Yeah no shit. They feel that way because it is that way. You don’t need polls for this information. It’s economics. “Perceived” or not, it is actually, literally harder for millenials and younger adults to achieve the same level of financial stability as their parents, full stop. That’s not a matter of feeling or perception. That’s the declining real value of money. Inflation, greedflation, economic contraction at key life milestones, wealth inequality, lower indicators for health, and on and on. Across every metric I can think of off the top of my head, millenials and the next generations perform worse than previous generations due to circumstances entirely beyond their control (and largely the result of the prior generations, including dead hand control and policies directly adversarial to young adults’ accumulation of wealth). For many young adults, the best financial windfall they’ll ever experience will be when their more affluent parents die, and no active measure they can take on their own behalfs will meaningfully change it.
My mother has joked with me that she's spending my inheritance, despite her friends telling her not to say that. I didn't expect any windfall even before that, to be fair, but it's nice my own mother can be honest about the "Fuck you I got mine."
no active measure they can take on their own behalfs will meaningfully change it.
They don't seem to understand what this means to an economy. I experience it now at my job: there's no reason to work harder, there's nothing to gain. Without growth there's no reason to invest and an economy collapses. All growth right now is artificial, consolidation of smaller growth business into giant mega corporations that won't pay taxes or employees fairly.
A Greek proverb says a society grows when old men plant trees whose shade they shall never know. What's the exact opposite of that?
My mother has joked with me that she’s spending my inheritance, despite her friends telling her not to say that.
Without knowing your mother, it’s entirely possible she was first exposed to that joke when it was generally believed that your children will be at least as successful as you, thanks to ever-increasing standards of living, and never stopped to reevaluate the cruelty of the joke. But since friends are telling her to stop, she’s either willfully ignorant or being cruel.
A Greek proverb says a society grows when old men plant trees whose shade they shall never know. What’s the exact opposite of that?
My mother has joked with me that she’s spending my inheritance, despite her friends telling her not to say that. I didn’t expect any windfall even before that, to be fair, but it’s nice my own mother can be honest about the “Fuck you I got mine.”
Not that I want or expect any inheritance from my mother, but because she’s rubbing it in like this you could ask her a question. Say “As I navigate life growing up, I’ve learned many things from you so let me ask you this. How much inheritance did your parents leave you when they passed away? Are you planning on equaling (adjusted for inflation) what you received to pass on to me or are you deciding to take from them without giving back? I’m just trying to figure out how I should be a parent to my kids.”
A Greek proverb says a society grows when old men plant trees whose shade they shall never know. What’s the exact opposite of that?
Well what’s happening right now is old men are actively uprooting anything that won’t grow to shade tree size in their lifetimes. It’s as if their aim is to one day build their own coffin out of the absolute last tree on Earth.
Well, this time around they’ve got technology. They’ve got the Internet.
And they’ve learned from past attempts, and I believe they have nearly perfected their ideal society (which is really just feudalism again). Which includes exposing people to enough lies and propaganda that they will actively advocate against policies that would help “correct” things, and in favor of policies that worsen and perpetuate their (and their children’s) own situation.
At least here in the US, we’re far too comfortable with our Real Housewives, and our XBoxes to ever take real action beyond just voting. I’m including myself in this so don’t think I’m being high and mighty.
But what's good for the economy is good for the people. You know, trickle down and stuff. Totally works, trust me bro. Just give us a few billion more, this time it'll rain down gold on you. Absolutely sure!
These people are incapable of not being disingenuous. They're allergic to good faith. The hypocrisy has become so ingrained in these people that calling it out hasn't been an effective counter to them for years, if not decades. They simply do not care.
They care. They care about making sure that the benefits of socialism is exclusively for the elite and wealthy and totally denied to the average citizen.
It's 1°C on average. That means every molecule of air has AT LEAST 1°C extra thermal energy. And I'm not sure if anyone has noticed, there's a lot of air molecules. So while taking one cubic centimeter of air and increasing it by 1°C isn't a ton of energy. Do that for roughly all 109 tredecitillion molecules and you get about 2.2 zettajoules of energy. Annual US energy consumption is just 0.094 zettajoules. So one degree increase is equal to more energy than the US uses in 23½ years. The biggest nuclear bomb humans ever made, that pulls in at about 0.00021 zettajoules. So one degree is roughly 10,500 Tasr Bombas going off and then the resulting heat just never leaving.
All of that energy. It has to go somewhere. Sometimes it makes ice turn to water, sometimes it increases the speed at which some wind is moving, sometimes it increases the surface temperature of land, sometimes it evaporates water leaving an area very dry. But it has to go somewhere. And it cannot just radiate back out into space, it hits a CO₂ molecule, bounces off of it, and flies right back down to Earth. And the more CO₂ molecules we put out there, the more often that happens.
Huh this is the first thing I’ve read that puts it into a sort of understandable perspective (eternally recovering from my conservative raised childhood, maybe sane people explain it better in general)
With a global mean temperature increase of 1 C since 1970 there was an increase in peak temperatures (avg) of about 2 C. So till 2050 it will be somewhere around 3 C for the average peak in summer. If we look at the ramp up since 2008 we can expect more like 5-6 C higher temperature records than today. So in the 2050s there will be some summers with 45 C records and the average hottest day every year around 35-37 C
Edit: and not to forget that this is only talking about how high the peaks every year are. The length of heatwaves will also increase by a few days. So where it was maybe 32 for three days and then 35 for one day, followed by a cooling thunderstorm it will be more like five days of 35 followed by a day of 37 and then a much more intense thunderstorm than what we know today.
I'm going to want a citation on that. I learn just fine on my own, and I'm sure many others do too. If you're really concerned about giving people "the best chance at success" rather than just forcing them into boxes then you'd be presenting options.
it probably has to do with the quality of "remote training" materials. my company (contract security), I train new hires in a variety of things including CPR/AED/First Aid.... you can definitely tell the difference between people who were given the stupid web-cartoon training vs actual in person training.
hell, the remote training shit had terrible localization issues. (as in, would get our people arrested and charged with felonies... ooops....)
Is requiring all employees to spend multiple unpaid hours in a car during rush hour in order to put them in unattractive cubicals or desks akin to prison cells, where they are only allowed to shit x amounts a day, and where the manager keep looking over the shoulder to see if you are not wasting a minute thinking about anything other than work a punishment?
My company has a management mentorship program for remote employees. The boss actually travels to different employees homes and will stay with them and work with them at their house for the week. This keeps the execs happy enough to know that they’ve got middle management keeping an eye on the employees, while also allowing the remote work with no fuss. It’s an interesting approach for sure.
I work a physical labor job and the supervisors are supposed to help with that. What they do instead is idie away chatting and spending inordinate amounts of time “doing” it work.
Thankfully, in a backwards sort of way, after one of them tried dodging their work when the venue needed to be turned over for a city council meeting, our manager has throughly chewed them out.
Still, I don’t have much faith in them, but we’ll see where that goes.
This would be a massive waste of time if it were with the whole team every day. I don’t need to know what every other employee on the team is doing every single day, and I don’t need to spend time listening to them explain it. I’ve got shit to do.
It wouldn't be explaining it. It would be your teammates telling everyone where they are on the projects you all work on. If you aren't working the same projects, then you aren't on the same team. Or you need sub-teams. If your work is so independent you don't rely on anyone else's work and vice versa, then you probably don't need standups.
We used to have a rigorous schedule. Arrive at the office between 8-830. Make coffee and chat. At 9am we started the daily meeting. We all read what we were going to do today to each other. By then it was 1130 and so we broke for lunch. After lunch, at 1300 we would do the thing we said we would do. At 1530-1630 we would submit out updates to the project management system and produce tomorrow’s report for us to read to each other. 1700 we would go to the bar then head home around 1830.
When I started working for myself I would usually start around 9 to finish at noon, including travel time.
I agree with you. That’s why we make our teams small enough in size that standups are 10min max, usually more like 5.
That said, it can be really beneficial to hear that Joe is working on something similar to a thing I’m going to start today. He may be able to give me some lessons learned or point me to a library.
But I completely agree that big teams a make this an annoyance. I used to be on a 20 person team and standups were completely worthless.
Now, we have 3-5 devs per team and it’s usually really quick.
My husband holds his team meetings at 3/4pm ish on friday on zoom with beers. Afterwards he tells everyone to fuck off home.
THAT is how you do it. It turns into a pile of geeks talking geek and part post-mortem, part decompressing from the week and they’ve actually had some absolutely mint ideas rising out of deformalising the dev pileup.
there you go...forgetting service and manufacturing sectors... and everybody else who simply can't work remote because the nature of the job precludes it.
God, I hear that…plus I usually need to meet with my coworkers in India, so I’m often needing to start meetings at 6 AM. I am nooooot functional that early
I usually had to do that for Europe. Most Indian coworkers I have worked with work a later schedule so there has always been a bit of overlap. Generally the Europeans I have worked with have been German and they generally have a labor rep on the board so they can fight against messed up work schedules.
What I used to do was make notes at the end of the day. Just a couple short bullet points to say at standup and help me get back on track a little faster the next morning.
I'm the same way. If I could start work at 5:00 a.m. and be off by noon or 1:00 p.m. I'd be happy. It's just hard to find people who want to do therapy at 5:00 a.m. 😂
You know, actually I'm in Oregon, so I hadn't thought about the fact that if I did telehealth with people who lived across the country I might be able to start at 5:00.
I’d love it if therapy hours were before and after normal work hours. On Betterhelp they are, but I gave up on it after a couple tries when I couldn’t find a good fit.
I'm allowed to set my own hours, so if it was telehealth I could theoretically do late night or morning appointments if I want to. I just haven't really thought about that. When I eventually have my own practice. I really do want to have weekend hours and evening hours, before I worked with a lot of parents and that was one of the biggest issues was when do you have time for therapy when you're chasing a toddler. Or like I remember when I would have friends who worked as bartenders, they wished that they could do therapy after they got off work but sometimes that would be two or three in the morning.
Ha! Yes.
For the first time, we are trying out a full scrum team in our company, with an external “scrum master” who really seems to know what he’s doing. It’s bloody amazing. Small team, the daily meeting has yet to exceed 10 minutes and is usually <5 minutes, the planning and refinement meeting keeps everyone in the loop. The rest of the time I can just be a happy code monkey :)
My stand-ups are at 10 am (11 am for most of the team), last between 3 and 15 minutes depending on how many of the 7 of us show up and how much everyone has to say, then we all go back to what we’re doing. My project manager and boss both care about the work that gets done rather than monitoring us to make sure we’re working the entire time, and we actually get reasonable (even generous) timelines for most things unless it’s something super important.
eh. i think best practice is smallish teams get everyone together once a week for the stand up. but a supe or somebody makes the rounds daily. five minute check up 'do you need anything? get you some coffee?', kind of conversation before going to the next.
it doesn't impact the team if that one person wants to chat, but also gives people an opportunity to bring up concerns they wouldn't normally bring up in a group.
largish teams need to be broken into smallish teams.
I was doing daily technical meetups in the morning so that my team in India and the more local members could stay in sync and ask each other questions. Usually 10 minutes, but occasionally an hour or more when we had to go way out into the weeds.
Do you mean standups where you are actually standing up? Many places I’ve worked have called a daily meeting a “stand-up” but it has been an hour-long sit-down meeting.
Then there are the actual “stand-ups” where the tall guys tower over the group, and the shorter people (typically women) are either talking into the chests of those guys, or they’re craning their necks up at painful angles.
Thats the thing… boses are basically saying that they cant do that. They cant actually measure how productive people are so they fall back on watching them like a hawk
You’re overlooking that most managers don’t actually do anything, so they need desperately to justify their positions. I have a manager who has seven hours of meetings every day, five days a week. We make a fucking app. It barely changes month to month. What on earth are you spending 35 hours a week talking about?
The manager has so little to do they just micromanage everyone, and cause a massive backlog of work that doesn’t have to exist.
I always thought that Office Space was satire, but it really is like that in a lot of companies. I spent more time updating managers than doing actual work since I started this position.
I’ll blame each and every eligible person who didn’t show up to vote for him, regardless of what their excuse is. This isn’t the time to be playing around.
Meh, I could care less whether y’all believe it or not. I used to troll the .win forms back then because Trump supporters were utter cancer, and now somehow y'all have become even worse.
Btw, wanna quote Sartre for me? Thanks Norby, I missed you.
When is the time to be ‘playing around?’ Your phrase gets repeated every single election meaning you’re doing nothing more than reinforcing the status quo.
This is the behavior of sycophants and rivals that of the MAGA base. “Shut up, don’t criticize, and mindlessly vote for my guy, or it’s the end of the world as we know it!”
The primary. A general election in which a fascist like Donald Trump isn’t the only other viable option.
Like it or not, we have a two party system. Either Biden’s going to be the next president, or Trump is. When it comes to the general election, if you do anything besides voting for Biden, you’re complicit in electing Trump.
Which candidate, specifically, A) Wants to be president and is willing to run, B) Is better than Biden on the issues you mentioned, and C) Has a reasonable chance of beating Trump in the general election?
The people in these threads never have an alternative. They are drunk on righteous fury and just want their clarity of purpose to result in clarity of action. To do this, they flip the classic logical fallacy on its head and have to argue, “the means justify the ends.” Voting against Biden to them is an unassailable means, wherever the ends lead.
Versus someone who would be even worse for Palestinians and Americans? No, I won’t blame Biden if people let Trump in over the issue of Palestine. Because it means they were fast asleep between 2016 and 2020.
Thats what fucking matters. Do you want to fucking beat Trump or not? Whats your priority here? Running Biden or beating Trump? You have to pick one.
There is a genocide going on now not later. Joe Biden has had multiple opportunities to stop the genocide he is currently supporting and has not. This isn’t a hypothetical. If Israel is allowed to continue, by April, there won’t be a Palestinian people in Gaza to consider. They’ll have been starved/ bombed to death, by Israel with the explicit support of Joe Biden.
Joe Biden has had multiple opportunities to stop the genocide he is currently supporting and has not.
So, are you claiming that if the United States stops sending some military aid to Israel, Netanyahu will be unable to continue military operations in Gaza? Because if so, you are sorely mistaken. Israel's military is perfectly self-sufficient, and if you think they particularly care about some UN resolutions, you need to talk to some Israelis.
American support in this is not a significant factor in the outcome. Joe Biden could not unilaterally stop Israeli operations in Gaza unless he declared war on Israel and deployed troops, and I can assure you that isn't going to be happening. Not to mention, China, Russia, India, Europe, and all of South America also exist. Americans do not unilaterally decide everything that happens or doesn't happen in the world. We're not that important.
Do you realize that you’re arguing against yourself here? Claiming that “it wouldn’t make a difference whether the US supported Israel or not,” makes it look so much fucking worse that Biden is refusing to drop support for this genocide. This is incredibly tone deaf.
Because the genocide of queer people in the U.S. apparently is far less important and if Trump gets into office, has already planned and made clear that it will be far worse.
But who cares about queer people in America, am I right? Just let them die.
Just seriously ask yourself if you want Trump to be president again. If the answer to this is “No”, the look at the data and see how Joe Biden is doing. He’s doing fucking horribly. He’s losing this election and we haven’t even had the convention yet. His support is very low and is dropping. If you insist on proceeding with Biden as candidate, you are insisting on a losing proposition.
If you are concerned about queer rights, you better figure out a better option than Biden, because by the numbers, he’s not going to win in November.
Pointing out that you are ignoring a genocide in the U.S. that Trump and his people want to make worse is not changing the subject. It’s pointing out that you’re ignoring a genocide. Which you are.
But please tell me who I should vote for to stop that genocide. Give the name of the candidate that would get enough votes to beat Trump.
Because if you wanted someone other than Biden, you shouldn’t have waited until after the primaries started.
Millions of Palestinians are facing starvation right now. They will be dying en-masse before the end of March if something doesn’t change. Joe Biden is supporting this. He just lost There is no equivalence happening within the borders of the United States, except maybe our prison system. Yes the Republicans are setting the ground work for a genocide of queer people in this country. We have to stop them. Insisting that we support a candidate who is clearly losing the election is no way to do this. We can’t afford to lose this election and insisting that Biden be the nominee is insisting we lose this election.
What are you on about? Stop changing the point of the conversation.No one is personally attacking you. We’re talking about what its going to take to keep Trump out of office in 2024, and we disagree about some key points. Why are you making this about you? How narcissist are you? Its creepy and weird. Stick to the points of the conversation please.
like you
And what is that? An advocate for peace and justice? Someone who wants to not have Trump in 2024, no matter what (even if that means Biden isn’t the nominee)? What assumptions are you making?
hey I see and appreciate you, I’m also trans, I literally research justice initiatives for LGBTQ+ and specifically trans* individuals in the USA
but my friend, can we please not compare what’s happening to us to what is happening to Palestinians? This makes us look like ignorant assholes
Trans people might be next in line for literal genocide, but right now we’re experiencing ideological violence more than physical violence
In fact, when we closely examine violence against trans people, the rates of murder and physical violence are only elevated for trans individuals who are poor and people of color. White, middle class trans people are actually less likely to experience physical violence than non-trans poor POCs. That could change depending on political winds, but…
Right now, people in Palestine are experiencing something horrific and unprecedented that eclipses trans suffering in the USA. I am right there with you, afraid of the march of fascism, afraid of what another Trump presidency might bring for our community. But I am not getting airstriked, starved, and war crimed right now. My children are not being shot in the head. I can write about these issues online and in my professional life and not get hung for it. It’s just not the same.
No. It’s not the same. But it is still genocide. As the link shows, it fits that definition. And the person is telling me that I shouldn’t do something to stop that genocide because there’s another genocide that neither Trump nor Biden is going to do anything to stop and both will make worse. It seems to me that Americans should work on stopping the genocide that is happening in our own country with our vote rather than voting for some third party in protest or sitting at home when that has never worked.
You’re not stopping either genocide if you elect the same guy who is currently doing nothing (and is actually actively making them worse) about either of these things. That’s pure cognitive dissonance.
It sounds like you’ve already decided that you want to support genocide in both the US and Palestine, so clearly you should pick Biden or Trump because they’ll both deliver on that.
Maybe there’s a better choice. Maybe you know that better choice. Can you tell me who that better choice with a relatively good chance of winning is so I can vote for them?
Yeah, you’re objectively correct for encouraging people to vote for Biden instead of sit at home in November. Just please, please, please… I deal with offline average joes all the time. If we make one to one comparisons of our situation with that of Palestinians, most people will be disgusted and think we’re incredibly off base.
We are in agreement across the board. I just want to caution you to be mindful of the comparison, is all.
so biden is currently presiding over and doing nothing to stop two genocides? and you want to reward that with an unconditional vote of support, so that next time democrats are in office, they'll know that people don't care?
Reward? No. I want to stop the one who will make it worse.
And if you can tell me who I should vote for to stop Trump that isn’t Biden, a person that is more likely to get more electoral college votes than Biden will against Trump, please name the person.
biden's only selling point at the moment is that he isn't trump, so with 6 months of campaigning and biden's endorsement you could probably sell any democrat
me giving you a name now is almost entirely pointless given that you're just going to turn around and say that because they haven't already done that campaigning you can't imagine them being popular
Reward? No. I want to stop the one who will make it worse.
do you or do you not acknowledge that by voting biden you're sending a message to the dnc that their voter base doesn't care about genocide?
I will answer that question after I am told who I should vote for that will stop Trump from getting into office. Because I haven’t been given a name yet despite asking multiple times.
You've literally asked me once, friend, and I explained why me giving you a name wouldn't make any sense.
I fully expect that in the hypothetical world where the DNC decides it doesn't want to lose this election and decides to swap out Biden with somebody else that my gut reaction will be that they're shit, but that's because they haven't done any campaigning yet.
I know for the sake of pride you aren't going to openly acknowledge this, given how pointedly you're refusing to engage with anything I'm saying, but at least admit it to yourself: voting for Biden is sending a signal that the democrats can allow as much genocide as they want so long as they can convince you the other side will be worse.
If you think that's worth the trade-off, fine, but don't pretend that that isn't the trade-off you're making.
The trade-off is stopping Trump from continuing the genocide in the U.S. that he and his Republican friends are already a part of and which my daughter would be a victim of.
So yeah, saving my daughter’s life is sure as hell worth the trade-off.
And I’m pretty amused that you think it sends that message after the primaries. Because the time to challenge Biden was before the primaries.
Did you do anything about that? Did you canvas for any primary rival of Biden’s?
Because if I’m sending a signal to the Democrats that “as much genocide as they want” is okay… unless you’ve been canvassing for Dean Phillips or Marianne Willaimson, I think you have been too.
If the democrats win this election while running a candidate that's twiddling his thumbs over multiple genocides, then the next time they're presiding over one, they're going to have solid data that tells them that they don't have to bother themselves about it because their voter base will elect them anyway.
Similarly your lack of engaging with the point I keep repeating to you past an unsubstantiated "no" is also an answer.
Yet somehow you bear no responsibility in your criticism.
This is just whataboutism. I could be the guiltiest person on the planet, and that wouldn't change the fact that electing Biden while he's failing to stop three (?) genocides is a clear signal to the DNC that the amount of genocide happening on their watch has little to do with their eventual success or failure.
And yet, the time to do something about that has still passed and you still did nothing about it when you had the time.
I know you want to avoid all culpability and put it on me, but sorry. I’m putting my child first. And that means stopping Trump no matter who the Democrats choose.
Of course it matters if I’m a Democrat. I don’t care about teaching them a lesson. All I care about is saving my daughter’s life.
The fact that you seem to think that voting to stop Trump in order to save my daughter’s life is a moral failing on my part sincerely makes me hope you don’t have any kids.
Sorry, my daughter’s life is the most important thing in the world to me and I would immediately sacrifice my own life to save hers. If you have children and you wouldn’t do the same, I hope someone calls CPS on you.
The funny thing is, you keep saying things like this- “If the democrats win this election while running a candidate that’s twiddling his thumbs over multiple genocides, then the next time they’re presiding over one, they’re going to have solid data that tells them that they don’t have to bother themselves about it because their voter base will elect them anyway.”
And yet you have clearly not done a single thing about it except berate people on the internet. You have given zero solutions. You obviously did not help to primary him.
Frankly, I’m tired of an armchair quarterback telling me that I’m in favor of genocide because I’m trying to save my daughter’s life. The fucking gall you have.
The inescapable fact is that you're completely unable to provide any justification as to why re-electing Biden while he's failing/not bothering to stop a genocide doesn't signal support from the democratic voter base. (No you don't have to be a registered democrat to count as "part of their voter base", and I don't know why you would think otherwise.)
As I said several comments ago:
If you think that's worth the trade-off, fine, but don't pretend that that isn't the trade-off you're making.
Your one response has been to attempt to put some kind of imaginary guilt on my head, which as I've repeatedly pointed out, changes absolutely nothing about what I've said.
telling me that I’m in favor of genocide
You know full well that at no point have I ever told you you support genocide, but you are inescapably voting in support of it by voting for Biden.
You still don’t get that I don’t give a shit about the Democratic voter base or what re-electing Biden tells them. All I care about is saving my daughter’s life. That’s it.
And you don’t have to tell me that I’m in favor of genocide. You’ve been implying it the entire time.
But who cares about queer people in America, am I right? Just let them die.
Isn’t that exactly what you’re arguing for? The guy currently in office, who you want to re-elect, is the one presiding over both of these genocides. How the hell does re-electing him make things any better?
How exactly does genocide get worse? Are they going to start reanimating the corpses of these dead men, women, and children and then kill them a second time?
Do you (or anyone who thinks not voting for Biden is a smart thing) think that Trump would do anything differently? Because those are the two choices. If you don’t vote for Biden then you are either voting for Trump or helping Trump by taking away votes from Biden… unless you live in a blue or red state where your vote doesn’t matter anyway.
I do blame Biden for how he is handling this situation. However, I am smart enough to understand that there is more than one situation that a president has to handle while in office. For the most part, Biden has honored the wishes of me as a constituent. If the only thing you care about in life is how the President of the US handles a conflict on the other side of the world, as opposed to the US economy, civil rights in the US, US Supreme Court justices, US circuit court judges, environmental policy in the US, etc., then that is your right as a voter. I hate what is going on over in Gaza (and the region in general), but I also care about is going on in the country I live in.
If you don’t vote for Biden then you are either voting for Trump or helping Trump
I'm so tired of this rhetoric. Let people vote for who they believe in without shaming them. Americans should not be strong armed into voting for a candidate they don't actually want.
If you're driving in a bus with 40 people voting on where to go, with 14 wanting to drive to a buffet, 16 wanting to drive off a cliff, and 15 saying that they don't care enough to vote but they don't really want to go to the buffet because they're not hungry, yes, I am going to judge the 15 people who are content being driven off a cliff.
I am going to judge the 15 people who are content being driven off a cliff.
But you’ll happily sit on the bus, never questioning why you’re helping to maintain a system that results in such terrible options, and then blame others when that system you help to maintain comes back to bite you in the face.
You can criticize the fact that they didn't vote, I literally just said that I think everyone should vote. But that's not the same as saying they did vote for the winner. If you're mad that the bus is driven off a cliff, then be upset with the people that did vote for it.
This is excusing that I personally think your analogy is an oversimplification.
Both instances are willful action that contributes to direct harm to yourself and others.
No, in the context of a voting system, it is not literally a vote for the other option. I don't think your friends tumbling off the cliff will really care much about the distinction that serves no purpose other than personal moral satisfaction.
And before anyone judges this analogy because one option is objectively good while the other is objectively bad: Everyone is guaranteed to get food poisoning at the buffet. Now both options are objectively bad, but I’m still judging the people content with going over the cliff.
Vote for neither: 0 vote for either. Midway between the two outcomes.
That being said, voting for neither doesn’t make much sense for anyone in terms of outcome. If you prefer one outcome, it doesn’t make much sense to only use half of the strength of your vote to support that outcome.
Not voting makes more sense if you’re making the argument that the time spent voting isn’t worth the return you get.
Let people vote for who they believe in without shaming them.
Voting is like freedom of speech. Everyone is free to vote for whoever they want, but they aren't immune from criticism for how they vote. If someone votes for a guy who says he'll "be a dictator on day one" and encourage Russia to "do whatever the hell they want", I'm gonna shame that person for supporting such an insupportable candidate who espouses such insane ideas.
If Biden is polling to lose and Trump ends up winning, you’re also supporting Trump by backing a losing candidate and handing the election over to Trump.
To be clear, I was directly responding to someone who was claiming that not voting for Biden is like voting for Trump. I hate that rhetoric and it's not true. If you want to blame someone for Trump winning, you blame the people that voted for him.
Sure, but you also said not to shame people for how they vote. I responded specifically to that statement and not the others because I understand wanting to vote for a candidate you actually want in office.
Unfortunately, strategic voting has to occur in order for things to get better in the USA. Until we massively overhaul the voting system, voters need to understand that you either vote for the lesser of two evils, or are (albeit passively) contributing to the greater of two evils' ascent to power.
Even far-left progressives like Bernie Sanders or Noam Chomsky were like, "Dude, you gotta vote for the Democratic candidate or else these crazy far-right candidates are gonna push the country further to the right. At least if the Democratic candidate wins we either stay where we are, or maybe get to move a bit further left during their tenure."
It's a deeply flawed system, but in the general election, it's a simple calculus. There's nothing Biden could do to lose my vote in November because I owe it to our society (and our allies worldwide) to prevent another Trump term.
I said that as a direct response to someone saying not voting for Biden is like voting for Trump. I wasn't trying to make some general statement. I don't know how else to say that.
If you want to judge a Trump voter for voting for Trump, judge them on that merit. Don't judge someone that didn't vote for Trump if Trump wins, that's bullshit.
Sure, but what I’d say is I’ll still say in this fricken 2 party system, you also have to justify not going for the lesser of two evils, however you define that. And if your position is “I want someone to stop Israel continuing their war on Hamas”, you also have to contend with the idea that neither option is likely to do what you want. This just reads to me like throwing a fit that mommy brought you peas instead of beans with your dinner and saying you want daddy, when he’s not bringing any food at all.
I don't have to justify not voting for the lesser evil when I can vote for an option that is, in my opinion of course, not evil at all. I encourage every American to vote, and vote for who you actually want to be the President, not just against who you don't want.
At first, I thought you weren’t American and weren’t aware of how the system works.
I’m not American, but I do know that if you live somewhere where your vote matters, you would improving Trump’s odds of winning.
If your riding already has a victor predetermined, then sure, vote for whomever you want. But if you’re in a swing state or anything like that, then not voting for Biden means helping Trump win.
You can hate how it works all you want, but it won’t change the reality of the situation.
then not voting for Biden means helping Trump win.
No, it doesn't, and loops right back around to the rhetoric that started my whole comment chain here.
A vote for Trump helps Trump win. If Trump got no votes, Trump would not win. The responsibility for electing Trump rests squarely on the shoulders of those who voted for Trump. No one else.
Okay but we’re in a 2 party system. It sucks, but it is what it is. It’s either Biden or Trump winning no matter how you feel on the matter.
Both of them support Israel, one with slowly(very slowly, yes) waning support and the other essentially saying he’d gladly help turn Palestine into rubble.
Domestically, Biden has been doing pretty good. The rail strike was a fiasco but besides that he’s mostly been a small step forward from Obama.
Meanwhile, Trump is Trump. His first term was a complete disaster for the country, and now he’s outright saying he’ll be a dictator rounding up the “enemy”, he’s saying he won’t defend our allies from Russia, he’s well and truly dementia-addled now(Mercedes? oof), etc…
Voting for Trump is far worse obviously, but not voting against him still makes it more likely he wins. Just as you have the freedom to make that decision, I have the freedom to judge the shit out of you for it.
Okay but we’re in a 2 party system. It sucks, but it is what it is. It’s either Biden or Trump winning no matter how you feel on the matter.
Ever consider that we only get to choose between these two parties because people like you fear mongering and demanding everyone maintain the status quo?
If it’s guaranteed that Trump or Biden are winning then elections are obviously foregone conclusions, our votes don’t really matter, and neither party has any reason to ever change because they’re guaranteed to hold at least 50% of power at any given time. We might as well eliminate ballots and just automatically declare a winner based on party registration numbers.
This is rhetoric from party loyalists who don’t give a shit about the country. It’s the Democratic version of MAGA, people who actively vote against their own best interests just to ‘stick it to the other guy,’ while the country crumbles and the rest of us suffer.
The Democratic Party is well past due for a purging. If they won’t do it themselves, I honestly won’t be mad to see them face the MAGAts they helped raise. Trump is 80 years old and has had a lifetime of cheeseburgers and spray tans, in the worst case scenario, he’ll last five years and America would be better off in the long term for it.
If you really think the US would be better off in the long term if Trump gets elected, then you obviously haven’t paid attention to the very long term damage he did while in office. Trump 1 got to replace 3 justices. Biden has had the chance to replace 1. With looming retirements of a couple justices, Trump 2 would get to replace another 2. That would cement a 5 to 4 ultra-conservative Supreme Court for a good 20 years. Additionally, his tax cuts for the wealthy and refusal to raise interest rates weren’t exactly great for long term stability of our economy.
I agree with the D’s needing to have a wholesale change of leadership, though.
Comservativism is a race to the bottom; its a naturally implosive idealogy. Yes, America will be better off in the long term (read: more than five years) once the Dinocrats are put out to pasture and the MAGAts kill each other in a power vacuum after Trump kicks the bucket. America needs a revolution - any revolution - and the Dems are married to the status quo. I think most actual leftists in America are waking up to the idea that they are a dead-end for actual change and the only possible route for things to get better is by weathering a decade of Trumpism and building new from the damage that is promised to bring.
The top of the wishlist of any reasonable and rational American should be, “Don’t permit a fascist demagogue to become a petty tyrant.” Biden fulfills that order handily, and if that’s not enough for someone to get them to vote for him, then the blame lies with that voter.
If Biden can’t beat a fascist demagogue and petty tyrant and Trump ends up winning, then I’d argue it’s your fault for backing a losing candidate over someone who actually might have actually defeated Trump. The blame would fall squarely on your shoulders.
Oh, not the party loyalists like yourself who would rather back a losing candidate than allow a winner to run in their place?
Have you ever stopped to consider how someone could find a bloated, orange maniac more appealing than the guy you’re trying to shame everyone into voting for and what that says about your political views?
Sanders would bring in the most, make him the nominee and you would keep the never trumpers, bring in some moderates, lose some moderates.
The math comes down to would the amount of moderates/independents you lose to apathy or trump, double points for the ones who would vote trump instead of sanders since the other team gains 1 and you lose 1, compared to how many moderates/independents and how many leftists you get.
No, it’s not. You don’t sub out a candidate with someone who, nine months before the election, has no interest in running for the office. That’s a pipe dream doing nothing but distracting you from the reality that it’s going to be Biden vs. Trump, and despite how imperfect you feel Biden is, you’re going to have to vote for him, because the alternative is fascist authoritarianism.
Come November, Sanders will be voting for Biden. I suggest you follow his lead.
Absolutely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that Biden will be the nominee against Trump, regardless of what happens in Palestine. Doing anything besides voting for him is holding the door open for fascism to take over when Trump takes power.
You either do the bare minimum to stop Trump by voting for his only viable opponent, or you let him come to power with your blessing. Those are the only two options in November.
The top of the wishlist of any reasonable and rational American should be, “Don’t permit a fascist demagogue to become a petty tyrant.” Biden fulfills that order handily, and if that’s not enough for someone to get them to vote for him, then the blame lies with that voter.
Right now, today, supporting Biden any further is handing Trump a W.
Biden has lost the election at this point. It would be the biggest election upset of ALL TIME if he came back to win it. No incumbent this far down in the polling has EVER won an election.
If you truly want to stop Trump, stop brow beating people into supporting a lost cause and work to have a conversation around how we can get a better candidate. I think Shawn Fein.
And Obama solidly lost his election against Romney if you looked at polls this far out. A strong case can be made that polls at this point are not predictive.
I think Shawn Fein.
Ignoring the fact that mine and most American's immediate reaction to this is "Who?", the fact that he has zero experience in elected office will be disqualifying to most people. He seems like a decent guy, and I'd love to see him in some sort of office some day, but this is not a serious suggestion.
Also, to quote him:
Proud to cast my vote for President @JoeBiden today, the first day of early in-person voting in the state of Michigan!
Oh god, finally gave a name. Who the hell is Shawn Fein? If I haven’t already heard of them, it’s a lost cause too - because they have no brand recognition. This is the dilemma and one I’ve been banging on about since before Obama. It’s kind of insane the Democratic party seems to hope for a repeat of that once in a lifetime basically out of nowhere candidate / win. For reasons I don’t get, Democrats are not building up people in advance to be candidates. So people have at least heard of them.
The problem is as far as I know there aren’t any well known middle aged democrats who could run that have any national stance. Schumer is also too old, Bernie is also too old, and then there’s the sexism that makes me question if Warren could run, and then there’s the racism that makes Kamala and Cortez pretty unlikely to get far either.
I thought the entire four years that Democrats needed to have someone in the news and convince Biden to back them a year ago. That didn’t happen. We already lost this years ago if Biden can’t win it. I’m just still amazed that there’s any support for Trump (well, ever, but certainly after the facts of his first term).
Point taken on Shawn Fein. He is the UAW president, and got Biden to come down to the picket line.
But overall, almost 100% agree. I don’t see any current Democrats with ‘enough’ of the right stuff to get handed the reigns and win. Its why I’m looking outside the party. I really think if Jon Stewart were to throw his hat in, he could win. He’s young enough, he doesn’t have the baggage that an existing candidate has, people know him, he’s a darling of the left. He’s been politically active although he hasn’t run (point against I supposed, but not a deal breaker. Didn’t stop Trump did it?).
Biden has blown this campaign with his position on Israel. He needs to drive voters out, and he’s pulling a classic Democrat move of just assuming that the support for him is there. The ship is sinking. This is a five-alarm fire moment. He has no opponents in this primary and is losing support. You don’t win elections like that.
If the liberals are going to keep insisting that we support Biden even though it becomes more and more clear as time goes on that he isn’t going to win, I don’t know where that leaves us. I don’t want to suffer through what Trump will do to this country. If Trump wins, I’d be shocked if we even have elections again. Expect every non-cis person in this country to be rounded up and executed. I don’t think its hyperbole to suggest that. I think the right would do that today if they had the power.
Looks like the US is going to get some tough love.
Turns out you can’t just fund, supply and cast UN vetoes in support of the genocide of an entire people and still get unconditional support at the ballot box, whoda thunkit.
And yes, the consequences are going to be hideous.
I guess you should have thought of that, what with everyone telling you over and over and over.
Cabin in the Woods moment, and you brought it on yourselves.
While largely spot-on, this essay overcomplicates supremacism. When a conservative in the tribal loyalist mode views you as part of their ingroup, they cannot comprehend why you’d do anything besides seek greater connection within the tribe. You don’t have to put up with those lesser outsiders. You are invited to the inner ring. What’s wrong with you, if you won’t accept? There must be some underlying betrayal.
I fucking hate, and from the bottom of my heart, how Biden is funding the genocide in Palestine, but I’m still going to vote for him this time, because we just can’t have a person like Trump in the white house, period. I still can’t figure out how he got in the first time. I’d never let my 10 year old lead a country, yet we let Trump do it for four fucking years. I, too, am sick of this “the lesser of two evils” bullshit, but this time I’m giving it a pass because of Trump. We already have a crumbling country and can’t afford another four years of this dude.
Ten year old?! Thats a high bar for most republicans these days. They want knee jerk and whining. Thats something most 10 year olds are already figuring out doesnt get them what they want.
I think Joe Biden is maybe the best president of my lifetime, and I’m going to vote for him with my head held high even though I live in a red state where it doesn’t matter at all. I wish things were simpler in the Levant, but I appreciate that Joe Biden is between a rock and a hard place with Israel. It’s not like he can just take Bibi out. He’s not Boeing. That said, even if I laid the entire genocide at Biden’s feet (which, while he’s not blameless, is absolutely not appropriate), he would still be head and shoulders an improvement over Donald Trump.
For that matter, I’d absolutely let my 12 year old run this country before I’d let Trump have a second term. My kid is brilliant, and more importantly, unlike Trump he listens to advice, can take no for an answer, and gives a shit about having a functional democracy four years from now.
A second Trump term is an existential threat to the nation. Hold your nose, hold your neighbor’s nose if you have to, but every able-bodied patriot owes it to their descendants and their patriotic ancestors to prevent a second Trump term.
I don’t understand why people point out that Biden is “funding the genocide in Palestine” and completely ignore and fail to mention that trump would do the exact same thing.
He has all but said he would cut Israel loose to do whatever they needed to finish the job.
The use of Israeli aggression is not a point of comparison when viewing the differences between trump and Biden.
Edit: and I apologize for the late edit - FWIW Biden has become critical of Israeli actions and offered some aid to Palestinians (Yeah, I absolutely agree it isn’t enough) while trump would prefer to wash his hands of the whole Palestine thing. That is a notable difference.
It isn’t the potential for denial that initiated my reply, it’s the fact that people declare US support of Israel is a strike against Biden when comparing Biden to trump as a reason to consider not voting for Biden. This is a false comparison and it is the point I am making.
I don’t understand why people point out that Biden is “funding the genocide in Palestine” and completely ignore and fail to mention that trump would do the exact same thing.
Because Democrats are suppose to be better than that. But, apparently, they actually aren’t.
This is about the Democratic party. This whole “vote for the least fascist candidate” has reached a breaking point. It’stotally beyond the pale and isn’t just about whats best for the next election cycle. People simply cannot actively support a genocidal party because it runs fundementally against their core values.
We’re not talking about compromising on tax policy or economics here. We’re talking about fully mask off genocide support. It’s deeply unconscionable to anyone who has a moral compass.
No, you’re not listening. Stop fear-babbling about fucking Trump for one fucking second and consider that voting for Biden is voting for genocide. It’s putting your own name to it.
While that clearly means nothing to you and you’rejust fixated on your own self-interest, consider how non-sociopaths might view this choice.
Ok. GFY for making the “if you vote for Biden you vote for genocide” argument while completely ignoring trump would do the same. You’re just a damn shill for the right wing. Useless MF.
I would honestly get yourself checked out by a psychologist. Normal people are not this incapable of understanding why someone might have trouble voting for a genocidal fascist.
Like, yes, you disagree, but I’m talking about how easily you’re able to support genocide without blinking an eye and then getting angry at other people who won’t actively support genocide.
The level of selfish disregard for even attempting to understand is really disturbing. Like, you understand that there are people right now that have relatives in Gaza being killed with the bombs that Biden gave Israel, right? You understand that Biden spit in those people’s faces when they asked him to not support genocide? Intellectually you can at least wrap your head around that, right?
lol, keep making stuff up about me, tankie. Keep throwing innuendos at me couched as reason so everyone can read your anti-Biden propaganda instead of what’s actually being discussed. Repeat it every single reply like a good little fascist.
E: quick trip through your post history says this is all you do, trash talk democrats and Biden, repeat genocide over and over while never a single mention of trump policy. Well, a quick stop in a porn community to jerk off for a break, right? How’s the propaganda job pay? Any good? Or do you just do it voluntarily out of pure hatred?
If voting for Biden is voting for genocide, then not voting or voting third party is voting for Trump, genocide and the destruction of democracy in the US.
The destruction of democracy in the United States has much deeper roots, and has been in-process for a long time. How long the effects have been visible is arguable, and the manifestation unpredictable, but fundamentally, a voting system which doesn’t allow people to express their actual preferences, well, isn’t representative of people’s actual preferences.
I can’t think of any more-profound way to state that truth at this early hour. A “democracy” which doesn’t reflect the will of the people is a democracy in name only, and we can only keep the “lesser-evil” streak going for so long before we’re so far into evil that we “have to” vote for a candidate materially supporting genocide so we don’t get the candidate who supports genocide without having non-actionable “concerns” about it.
I don’t understand why people point out that Biden is “funding the genocide in Palestine” and completely ignore and fail to mention that trump would do the exact same thing.
And hence why I won’t vote for Trump either. It’s not that hard to understand.
“I still can’t figure out how he got in the first time”
Easy. He was propped up by democrats, namely Hillary Clinton.
If we reach a point 40 years from now when your choice is between a dem supporting 5 genocides and a republican supporting 10 genocides, are you still going to be militantly democrat and lash out at leftists who are sick of the whole thing?
In this hypothetical we wouldn’t have the option to vote 40 years from now because dim bulbs allowed an insurrectionist to be elected. Donald will also accelerate climate fuckery so anyway we’ll be too busy squabbling over what meager food comes out of the remaining arable regions.
By not answering the question and participating in the process of this hypothetical choice the outcome is Israel is supported and Joe Biden loses the 2024 election.
Nope. I’ve stated this in multiple posts on other platforms, this is my last time going with this “lesser of two evils” bullshit. Because at some point, we HAVE to believe that it is intentional. I mean, what happened to “fool me once…”?
So if a Trump presidency means the end of democracy in America, why hasn’t Trump been outlawed?
Why is Biden focusing on banning TikTok instead of truth social? Why weren’t the courts getting stacked 2 years ago? Why are the democrats’ obsession with “precedent” and “civility” taking more primacy than outlawing a candidate who, by their own admission, would mean the end of democracy?
By propping up Trump, the democrats have effortlessly oriented you such that you now give blind support to a genocidal regime. You’ve given the democrats a blank check. The democrats would rather lose to Trump and usher in fascism than shift left in the slightest way (halting genocide).
Also, epic reddit catchphrase my good sir. I tip my hat you, for you are a gentleman and a scholar.
Biden is not funding Israel. The United States government is. Even if he wanted to stop the aid (he doesn’t), he doesn’t have the power to just ignore laws passed by Congress. Trump did that with Ukraine and got impeached for it.
I mean, he fundamentally does have the power to veto laws. There are potentially negative political consequences in doing so, but he certainly has that power.
Certain important people need to keep selling spyware, drugs, guns and war to keep themselves and their associates employed. As for whether the funds or the actual work (conflict) available is sustainable is for everyone including the accountants to consider.
The other problem is that war doesn’t really die, we just displace where we choose to fight, and how, if we imagine physical and cyber world peace for a moment, for the USA or China to reduce its military capacity by one third, or one tenth, we would see absolute chaos, thousands unemployed, the losses in maintenance and equipment, military supplies, medical, etc, nobody would win.
Any complex society where financial and other systems operate needs a minimum degree of social enforcement to maintain. Whether that can change like a function or is something that depends on a country’s GDP is another issue.
Just consider that humanity would either need lots of free time, energy and money or it would literally need to feel incredibly threatened by something on earth, which we all could not fight to control in order to actually fund going to space or even the moon, and I doubt a triple whammy of pandemic, food shortage or severe draught and floods could do it, it happened in the Bible and people literally just found more dumb reasons to do more dumb things, and no lowering mens testosterone or telling guys to shave more often wouldn’t do shit either. If people don’t find reasons to explore or learn, they find reasons to fight/play fight, it’s pretty normal, and if anyone remembers their childhood, usually it’s pretty much the same across generations.
It doesn’t sound to me like he thought he was above the law. He seemed to know the consequences. He just didn’t think that Trump should be above the law. Or, at the very least, above presidential decorum.
For reference, the seven tenants listed next to the destroyed display:
I One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.
II The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
III One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
IV The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one’s own.
V Beliefs should conform to one’s best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one’s beliefs.
VI People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one’s best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.
VII Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.
It makes a lot of sense to me why Christians would be against this.
A little late but we all are svelte ppl yeah baby yeah. Edit: Svelte swedish, just to clarify. Means starved. Yeah. Now you know. Starved for knowledge yeah
What a jackass. Meanwhile supports statues of people who lived by the credo of “I feel so strongly that people should own other people as property that I’m willing to kill for that right, look here’s my gun!”
Yeah, it’s difficult to take issue with any of those.
Personally, I don’t need (or want) the baggage associated with organized religion in order to believe and follow those tenets, so I’m not a member. But I’m a big fan.
This is the consequence of the hatred that transphobes, garden variety conservatives and TERFs alike, have stoked. And the narrative that the media has gleefully ran with.
Being visibly trans or gender-non-conforming nowadays is genuinely scary in a way I think a lot of people don't fully understand. And of course when femininity is being policed, women of colour tend to suffer too, even if they are cisgender.
Racism, Misogyny and transphobia have always come from a similar place and build off of each other. They share the same narratives and the same desire for ostracization and oppression. Bigots will always ally with other bigots, as this hatred is not rational and only someone with similarly irrational hate could support you. Dig enough in bigoted communities and you are certain to find all different kinds of hatred.
That’s why TERF communities are infested with homophobia, misogyny, racism, antisemitism and Islamophobia. Over time the concentration of white supremacy and nazism has grown exponentially in terf communities. Nazis share many of the same goals and many of the same conspiracies that terfs do. And prominent terfs like Kelly Jay Keen openly ally with Christian white nationalists around the world.
I’d argue that the TERF perspective is fundamentally anti-male rather than (or maybe in addition to) misogynistic.
The specific position TERFs hold that makes them TERFs is that you cannot become a woman if you weren’t born one and that women should be granted certain special protections and spaces of their own, kept free from men.
That’s why TERFs ALWAYS frame trans issues in the form of men dressing up as women to infiltrate women’s spaces and women’s services. They could give a shit about trans men, it’s all trans women because trans women are the ones using things that in their eyes should be the sole provenance of “real” women.
The instigators responsible will keep getting away with it. They’re very careful to use the right dog whistles and key words to avoid getting deplatformed and they still cause their followers to act like this.
They’ve also been stoking the “Black women look trans” narrative for a while, especially focused on Michelle Obama. I listen to Knowldge Fight so I’ve heard so many disgusting Alex Jones clips of him calling her Mike.
If doctors (or pharmacists) want the choice to impose their own religion on their patients, then at minimum need need to disclose that before ever meeting a patient. Additionally it would disqualify them from accepting any patients that are subsidized with taxpayer money.
This could act like the Surgeon General’s warning on a pack of cigarettes:
WARNING: this physician acts with their own religion in mind before your well being. This could be a danger to your health.
Claiming this is due to religion isn’t accurate. This happens all the time due to plain old misogyny. Women have a tough time getting proper medical treatment at all, not just when it overlaps with religious fruitcakes.
Except it doesn;t. Right now, roughly 20% of all hospitals in the US are owned by a religion; most are Catholic, and about 1/4 of them are ‘some other religion’. That is up from 12% is 1995. What that means is that, in many cases–especially when it’s an emergency–you won’t have any choice at all except to accept religion-tainted healthcare.
I’ve lived in places where the only option covered by my insurance was religions.
It’s becoming a religion issue as Catholic groups take over more and more hospitals, because they’re going to eliminate health care for things that are against their religious principles.
IMO healthcare should not be permitted to have religion interfering.
The people refusing are openly stating that it is because of their religious beliefs. If they try to hide it then it will become apparent very quickly when their opinion always ends up with something other than the thing they oppose.
We could start our own list. When I say “we” I mean someone else, because I’m both not smart enough to build that, and not in the right place in the world.
I was struggling with Biology for my associates degree back in 2007. I happened to teach Tae Kwon Do to the daughter of one of the state university Biology professors (I was only in community College at the time) and I asked the mom to tutor me.
And goddamn. As smart as she was regarding Biology, she bought into Christianity hook, line, and sinker (her husband was a pastor).
The human mind is something else. I work with so many skydaddy fearing engineers. Utterly freaken brilliant people without which civilization ends in fire and feces.
I mean it’s pretty easy. It doesn’t make a good marketing campaign for atheism, but the correlation between education and irreligion seems to be causal the other way. Being irreligious leads one towards more education, but becoming educated does not lead one away from religion… Getting a physics degree or medical degree just does not make you less religious.
That’s true, I witnessed it firsthand, and it’s still baffling to me. Going for a degree in biblical studies and apologetics at a religious university whose draconian fundamentalist views I fully aligned with when I entered is ironically what caused me to actually question the “biblical inerrancy” doctrinal belief.
Reminds me of
Very few people come out of law school sovereign citizens.
One thing people leave out is that there is a LOT to religion and spirituality. Christianity, for example, is not entirely defined in terms of rejecting evolution. That’s just a (tiny) part of their beliefs. When you start in a science-denying religion (worst-case scenario), it’s still only a small percent of your beliefs that contradict the science. So some people stay believers and deny the contradictory science… others stay believers “except the science”.
Many people adhere to non-science-denying religions. So while they are naturally less likely to pick a science major, if they DO pick a science major, nothing in it will knock them out of their faith.
Because medicine doesn’t require you to be atheistic and after a while some really need something that can provide hope however irrational that might be?
No, they should have their medical license revoked. Doctors have to swear an oath to not intentionally or knowingly harm a patient for a reason, because their well being is their top priority. If they can’t adhere to that oath because of arbitrary religious/philosophical/political/whatever beliefs, then they have no business being a medical professional.
I agree. A doctor putting their own religious beliefs over established medical science and the well being of their patient is completely against the Hippocratic Oath.
Unfortunately, the original Hippocratic oath that many doctors swear to includes a line about not performing abortions or prescribing abortifacients.
It is my understanding that, at the time that version of the oath was written, that was less a prohibition of abortion and more a matter of pregnancy and abortion being under the purview of midwives, not physicians.
To that point, I wrote my own medical oath that I will hold to because I think that things like autonomy, free choice, and dignity in death are actually important.
Thank you for clarifying, I did not know that about the Hippocratic Oath. I think it’s really cool that you wrote your own Oath. Thank you for your empathy and service to humankind.
The medical school I’m currently in is an Osteopathic school that leans pretty hard into the Christian traditions/origins of osteopathy, so it’s not terribly uncommon for me to get into philosophical and ethical arguments with my classmates and professors. There are a bunch of them that I know that I’ll never change their minds about most things, but the others who listen in to those arguments might be swayed or at least given a seed of doubt to explore further.
I don't understand why this is even allowed. If someone had a religious opposition to consuming or enabling the consumption (cooking, serving, etc) of certain foods -- shellfish, pork, sweets during lent, meat in general, whatever -- that person could not reasonably expect to get a job in a restaurant where that food is regularly served. Like, if a waiter showed up for work at a steakhouse one day and refused to touch any plate with meat on it on religious grounds, no one would be on that waiter's side when there are vegan restaurants that waiter could have applied to instead.
Doctors are held to a different standard because... the mental gymnastics say it's totally fine when it's a woman being denied service I guess?
If these healthcare "professionals" only want to treat men like they deserve humane care, they should be in a field more suited to their preferences.
Failing that, yes, I agree with your comment entirely.
Analogies are tools to assist understanding, and having opposition debate the analogies themselves instead of the actual points they're used to make is a sign of a weak rebuttal.
So let's ignore all the haggling over the analogy and bring it back to the broader point: People should not be in jobs which their personal beliefs prevent doing significant or important aspects of. And equality between genders is objectively an important aspect of health care. These "professionals" should not be in the health care field at all, save perhaps male-focused care fields like prostate or testicular health.
Don’t get it either. I am sure it is quite possible to be a doctor and not be involved with abortion. I am an engineer and I have strong objections to working on military stuff, so I don’t work for military contractors. Other ones don’t so they do.
I’m going to try again (and you know, maybe I’m just wrong but here’s what I’m seeing).
There are doctors in the medical field already, with specific beliefs that may be sexist but are not generally speaking, sexist people. There is also a shortage of doctors.
Do we really want to throw out an entire doctor (that takes years of training) because they don’t want to do a particular procedure?
There is a secondary point of when is refusal to do a procedure sexism or religion vs genuine medical objection to the harms caused (in their medical opinion).
There is an additional point where I fundamentally think legal compulsion is a terrible tool in a free society and should be used as an absolute last resort.
When it comes down to something as sensitive as medicine, I’d rather my doctor be on board or I find a different doctor vs my doctor being compelled to do something they don’t believe in or outright having no doctor to go to because … there aren’t enough.
There’s also the possibility (and it seems like in the video) that the Roe v Wade issue is also making this doctor far more skiddish even in New York State. We really haven’t heard his side and that really is an important perspective.
Surely there’s somebody else this woman could see as well? There’s no way this guy is the only one that knows about these medications and maybe another doctor would like to use a different medication anyways. There are plenty of other cases of doctors saying “you’re fine” to people regardless of gender or sex and them needing to see a different doctor before getting the right treatment.
I originally went after your analogy because it’s so beyond comparison. You might as well make an analogy between a rocket scientist and a scientologist. There are so many layers of nuance here. Driving politics into medical decisions is part of how we got here … is adding more complex “do I need a lawyer (to do what I believe is the best practice)” to a doctor’s practice really a good idea?
That presumably kind of worked for racism but I still can’t imagine the truly racist doctors were giving their best service; like we didn’t just say “you must see black patients or leave medicine” and then the problems were fixed. There are plenty of black people alive today that still distrust the institution of medicine – including my neighbor who refused to get vaccinated because he doesn’t trust doctors – because of what’s been done in the past.
Based on what I’ve read in r/childfree, it’s far more common than not for doctors to prioritize the needs of a hypothetical husband or fetus over those of a real live woman. I’ve also known someone in real life who couldn’t get a painful medical condition fixed until her mid 30s because the treatment caused sterility. The problem goes way beyond religion; it’s more a matter of institutional sexism and the hubris of doctors thinking they know better than any woman who says she doesn’t want kids.
I’ve been to several different OBs trying to solve my almost-two-year-long-period and every single one of them refuses to do anything for me. I’m just “too young” for them to stop me from having kids one day. And giving me a hysterectomy is “too dangerous” and “risky” when my life isn’t in danger. It doesn’t matter that I’ve tried everything they suggest. Try it again!! It’s so fucking tiring.
I’ve just given up paying the constant doctor fees to see asshole doctors anymore and just figure I’ll either stop having the problem eventually or I’ll be “old enough” (40 maybe?) to finally get surgery… It’s all a nightmare, especially in the religious south…
I’d check with a women’s group or Planned Parenthood for a doctor recommendation. They might know some sane ones.
Having been married to a sane one, I do know they’re spectacularly gunshy of affecting a woman’s fertility because it can get them sued into the ground if they do something like that to someone that someday wants kids. And patients lie, so when you tell a doctor that you don’t want kids, they assume you’re going to change your mind. And I’m not sure if there’s a disclosure you can sign that would hold up in court if you changed your mind one day. So there’s that.
I might try this! I haven’t tried Planned Parenthood yet.
Honestly I feel like I’ve tried everything to make them listen!! I’ve brought my wife with me to the appointments!! I’ve mentioned that I first brought up hysterectomies at 17 when I suffered from multi-week periods! I’ve mentioned I’m asexual and that I’m married and never even had sex so I don’t see kids in the future!
But I do get that doctors have to worry about the liars. I can get why it’s important to have the option to sue a doctor who wronged you but I wish there really was an intensive disclosure you could just do rather than run around until you find a doctor who’s willing to trust you not to regret it. It sucks all around.
Wow, all it took for me was a gay man clutching my testicles during a five minute conversation about how vasectomies aren’t really reversible for me to get clipped. I was only 30 years old
Can you find a doctor near you in the list in the r/childfree sidebar? That’s how I found mine, and she’s great. Good luck to you, I hope things turn out better. I’m sorry this is a thing :(
r/childfree has a list of providers by state that regularly provide hysterectomies. I recommend checking it out, and when you call for an appointment, say that you want a consultation for a hysterectomy and don’t say anything else. I saw one of the providers from that list and she agreed that a hysterectomy was appropriate for me (31 years old, no kids) in part because of how horrible my periods are when I’m not on continuous hormonal birth control. The only reason we didn’t schedule the surgery right then and there is because the Depo shot is working for the moment and she was concerned about how the recovery from surgery would affect my ability to study for medical school and board exams.
I actually tried three different providers from the childfree subreddit. One ended up refusing me entirely due to no insurance (I’m in Georgia and Medicaid hasn’t been expanded yet. Though there was a mini-expansion this year.) and another actually worked with me over the phone for around 2 months without making me go to an appointment and pay just to see if I had enough… “evidence” or something that they could sign off on a hysterectomy. They ended up telling me I’d need to at least re-try several things first. I couldn’t afford the surgery plus 5+ visits several hours away. The third closest option from the childfree list was in another state and couldn’t see me unless I had their state insurance coverage.
I’m trying the Depo shot now from the health department but it hasn’t helped at all. Thank you though! It’s a long road ahead.
Edit: The provider who worked with me over the phone did offer me an ablation but they couldn’t guarantee that it would fix the issues and it would cost me my entire hysterectomy savings fund so I just couldn’t justify it. I may have the term “ablation” wrong because I remember I spoke in depth about it and one other very similar procedure… Either way they were very nice at least and I can see why they are on the list.
Yeah, healthcare in this country is a hot mess in a lot of ways. Something that could help push it in the direction of getting coverage is if you have any family history of things like uterine fibroids, or gynecological cancers. It’s a pretty straightforward thing on the paperwork end of things if cancer prophylaxis is on the list of reasons.
Another thing you could consider in this capitalist hellscape is signing up for a plan off the ACA that has a deductible similar to or less than your savings. That way you would wipe out the deductible immediately, have access to more providers, and have some semblance of coverage for the rest of the year.
“Too risky” is such bullshit anyway. My OBGYN said that at my age (22), the only risks (aside from potential complications that come with ANY surgery) were a slightly early menopause (couple years max) and higher chance of vaginal prolapse (but that they put supports in place and there are things that can be done to correct this if it occurs)
Right?? That’s pretty much what it seemed like to me too. No doctor really wanted to go into it except one mentioned that “any surgery with anesthesia can be dangerous!” and I remember I ditched that doctor on the first visit. I think a lot of it is rural areas have… less than great doctors.
Most of my doctor hopping was at least 9 months ago now so it all kinda just blurs together now.
my friend was having enormous clots come out during her horrifically long periods, losing the amount of blood that was actually making her anemic and causing her problems, and they still didn't want to do anything because she was only in her 30s. thankfully she finally found a doctor who was like 'wow yeah you need that thing taken out of there its killing you' and she got it removed, but the fact she had to go through all that stress and pain to find anyone who would help her is absurd.
So…instead of debating and tweeking a ready-made bill that had everything they asked for, these schmucks kick the can down the road and bitch about their made for Fawx News crisis?
Worthless assholes. Get everyone you know to vote these fuckers out.
The judge compared Littlejohn’s actions to those of the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack, noting that, “your actions were also a threat to our democracy.”
Because stealing and releasing tax documents is the same thing as attempting to violently overthrow the government.
“Trust in the system” is a resource that needs managing. If the contractor got off lightly, it would erode the trust people have that the IRS will manage their information.
Let alone the fact that a light sentence for a guy who leaked the administration’s foe’s information would be incredibly corrupt
So the judge is in with trump. Hope none of his cases go that guys way.
Like yeah, he broke the law and needed to be punished. But it wasn't government secrets, which i'm pretty sure is already legally coded separately from this guys crimes, and also neither of which are treason, which would be the capital attack.
So the guy blatantly spoke against his own legal experience for a political swing.
I was going to argue that the attack on the Capitol (though your spelling may more accurately reflect real life) was not treason. No enemies were afforded aid or comfort.
“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or imprisoned and fined, and incapable of holding any U.S. office.” [emphasis mine]
Now I’m rethinking my life. How could I have been so wrong about such a pivotal event in my life?!
(For any of your assholes thinking I’m a 01/06 sympathizer or apologist, I doubt you personally know anymore more angry. Given my druthers, I’d ask the court to impose the death penalty and carry it out personally. And I’m not some angry, young, keyboard warrior talking. I’ve thought on this much.)
She was appointed by Joe Biden and is an immigrant to this country from Uruguay. I don’t think she’s a Trump sycophant, I think she’s just a lawful pedant and a fan of hyperbole.
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.