Rsync

I mean, we’re doing better than basically every other 1st world country, and those that are beating us don’t have big livestock industries.

I agree with you, but this is an “anti work” community, and there’s a substantial part of the movement that is techno-utopian and is actively arguing for the dissolution of work in general.

Sure, but he’ll be replaced by another boss. Then another. How many should be assassinated?

I have. I’ve worked on a campaign for my local congressperson (at the time) whos platform I believed in. I met them through the campaign and got to know them personally. They won and are still serving in Congress today, and have done a good job over the years in my opinion (though I’ve since moved states and lost contact).

It was shockingly easy to get involved. Literally just approached them when they were starting up their campaign and asked to help. I knocked on doors and helped at campaign events, and I like to think that my contributions (and those of people like me) helped to get them elected.

And, as I say, they were someone that I had the personal cell number of and could contact when I had concerns.

First, I think you’re completely underplaying all the huge gains people have made over the years by doing exactly what I’m talking about. Especially at the state and local level.

But yeah, if you think I’m defending the system as perfect and unflawed, of course not. Of course most people don’t want to have to dedicate their life to fixing the system. Of course they have other priorities. Kids, illness, etc.

And of course killing a man in cold blood is easier than spending years or decades fighting for the change you want to see.

But I’ve seen change accomplished by people who believe in the law and civic order. I’ve seen people make the system work. It is possible.

It’s not easy. It requires someone to basically make it their life, and that’s certainly not for everybody. But it can be done. And if you’re at the point where you’re throwing your life away by shooting a man in the middle of a NYC street, there are better ways to use your life than that.

The issue is you’re telling people not to complain in response to someone saying “randomly murdering United Healthcare workers is ineffective and evil.” It’s an implicit approval of the murder, even while acknowledging that it won’t change anything. It’s a pretty rough look, even if that’s not what you intended.

But, for suggestions that might work, get involved. Campaign for stricter regulations on the insurance industry. Call your congressional representatives. Run for office and work your way up the system, or become friends with someone who is and help them on their campaign. There’s any number of ways to make a difference that are better than shooting a man in the middle of the street.

If I don’t have a solution, I have to agree with murdering people?

That’s like if, in order to drive down the price of diapers I just started killing babies, then when you said that was evil and ineffective I just responded with, “oh yeah, well do you have a better idea, or are you just here to crap all over mine?”

All that said, yes, I do have plenty of common sense suggestions for reforms to the healthcare system that don’t involve me murdering someone in cold blood, as it turns out.

I mean, my opening point was that “it depends on what you mean by coexist.”

The “coexist” language has long centered around religious divides, where the intent was literally, “don’t kill each other.”

Yeah, sure, you could say that you’re “refusing to coexist with your racist cousin this year at Thanksgiving,” but it’s not like he ceases to exist. He still lives down the road. His kids still go to the same school your kids go to. It feels like a complete redefinition of the word “coexist” to me.

But I’ll agree, language follows usage. I just feel like I’m the one defending the traditional usage of “coexist” and you’re the one who’s slid the definition to something far softer than it has always been intended.

Yeah, absolutely. That’s, like, the whole idea behind tolerance, right? The idea that you can find someone abhorrent but still accept that they have a right to continue existing?

Tolerance as a concept is pretty central and integral to any functioning society.

I mean, I guess it depends on what you mean by coexist?

Unless this is intended as a call to murder all unpleasant people I guess.

He still had more of the popular vote than Harris, it was just they were both less than 50% due to 3rd party votes. So neither had a “majority” of the vote.

So he still would have won, even under a purely popular vote based system.

To be clear, because the headline I think is a bit misrepresentative. Trump still has over a million more votes than Harris. He just no longer has over 50% of the votes cast.

It’s like 49% Trump, 48% Harris, 3% Other. So Trump still won the popular vote.

This isn’t a “the Electoral College screwed us” situation. He still “won” the popular vote. He just didn’t win a “majority” of the votes cast.

I do think it depends on where you live. In about half of states, your vote for president is meaningless. Mississippi isn’t going blue and Massachusetts isn’t going red. In those cases, voting third party has the chance to effect future federal election funding.

But yeah, if you’re in a state with literally any chance at all of being a toss up, don’t vote 3rd party.

How do you differentiate what you’re calling psychological torture here from just bog standard negative anticipation?

Is it psychological torture if I tell a child that we’re going to the doctor because they need to get their flu shot? They have to sit and live with that dread for the whole ride over.

If this is in some way a difference of kind, what differentiates them? What is the key characteristic that separates the two?

Is the only difference one of degree? That hurting someone in this way just a little bit is fine, but there’s some amount of damage that makes it unacceptable?

Or is it that the ends justify the means? That it is psychological torture to tell a child about the flu shot, but that the need to get the shot outweighs the negative of the torture? If so, and if someone truly believes that capital punishment is correct in a given case, why would the same argument not be valid?

Lack of good examples of countries that are successful without being capitalist?

Pretty ubiquitously non-capitalist countries have a pretty poor track record.

I often hear the phrase, capitalism is terrible, but it’s the least bad of the terrible options.

As an aside, I’m arguing here for capitalism, not billionaires. Supporting capitalism isn’t an endorsement of a complete lack of controls and safeguards.

I feel like we’re abusing “historical” here. Is this something of particular note that’s going to be taught to future generations?

Does the African American community know which president was the first to nominate twelve judges of color? Do women know which president was the first to nominate twelve women?

This is a good thing, but like, it’s a good fun fact at best. I think saying it’s “making history” is overstating. It’d be like saying the person who has the Guinness World Record for longest handstand is “making history.”

This is great and all, but does the 12th time you do something count as “making history”?

You’d think after two or three you’d just stop counting.

Google doesn’t seem to find anything with that title when I Google it?

The Ash Tree seems to be some early 1900s story, and Daniel Harms doesn’t seem to have anything of that title as far as I can tell. :(

Fair. I get that. I do think it could be something great, but agree it would be better structured as voluntary with heavy incentives for participating.

That said, to your original point, I doubt the intent was to have mandatory service for recent college graduates. Most systems like this require service immediately after high school. So you wouldn’t have a bunch of debt or anything at that point.

Would you feel differently if people who choose to serve have student debt forgiveness? Like, if the GI Bill covered participants?