with the trauma of the 2016 election although I've been violently assaulted on a city street by six men and I have treated veterans so I'm not going to dignify TDS as anything on par with real violent trauma.
Wut?
That said, my rape didn't drive me to drink but Trump most certainly has. Then again, I was 18 years old when I was assaulted and was too much of a goody two shoes to break the law by drinking. Now I'm in my late 40's so bottoms up! ๐บ
has trump been everything you feared?
Hahahahaha
I can't tell if anything is satire or not anymore.
Being an autistic sperg that doesn't understand sarcasm well also doesn't help.
I am not being sarcastic if that helps. I always will place a "/s" tag when I am being sarcastic.
I rarely lie and am old enough that 100% authenticity is my best MO
As far as Trump, yes and no, Grenade
Oh shit...
let me guess, he acts exactly how you expected, but has not done everything you feared he would do.
I thought Trump might actually be a real populist, but he hasn't been. He had some amazing opportunities to stand up for people but instead spent his energies trying to erase that Obama was ever president.
For example, health care
And net neutrality
His domestic reflex seems to be to do the exact opposite of Obama, even when Obama was doing the populist thing
Consumer protections
All populist things that Trump has stood against because Obama was for them.
So that has been a disappointment.
As far as the rest, it's been as expected.
Filling the courts the Federalist Society picks. Railing against immigration. Trade war. Acting like a bully on the world stage.
eeh, NN and Obama care were not popular, not by a long shot. They were pretty split
I thought he might actually be an ally to GLBT but he's tended against them but so far it hasn't been catastrophic, just enough red meat to keep the fundies happy.
I think the trouble is: what's populism when large segments of the population have opposing views?
^
everything
so nothing really
I thought the idea that we didn't want corporations to control what we see and don;t see was pretty popular
Sure, but that doesn't mean everyone has the same idea about how to address it
And I think about 2/3 of the electorate believes the gov't has a role in ensuring people have access to health insurance that isn't not prejudiced based on preexisting conditions.
since when has the electorate actually represented the people of the US tbh
Not necessarily the Republican system that is the ACA, but those protections, yes
they vote whatever the people paying the most want
which was the problem with NN
it was big business vs big business
Obamacare = RomneyCare = Republican response to Hillarycare
The ACA is a republican think tank developed system
The Republicans only hate it now because the Dems co-opted it
or because it was as shit as people were saying it would be, and just us the dems as an excuse to hide their failure
everyone wants cheaper healthcare, and all the system proposed by both parties would not do that
but they were pressured for something
hell, even look at what happened when they tried to pass the replacement
Actually, I think it has worked remarkably well. The serious flaw was ending assistance at too low an income level.
it fined people for not having enough money to afford the now higher premiums
how on earth was that working well?
The basis of the ACA is to limit individual health care spending to 10% of income on an actuarial basis
But the tax credits to help make that happen stop too low so the middle class get hit will much larger costs.
The tax credits should continue to about twice the income they do now.
why are we even encouraging the system? Healthy people get robbed while sickly people get shafted, and the solutions are make more healthy and sick people get fucked by a third party or turn every hospital into the VA.
The fines were meant to keep people in the system so they did not join only when they got sick. You cannot make an insurance model work when people can wait to buy insurance only when they actually need it. Imagine being able to buy homeowner insurance when your house is on fire.
you know how you fix that without fining poor people? a waiting period for coverage to start
Why? Because when people get sick they want to be cared for. This whole ACA happened because the system before it wasn't working for a lot of people.
Grenade, yes and no. Who pays when they have to wait?
They do. Which is what charity is for and should be encouraged to do. IF they couldn't afford insurance before, they can't afford it now. And fining people already too poor to pay only takes food out of their mouth.
the solution for a person too poor to pay was making them pay or make them pay when they can't. and you are asking how will they pay.
Okay, let's look at a real example. Someone has a heart attack and their open heart surgery and associated care results in a $100,000 bill. Who pays it is the people eschewed insurance?
My ultimate point will be are we willing to let people die because they went uninsured and cannot pay?
technically they can go in and get treatment if they are dying already.
correct me if i am wrong, but it is illegal to refuse them treatment is it not?
but that's besides the point. Who gets to choose who dies when there is not enough resources to go around?
Yes, it is - for hospitals only. But that's my point. If people don't have insurance and come to the hospitals how do hospitals stay in business?
Imagine an airline surviving if people could just say, "Sorry, can't pay. I'll take the 6am flight to Las Vegas, please. Put it on my tab."
how do they stay in business. good question. but shifting the burden onto insurance companies only kicks the can down the road
Eventually our charity will put us out of business.
Hence the challenge to society
i don't believe we lack enough caring people to cover all medical bills for those who really need it. I do believe we have a lack of ability to connect people with money to people in need.
We need to decide will we permit people to die of perfectly treatable conditions, or will society take the cost of providing care.
you know who is really bad at finding all the people in need? the federal government. You know who wastes a lot of money on shit it shouldn't? the federal government. You know who doesn't really care about people? Insurance companies. You know, ironically enough, has a better track record with all this stuff? The church. Community centers, charities.
Also, people who neglect routine care because they can't afford it are more likely to end up needing catastrophic care later. It's very expensive to treat people only when it's a crisis.
and you know what is great? when these places get too big and wasteful? we get to defund them so more money gets to the people in need, and not to people acting like an insurance company.
because i don't know about you, i don't like a charity where the CEO gets like 200k or more a year.
Sounds great but tell that to all the communities that are losing their hospitals these days
hmmm, and have we looked into why?
Why take the price of healthcare for granted?
why is it so expensive?
That's one of the main issues I have with these approaches
throwing money at the problem without figuring out why its bleeding money in the first place sounds like a great way to waste resources and still ahve people dying
Anyway, I gotta go or risk being in contempt of court. ๐
emotion gets you killed
I understand the sympathetic impulse to do what you can meantime, but that's likely to make things worse in the long run
panic is an emotion. panic in any left threatening situation gets you killed.
Since it also disincentivizes attacking the root problem
people die, people will die, the question is not how do we stop them dying, its how do we get less people to die.
IMO a good look needs to be taken as to why healthcare is like it is
Why does it have this unique insurance model that doesn't correspond to anything else?
And who chooses if they die. i'd rather let nature choose who dies, than the government
i'd rather let bad life choices like smoking, decide who dies than a health insurance company
I think there would still be room for health insurance
Like car insurance
pretty sure hospitals have to pay insurance too to stay in business.
But it wouldn't cover the equivalent of looking at some bad brakes
perhaps that is too expensive
It's always worth pointing out that the known alternatives don't really mean "substantially fewer people die due to refused treatment"
It's "some people now die instead due to waiting for treatment"
It's possible that there would be enough "slack" in a given healthcare system to accomodate.
But I'm pretty sure part of the contention about the US one is precisely that it's sort of strained already
why do skinny people get punished for the decision of overweight people not to exercise. I need to pay for their healthcare? fucking why? There are legit medical problems that lead to issues with weight, but i doubt the US has such a problem with genetics that we have our overweight problem
emotion says help them. If you want to, you can. but no one should be forced to.
because lets face it, if someone has to have several procedures done because they sit around all day and eat, and never change. At some point most people will stop offering help and let them succumb to their fate.
i do not feel bad for people who smoke then get lung cancer.
it is a sad day when they die but that was their choice
i should not be forced to pay for that
So, to play devil's advocate
That's certainly the best case for your position
But what about the people who are not at fault?
Like, someone set fire to their house and they got caught in it or something
i would offer to help them. but i would resent them if i was forced to help
that resentment grows the less i have, therefore the more precious my time and labor become
because at a certain point, helping them means i now am in trouble
What if forcing everyone to pitch in a tiny amount helped them?
Let's say your lone contribution wouldn't
what is tiny?
Well, to keep things in context
tiny to one person is massive to another
Let's say you could cap it at 10% of everyone's income
And if you're concerned about the ability of the poor to pay, let's say they get a reduced amount, compensated by the corresponding wealthiest
then suddenly everyone else would need to pay another percent to give some of those people that 10% back, because some people need that 10%.
so now really you are taking 11% from perhaps even most of everyone
I don't follow
Why would you need that extra 1%?
but now what happens when say a natural disaster happens? and its not 1 person, its half the population of an area?
I'm not sure that's a good counterpoint
That's an issue in any scheme
There are rules doctors follow about how to handle this that _do_ involve choosing who gets help and who doesn't
I'm not sure that it either strengthens or weakens the case for federal intervention
1 person has 10 resources, 1 has 100, 1 has 1000, the last has 0 now. You need 10 resources to live. You take 10% from everyone and give it to the last person, great.
now you have 9, 90, 900, and 111. But you need 10 to live. So either you have 10, 89.5, 899.5, and 111. or that first person doesn't give 10% so you have 10, 90, 900, 110.
it makes no sense to take 10%
from everyone else
Sure--so anyone who has 10 pays nothing, and their 1 is covered by the guy with 1000
but now say something happens, and the economy is bad. So you have 8, 10, 100 and 0.
can't take from 8 or 10. now only 100 can lose 10%. which they still are okay. so now its 8, 10, 90, 10.
but wait, 8 has less than it needs to live, lets take more... can't take from 8, can;t take from 10, can take from 90, can't take from 10. So now its 10, 10, 85, and 10
now lets say, through no fault of their own, that last guy is back to 0 again because of something chronic.
to we just keep taking by force from the guy who had 100?
what happens if we can't get back to 100 faster than the last guy keeps going back to 0?
what happens if 100 guy suffers and drops down to 15? now we have a problem
Force currently has a problem: its slow to react
Correct--but in this situation no scheme has a satisfactory solution
correct
I don't think that's the situation healthcare intervention proponents seek to address
i don't think there is a solution really.
I'm not convinced it even matters to them if it makes it worse (it's a weird utilitarian tradeoff between steady-state improvement and worse exceptional situations)
the intervention proponents don;t take choice into account
lets go back to the force issues. we have 20, 10, 100, 0. Guy 0 has 0 because of choice. And his choices keep him at zero.
so you take 10%, 18, 10, 90...but guy 0 stays at 0 because all those resources he wastes
so all that happens is 18 and 90 keep having stuff taken from them
while guy 0 has no incentive to not be at 0, because when he needs resources, they are given from other people
Sure, but they also get more over time
So it turns into this flow game instead, which is more complicated
that assumes guy 0 is not throwing away faster than everyone else regains resources
and you HAVE to assume that for force not to be an issue.
I think the technocratic mentality wouldn't be fazed by this, though
Though, TBH
This might persuade some adherents
A compassionate technocrat would say that we would devise solutions to these problems as they appear
now, with choice, if the issue of 0 guy is his own problem, and not something nature forced on him, everyone else can say "fuck you pal" then either he dies of his own choice, or wises the fuck up.
If you say the state i too sluggish, that's because we need a more robust and responsive state!
if it IS something he didn't choose, something nature forced on him. force will keep pulling away from everyone above 10, untill no one is above 10, and 0 guy dies anyway.
force only works so long as everyone else keeps gaining faster than guy 0 keeps draining
Unless it doesn't drain fast enough for that
That's kinda an empirical question
oh yeah? how often does the economy crash?
And honestly, modern economies are so productive that it's hard to imagine that happening given fixed prices
who fixes the price?
Part of the trouble, though, is that all of these solutions affect the price over time, and likely not in a positive direction
All these increase demand without increasing supply
currently my alcohol is fixed in CT. so much so Trader Joes can;t sell their 2 dollar wine. the price fix forces it to be like 9 bucks.
Has anyone proposed fixing the price of health stuffs?
but you didn't asnwer, how often does the economy decline?
In the real world?
yes
how many economic increases keep increasing?
and are not met, eventually, with a crash of near equal proportion
In actuality, most if not all of them
The recent crashes were bad, but not _that_ bad
not that bad because our standard of living goes up all the time regardless
tech keeps bringing costs down but thats not the problem we are trying to solve is it?
we are trying to figure out what to do while we wait on technology
also, lets go back to your assumption that people don't drain resources faster than they are remade by people: Look at the number of drug addicted people and overweight people in the US.
if you give them no incentive to wise up, their healthcare costs are going to tax the system
if not already
and start to drain faster than resources are replaced
and that assumes those who are constantly having their resources taken by force, don't just leave
Whether it would be affordable is an empirical matter, I think
So long as we're steelmanning: what if it turns out to be?
IMO the real question there is : what are we giving up?
87,357 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Prev |
Page 295/350
| Next