Firefairy
Discord ID: 126825739424235520
145 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Page 1/2
| Next
!agree
!agree
I know this is old, but I just ran across it, and with time, it seems even more reference- section about UKIP as well, around 45 minutes in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb2iFikOwYU
And another by the same gentleman. Interesting to see someone who used to be a proto-SJW, but has followed the data instead. This one is about "What British Muslims Really Think". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQcSvBsU-FM
I'm a bit behind, watching Tim's 4th of July followup video Is "Healthcare is a Human Right?", and I don't care to deal with Facebook just to mention it, so here's the thing that bugs me about the whole thing- people keep saying "just semantics" as if semantics is a form of splitting hairs, but semantics and definitions are how we know two people are saying the same thing when they utter the same words- if "human right" just means some people in some societies can reasonably expect to receive a benefit, then that blows the hell out of international human rights laws protecting people from various government abuses.
The same as "racism" and "misogynist" are/used to be meaningful to throw around precisely because they were relatively extreme, the term "human right" means something you are entitled to purely on the basis of being human. Not a human in a society that can afford it, not a human with certain prerequisites, just a human. Which is why pretty much all of the human rights are freedom *from* rather than freedom *to*.
I think what the more reasonable people Tim is speaking to are referring to is actually a societal amenity and free access to it, with a side of considering a functional healthcare system a public work somewhat analogous to a good transportation system or wastewater treatment system. Which is a *very* different thing, in both cases, from a human right.
In a related but not precisely the same point- a lot of the issues people have with the US health care system are related to how health insurance works, and Tim's comment about how his insurance is $300 a month and covers basically nothing is an example. As is the various ire about exclusions of pre-existing conditions and the like. Which I find somewhat odd, because basically, this is people getting angry because insurance companies are acting the way insurance companies have acted in every other field for as long as there have been insurance companies.
Insurance is basically a very respectable form of gambling, and you actually want to lose. You pay your premiums in the hope that you will never need the big payout of a claim, because there are other negative effects of the events that merit a claim. You don't want a tornado to wreck your house, you don't want to wrap your car around a tree because you dodged a deer, and so on. Insurance companies are the House. They set the premiums based on the odds of payouts so that they make money while still being able to pay out claims. (How much money and how honorable they are is outside the point of this argument.)
With health care, though, we have put the burden for our routine healthcare on these same casino-like entities. We want them to cover events that have a more than 100% payout rate- services that everyone should be getting on a regular basis, like annual checkups. And originally, this made sense from their point of view, because it reduced payouts. But now they are expected to be the clearinghouse for all healthcare services for those they cover, and people are angry because they are sucking out loud at doing so in a compassionate and cost-efficient manner.
This confuses me. I am not sure how we ended up here, instead of with health co-ops (think entities that are to health insurance as credit unions are to banks) or widespread health care savings accounts and insurance relegated to the "prepare for the worst, hope for the best" type of events that insurance is at least somewhat suited to handling.
<@&398956043427905536> , I can't find any instructions on having an appropriate Patreon role assigned. How do I go about that?
@Ryecast Thank you for the thoughtful response.
I think we are running into a difference between a constitutional right as declared in the US and a Human Right. There are quite a few rights guaranteed by the constitution that aren't basic human rights. The right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness are, when codified into law, delineated as no one having the right to kill you, imprison you without just cause, or interfere with your efforts to improve your situation, again, without just cause. Any right to health care actually falls under Pursuit of Happiness, which has always been the biggest area of tension, as it is the area in which people and societies are most likely to disagree and interfere with one another.
I am absolutely no fan of the way pharmaceutical companies work. However, there is more to look at than a particular country when deciding how shady they are. There are numerous countries that have decided that, rather than have a strong drug approval department, they will just use US or EU approval as their own. This makes it even more important to the drug company's bottom line to make sure they pass those trials, so they spend more money on each successful drug, which must then make enough money to support its own R&D and marketing, as well as however many unsuccessful drugs were worked on at a similar time, and *then* make enough money to keep the stock market happy, all before the patent runs out and they lose business to the generics. It's a system with a lot of perverse incentives, in addition to the basic profit motive. Then you get hospitals and care groups, individual doctor's offices, the low-paying government plans, and it is a serious mess.
"Best" part is, we have to fix it without shutting it off, because it is currently keeping a lot of people alive as it limps along. No shutting it down to do an overhaul, and oh yeah, lots of politics about who gets what at what price.
!gamer
Grr... Can't get that to post directly. It's worth a look. Make sure to read the alt text to see why I think it's relevant here.
It's one of the best-known web comics on the internet. Wtf?
It's not really meant to be funny about half the time.
It's not a meme. It's technically a sociopolitical cartoon.
"I [suspect] that we are throwing more and more of our resources, including the cream of our youth, into financial activities remote from the production of goods and services, into activities that generate high private rewards disproportionate to their social productivity. I suspect that the immense power of the computer is being harnessed to this 'paper economy', not to do the same transactions more economically but to balloon the quantity and variety of financial exchanges." --James Tobin, July 1984
Quote courtesy of today's xkcd alt-text.
Whatever. It's relevant to stuff Tim talks about, so I thought I would drop it here. What is done with it thereafter is not mine to determine.
Given recent Google behavior, I don't find this ominous in the slightest:
It just occurred to me that we basically have the start (ish) of a globalist nazi movement going at the moment, so I looked up "globalist" in German. It's still "Globalist". Which makes a globalist socialist a Gazi. Which is also, with a different pronunciation, the term for a frontier islamic warrior. I feel like 4Chan could make grist out of this...
It just occurred to me that we basically have the start (ish) of a globalist nazi movement going at the moment, so I looked up "globalist" in German. It's still "Globalist". Which makes a globalist socialist a Gazi. Which is also, with a different pronunciation, the term for a frontier islamic warrior. I feel like 4Chan could make grist out of this...
Per Wikipedia the Unfailing <sarcasm>, it can also be spelled gazi.
Ghazi (Arabic: ุบุงุฒูโ, ฤกฤzฤซ) originally referred to individuals who participated in ghazw (ุบุฒู, ฤกazw), meaning military expeditions or raiding.
Gazi, Gaji or ghazi may refer to:
A gazi or ghฤzฤซ is a frontier warrior in Islam.
Yep.
Apparently Gazi (no h) is also used as an honorific.
I really feel like there need to be memes about this.
"The Gazi" is also used to refer to Mustafa Kemal Atatรผrk (1881โ1938), the founder of the Republic of Turkey
Win!
I am only a common member of the nation of Kekistan, not a meme warrior. For some reason, all my political memes suck.
Yeah, but neologisms don't have to follow the same linguistic logic.
I do take your point that it wouldn't develop this way in German, though.
Being sarcastic doesn't count, apparently.
Noted.
You'll take my quirked mouth over my dead body!
Like, literally, I think I might be sarcastic in my epitaph.
It's the only way I cope with some of this BS.
There's a sizeable population of Ashkenazi Jews from Russia in Denver who are decidedly *not* pro-abortion. I think you might be mixing up "I have noticed some of these people overlap" with "one of these groups totally overlaps with the other".
I think it might basically just be the same spectrum as with Christians- the more fundamentalist, the less inclined they are to approve of abortion. The people who won't open library books on Saturday are probably not in the same group as the Weinsteins.
Hm, how so?
Not really fundamentalist, though. They are still distilling their tenets.
No fundamentals to return or hold to.
Not sure, I didn't start that, I just brought up an example of a group that met the stated filter and in no definition would qualify as pro-abortion. I was mostly addressing an over-broad generalization.
So, whichever you mean.
Fair.
Okay, going with that definition for the purposes of this conversation. Please continue.
It always did annoy me that people equated "choice" with "abortion", so I like the distinction.
Which is a tenet of several subsets of radical feminism, yes.
I think we might be differing on the definition of "fundamentalist" more than anything else.
Radicalized and fundamentalist aren't synonyms, even though you see them used that way a lot when discussing religions lately.
Cult. No religious aspects as an overall phenomenon yet.
Not all cults are religions.
There are plenty of neopagan woo variants, but they aren't core (yet).
You don't have to be a relgion to have fundamentalism, though, so it's a moot point either way.
You'd hate some of the more rational arguments, then.
No, I mean actually logically consistent arguments.
There are some. But they don't go the "clumps of cells, but somehow different from me being a clump of cells".
route.
Frequently, yeah.
LOl
Sorry, just picturing that.
Not laughing at you.
I'm all for parity, but I actually don't think "my body, my choice" carries once someone has gotten pregnant. Guys need affirmative rights in the situation as well as negative. Getting the right to opt out would be a good start, though.
Obviously, rape and the like need to be taken into account as well, of course.
(and yes, I posess a uterus and the ability to get pregnant)
Once this subject and my position on it come up, that usually becomes relevant in someone's mind.
I actually think there are some situations in which the fact that the woman had procreative sex was when she consented.
Note, "some".
Now, similar to the guy, I think she should have the option to walk away, but the thorny issues have to do with the fact that there are actually three people involved in the situation, and they all have different interests depending on the specifics.
And right now it's basically two that are being discussed, and generally in an "all or nothing" kind of way.
Sure.
Killed before they could even start oppressing anyone/
?
Arguably, you could go even further and say it is contracepted babies that do them one better.
Congratulations, Progressives! You have made contraception immoral! ;-J
The slippery slope, personified.
Political horseshoe double reacharound.
That oppresive culture usually murders the deconstructionists.
Which is an end point of progressives, but that's not really an ideological endpoint as the term is usually used.
Oh, that reminds me. I made a bumper sticker I think people here would like, but I don't know if it's okay to post a link to it.
You can get it as a magnet, too.
Been translating political bumper stickers to basically this in my head for years.
Truth.
Yeah, I am surprised at how decent a job he's doing, given the extremely low regard I had for him before his election.
I was under no illusion that I would prefer Hillary, however, so.
Truth. He was a New York Democrat like ten years ago.
And his policies haven't changed much.
Yah. Seen quite a few studies about that.
145 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Page 1/2
| Next