Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
There's all kinds of confusion about "rights."
Of course everybody has a right to health. The same right I have to keep and bear arms. But that doesn't mean I expect someone else to pay for my guns, and if I can't afford guns, I don't have them. I have a right to freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean I am entitled to being provided a venue for my speech.
The debate is not about rights, it's just been mischaracterized that way. Somewhere along the line the "right" to something became synonymous with the guarantee to be provided something at no transactional cost. Probably because it's conflated with the "right to an attorney" being mashed together with what comes after that line in the Miranda recitation ("if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided"). There again, the RIGHT is to representation (they cannot force you to represent yourself)... but the fact that one will be paid for is a separate issue.
The debate is about who is on the hook to pay for health care. Characterizing that as a "right" is incorrect, but the republicans are playing right into it because they're dumb and cruel and it makes for sound bytes like the above that they think are cool and strong but sound fucked up.
Of course everybody has a right to health. The same right I have to keep and bear arms. But that doesn't mean I expect someone else to pay for my guns, and if I can't afford guns, I don't have them. I have a right to freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean I am entitled to being provided a venue for my speech.
The debate is not about rights, it's just been mischaracterized that way. Somewhere along the line the "right" to something became synonymous with the guarantee to be provided something at no transactional cost. Probably because it's conflated with the "right to an attorney" being mashed together with what comes after that line in the Miranda recitation ("if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided"). There again, the RIGHT is to representation (they cannot force you to represent yourself)... but the fact that one will be paid for is a separate issue.
The debate is about who is on the hook to pay for health care. Characterizing that as a "right" is incorrect, but the republicans are playing right into it because they're dumb and cruel and it makes for sound bytes like the above that they think are cool and strong but sound fucked up.
Just like how you don't get freedom if you can't pay for it, right...
Also, why bother banning guns when you could just make them 1000× times more expensive...
Nah, the debate is about how rich you can get by selling something people will literally die without...
If it was just about paying for it, the current system, where you get massively overcharged and ppl still go bankrupt while having insurance would not be acceptable for any side.
I actually don’t think the debate is at all about who is going to pay. We already decided that it was the public when we said emergency rooms have to treat people regardless of their ability to pay. The choice is between paying for a $100 doctor’s visit and a $10 antibiotic prescription or a $10,000 ER visit when the infection goes septic. Either we pay through taxes or through increased hospital bills.
GasBandit
Staff member
Accurate. I guess I should say the argument is over the payment process.
Yup, that's what happens when you let private industry do the negotiating and disallow government from doing it.
Don’t know about tax dollars but we do spend about $4,000 more and have the worse outcomes. Really just the greatest healthcare system ever created.
A lot of people talk about the US having the best quality of healthcare in the world... but that genuinely only applies to people in the top 5% who can afford to get state of the art care. Everyone else has to settle for worse outcomes because most people are deathly afraid of taking time off to visit a doctor or simply don't have insurance. And even good insurance constantly denies everything.
GasBandit
Staff member
I don't think it was tax dollars, I think it was just medical spending per capita is higher here than the taxes are where single payer is in effect.
I've been pretty vocal about my disgust of neoliberalism in the past but since the united states doesn't have an actual left I'm just gonna be sitting in my commie corner being sad.
figmentPez
Staff member
I don't know who Chris Rufo is and the fact that he's appearing in a....barn? Shed? With Tucker Carlson almost instantly makes anything he has to say crap, BUT:
If you're ignoring who he's probably implying and what his idea of "proper" looks are and all of that,
there *is* a sensible conversation to be had somewhere underneath. I absolutely approve of the idea of everyone being allowed to express themselves through their looks, if you want tattoos all over your forehead and paint your skin blue and red, have at it... The idea that we have to accept that is a-okay. The idea we all have approve and applaud every choice made by everyone, is not, and sometimes some of the more extreme voices really do seem to insist/imply that. same with body positivity: people don't need to be made to feel bad about how they look, be it with one foot, (a) different skin color(s), proportions that deviate from the common, etc. However, again, some of the more extreme voices make it sound like absolutely every body shape or type has to be celebrated and applauded, which is just BS. Being overweight is great if you feel good about it, being underweight is fine if you don't mind, but there does come a point where either can be dangerous - the amount of girls who developed anorexia or bulimia based on unrealistic beauty ideals is impossible to count; morbid obesity is called "morbid" for a reason. Certainly in young children, this is not the child's fault - there's genetics, possible diseases or hormonal issues, bad eating habits learned from parents, and so on. We shouldn't be calling those children grotesque and ugly, and the random guy passing by in the street should more than probably just keep their mouth shut, but it can be ok to say "hey, this is unhealthy, and you should get this checked out before it gets worse or affects your life permanently".
Of course Tucker goes for "hatred of the beautiful and elevation of the ugly" which is just an absolutely moronic take and a deliberate fun-house-mirror misrepresentation of pretty much anyone's opinion or view on this.
I think there IS a potentially somewhat interesting discussion to be had about the dangers of the pendulum swinging too far from "only this one semi-anorexic photoshopped ideal standard is good" to "we need to celebrate and applaud every type of body". This isn't the way to go about it and just makes everyone who might even think in that direction look like fascist paternalistic backwards idiots.
If you're ignoring who he's probably implying and what his idea of "proper" looks are and all of that,
there *is* a sensible conversation to be had somewhere underneath. I absolutely approve of the idea of everyone being allowed to express themselves through their looks, if you want tattoos all over your forehead and paint your skin blue and red, have at it... The idea that we have to accept that is a-okay. The idea we all have approve and applaud every choice made by everyone, is not, and sometimes some of the more extreme voices really do seem to insist/imply that. same with body positivity: people don't need to be made to feel bad about how they look, be it with one foot, (a) different skin color(s), proportions that deviate from the common, etc. However, again, some of the more extreme voices make it sound like absolutely every body shape or type has to be celebrated and applauded, which is just BS. Being overweight is great if you feel good about it, being underweight is fine if you don't mind, but there does come a point where either can be dangerous - the amount of girls who developed anorexia or bulimia based on unrealistic beauty ideals is impossible to count; morbid obesity is called "morbid" for a reason. Certainly in young children, this is not the child's fault - there's genetics, possible diseases or hormonal issues, bad eating habits learned from parents, and so on. We shouldn't be calling those children grotesque and ugly, and the random guy passing by in the street should more than probably just keep their mouth shut, but it can be ok to say "hey, this is unhealthy, and you should get this checked out before it gets worse or affects your life permanently".
Of course Tucker goes for "hatred of the beautiful and elevation of the ugly" which is just an absolutely moronic take and a deliberate fun-house-mirror misrepresentation of pretty much anyone's opinion or view on this.
I think there IS a potentially somewhat interesting discussion to be had about the dangers of the pendulum swinging too far from "only this one semi-anorexic photoshopped ideal standard is good" to "we need to celebrate and applaud every type of body". This isn't the way to go about it and just makes everyone who might even think in that direction look like fascist paternalistic backwards idiots.
figmentPez
Staff member
There is a sensible conversation to be had, but it's not underneath what they're talking about. They are nowhere near a sensible conversation. They are miles and miles away.
There's a sensible conversation to be had about the proper use of fertilizer. The two guys talking about what you need to mix it with before loading it into a truck and driving towards a heavily populated area are not having that conversation.
Tucker Carlson doesn't have sensible conversations. He spreads propaganda that's meant to weaponize his followers to do as much damage to his political opponents as possible. They're not talking about how to protect young girls. They're talking about how their male followers can feel superior to women, and keep them under control, in order to perpetuate the political system that keeps men like Tucker Carlson in power.
This just in:
Psychopathic men have an extreme focus on mating at the expense of other domains and tend to be "parasitic" fathers
Why do psychopaths become parents? A study published in Evolutionary Psychological Science suggests that people high in psychopathy focus primarily on mating, but often avoid parental or somatic investment (meaning the growth and maintenance of oneself).
www.psypost.org
–Patrick
Was wondering what started him down that line of thinking and then realized no matter the context his comments suck. And probably the context is Tucker saying “doesn’t it suck that the culture isn’t holding up blond rail thin women with no ass as the ultimate standers of beauty? Also isn’t it bad that people aren’t hounding transgendered children into committing suicide?”
On the brighter side, I feel like overall toxicity has gone down a lot. It feels like Putin hasn't been able to pay his bot and sock puppets due to the war, and it's making it seem like way less of a avalanche of toxic bullshit anytime I open absolutely any tweet or post. You get the random gem from some grifter stooge, but all those "BeccaMAGA30495" accounts feel like they stopped or slowed down.
On the bad side, the damage is already done and now there are so many more legit people out there that still complain about the stupidest culture war bullshit, like a black mermaid or a white woman from Columbia being cast to play Snow White (because Columbia isn't allowed to have white people I guess?)
I think my favorite hot take of the week was someone claiming the Democratic Party was specifically out to hurt white people, and when someone called out how the majority of Democrats in positions of power are white and why they would hurt themselves, his comparative example was "There are lot of gay and black conservatives, but that does not mean conservatives are safe for gay and black people." Can't tell if self-aware or just stupid.
On the bad side, the damage is already done and now there are so many more legit people out there that still complain about the stupidest culture war bullshit, like a black mermaid or a white woman from Columbia being cast to play Snow White (because Columbia isn't allowed to have white people I guess?)
I think my favorite hot take of the week was someone claiming the Democratic Party was specifically out to hurt white people, and when someone called out how the majority of Democrats in positions of power are white and why they would hurt themselves, his comparative example was "There are lot of gay and black conservatives, but that does not mean conservatives are safe for gay and black people." Can't tell if self-aware or just stupid.
Attachments
GasBandit
Staff member
Young Democrats are flocking to register to vote in Texas after abortion ruling, data shows
A new analysis found that Texans who are newly registered to vote are younger and more Democratic than before the June decision.
I really hope this doesn't get ruined by some unearthing of a dirty backroom deal or something because holy shit. Take THAT, capitalism.
Maybe this will finally put us over the edge. We have always been more purple than people have given us credit for, it's just apathy to the status quo combined with some suppression tactics like reduction of polling places that have kept such a stranglehold on the state.
And thanks Lindsey Graham for letting everyone know they don't want it to just be a state issue.Young Democrats are flocking to register to vote in Texas after abortion ruling, data shows
A new analysis found that Texans who are newly registered to vote are younger and more Democratic than before the June decision.www.houstonchronicle.com
figmentPez
Staff member
But they're good Christians, asking themselves What Would Republican Jesus Do? (Which is apparently "treat the 'least of these' like garbage".)
Hey now, how else are you going to earn money from doing the hard work of being in Congress? It's a god-given self-earned right to use whatever resources you are given to try and grab as much as you possibly can, right?
Not allowing this trading would encourage bribery as poor and suffering congresspeople make easy targets for big company lobbyists, this keeps them pure!
They know nothing other people couldn't deduce for themselves, this is just a list to make them look bad!
It's not the congresspeople themselves, it's their wives/daughters/brothers/family who are buying and selling and they're just aware because they have family in politics! You can't ban someone from something for something a random family member did! (bonus points as this is coming literal days after the whole evicting-whole-families-for-one-person's-arrest thing) That would be unfair!
They're all rich and powerful, no matter if you make this illegal they'd just make a loophole, keep it legal so at least it's openly visible!
This guy had some good suggestions on how to deal with these problems, btw:
Not allowing this trading would encourage bribery as poor and suffering congresspeople make easy targets for big company lobbyists, this keeps them pure!
They know nothing other people couldn't deduce for themselves, this is just a list to make them look bad!
It's not the congresspeople themselves, it's their wives/daughters/brothers/family who are buying and selling and they're just aware because they have family in politics! You can't ban someone from something for something a random family member did! (bonus points as this is coming literal days after the whole evicting-whole-families-for-one-person's-arrest thing) That would be unfair!
They're all rich and powerful, no matter if you make this illegal they'd just make a loophole, keep it legal so at least it's openly visible!
This guy had some good suggestions on how to deal with these problems, btw:
While I can spot a number of issues there that are problematic, I wonder if I might be missing something which pushes this into the 'truly despicable' or 'human trafficking' category.
1. Texas officials didn't agree with or even give advance notice to their counterparts in Massachusetts, they just dropped off a bunch of immigrants in their lap for them to deal with.
2. The immigrants were tricked into boarding the plane, and mislead as to where they were going, and what would happen once they got there.
Aside from those two points, bussing irregular migrants all over the place sounds something like what the EU is trying to get the member states to agree on as a part of the effort to share the burden of the migrant crisis. The rationale being that otherwise the 'frontline states' face a disproportionate share of the logistical challenges.
If you don't see the difference between "we properly register migrants, follow procedures, and bus them to another waiting migration department for further processing, in an open and clear process to spread the load, after alerting them so they can welcome and house them" and "we illegally force and coerce migrants to be bussed and abandoned in another jurisdiction without warning or following any sort of process" then I really don't think there's any point in discussing.
International regulations say asylum seekers should be processed and given asylum in the first safe country they enter. Since Greece, Italy, etc don't have the money, space or willingness to accommodate them all, within the EU we're working out a system to try and redistribute them - with all involved aware of the process and clear administrative follow up.
What Florida is doing is taking those people, lying to them, herding them on busses, and dropping them off unaccompanied in another state.
One is "dear Finland, please take and house these 50 Ukrainian refugees, they've been given legal help and been informed that they'll be further processed in Finland". The other is "a bus suddenly pulling up in Tampere city square, dumping 50 Ukrainians, and driving off again without informing anyone of anything - with those people wondering how cold it's suddenly gotten in Italy, and what weird Italian people are suddenly speaking, and where are those papers they were promised?"
International regulations say asylum seekers should be processed and given asylum in the first safe country they enter. Since Greece, Italy, etc don't have the money, space or willingness to accommodate them all, within the EU we're working out a system to try and redistribute them - with all involved aware of the process and clear administrative follow up.
What Florida is doing is taking those people, lying to them, herding them on busses, and dropping them off unaccompanied in another state.
One is "dear Finland, please take and house these 50 Ukrainian refugees, they've been given legal help and been informed that they'll be further processed in Finland". The other is "a bus suddenly pulling up in Tampere city square, dumping 50 Ukrainians, and driving off again without informing anyone of anything - with those people wondering how cold it's suddenly gotten in Italy, and what weird Italian people are suddenly speaking, and where are those papers they were promised?"