Comments by "FrozEnbyWolf150" (@FrozEnbyWolf150) on "The Rational National"
channel.
-
304
-
225
-
174
-
159
-
151
-
147
-
127
-
111
-
101
-
92
-
82
-
80
-
79
-
77
-
73
-
72
-
69
-
67
-
58
-
57
-
55
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
45
-
43
-
42
-
40
-
39
-
37
-
36
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
I live in an area where my vote does not count, and has never counted, unless you go all the way down to local mayoral, town council, and school board elections. Other than a minuscule effect on building a base of support on the local level, I have no power to influence national elections. On one hand, it doesn't matter who I vote for. On the other hand, it doesn't matter who I vote for.
We need to keep fighting for RCV, publicly funded elections, open primaries, same day voter registration, the abolition of the Electoral College, and an end to gerrymandering.
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
I used to follow Jimmy Dore. Used to. I also used to follow Lee Camp, Niko House, and Kim Iversen, until I realized just how many of their claims were unsourced, and how heavily they leaned into conspiracy theories I've spent years arguing against. I had encounters with immigration hawks, Fox News fans, climate deniers, 9/11 truthers, and transphobes in Jimmy's audience, because it turns out that was the kind of audience he was cultivating. I'm glad I unsubbed before the Boogaloo Boys or antivax debacles.
If you look back on your past and see cringe, it means you've matured since then.
26
-
25
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
Our current healthcare system will cost $49 trillion over 10 years. Medicare for All would cost $32 trillion over 10 years. It would actually save $17 trillion. Oh, but we have plenty of money to endlessly bomb eight countries that didn't attack us, bailing out the Wall St. bankers who caused the Great Recession, and corporate subsidies for already-profitable big pharma and fossil fuel industries.
The tired Venezuela argument has already been debunked. The US put crippling economic sanctions on them, and tried to overthrow their government twice. Examples of social democracies that have been successful are Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Canada, Australia, and many other modern nations. They are mixed market economies, which is exactly what Ocasio-Cortez is arguing for. She never argued for a post-capitalist system where workers seize the means of production, or where there is no private property ownership.
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
@CajunCouillon You are not asking questions in good faith. You are making assertions based on your willful ignorance, and then repeating those assertions whenever anyone tries to explain things to you. Sex and gender are not the same thing. Sex refers to biological characteristics and external physical traits. Gender refers to the social construct consisting of roles, relationships, and forms of expression built upon those physical traits. Neither one is a strict binary, as both are closer to bimodalities. You don't know the chromosomes of every person you meet, nor do you know their psychological state or neurological makeup, therefore you cannot make assumptions about individuals based solely on how they present.
Gender identity comes from the brain. For most people, their gender identity aligns with their gender assigned at birth based on physical characteristics, but not always. Brain scan studies have found that the brains of trans people are structurally and functionally more similar to that of their identified gender, insofar as "male" and "female" brains can be said to exist. Other studies have found that only 6% of all people fall neatly into either category, with everyone else being somewhere in between, indicating that the binary categories society has come up with aren't as rigidly defined as once thought.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
@keilafleischbein59 Okay, let's break down those strawmen one by one.
1. No trans person ever said that sex isn't real. Trans people are in fact acutely aware of the incongruency between our biological sex and our gender identity, which is psychological and neurological. That incongruency is precisely what makes someone trans. It's also incredibly reductionist to define women as a sum of biological parts, because that's exactly how patriarchal structures define women, as reproductive vessels, in order to keep them in line. Nobody is erasing women by making the category more inclusive.
2. Rowling has been demonstrably hostile to trans rights. She opposed Scotland's Gender Reform Bill, that would simply make it easier for people to change their gender marker. She opposed the UK ban on conversion therapy particularly as it applies to trans people. She supports proposed bans on gender affirming care, as all TERFs do.
3. She said, "I'd march with you IF you were discriminated against on the basis of being trans." That "if" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. She either doesn't care that discrimination happens, or is trying to deny that discrimination is real. She is effectively erasing trans victims of hate crime and anti-trans legislation.
You also miss the fact that she literally wrote an entire book where the villain is a man who dresses up as a woman in order to attack women. She wants so desperately for this narrative to be real, to justify her existing hatred. And by the way, her penname, Robert Galbraith, is based on a conversion therapist who conducted involuntary electroshocks on patients.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
All they see is that gas prices got cheaper in the last year of Trump, and sharply rose under Biden, so they immediately conclude, "Trump good, Biden bad!" Ignoring the fact that gas prices fell in 2020 due to lockdowns and travel restrictions decreasing demand for fuel, as well as the current state of affairs affecting gas prices today. But hey, if they want to see another drop in gas prices, maybe we should do an actual lockdown in the US, which might finally get the pandemic under control. Of course, that would require paying everyone to stay home, which Biden isn't willing to do either.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@hello7032 They also ignore that plants have a limited capacity to take in CO2, and release half of it during the night during the dark cycle of photosynthesis. Eventually plants reach a breaking point, because if CO2 concentrations are too high, they close their pores, which affects their thermoregulation. Since global warming comes with higher temperatures, the result is plants burning to a crisp. The erratic weather, flooding, droughts, and increased pest populations that also come with climate change obviously do not help either.
And yes, while CO2 like any kind of overfertilization can accelerate plant growth, this rapid growth means the plants we use as food crops have less time to take in other nutrients, which lowers the nutritional value of these crops. It's like when you dump a lot of the blue fertilizer on your plants. Sure they'll grow fast, but they'll be less resistant to pests and diseases because they were forced to grow too fast.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
It takes less than a second of thought to realize why "occupation" should not be a protected characteristic. It's not just that a person's occupation can and does change over the course of their lifetime, it's also that some occupations are harmful by their very nature. Are we not supposed to criticize landlords, sweat shop owners, corporate politicians, or billionaire CEOs? What if someone's occupation is slaveholder, or the modern day equivalent? What about those who work for the CIA or ICE?
Yes, there are a lot of people who, under Capitalism, have no choice but to work the jobs they work. However, that's a different category, specifically economic class, which is where that lack of choice comes from. If you're hurting for money and decide to take a job as a hitman to kill someone, that's entirely your fault.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Yeah, I have to disagree with Dave that voting third party is pointless. Voting third party shifts the Overton Window, strengthens and legitimizes third parties, and maybe, just maybe, pressures an adjacent major party to change its policies to appeal to third party voters. Nader's presence in the 2000 race pushed Gore to be more progressive, however so slightly.
What's actually pointless is voting for either of the major parties, especially if you're in a predominantly red or blue state where the result is predetermined and your vote doesn't count. I'd go further and say, it's pointless to vote in the false dichotomy between Biden and Trump, since Biden would maintain the status quo and keep most of Trump's policies in place. Then in four years, the Republicans will run someone worse than Trump, who stands a good chance of winning.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
More assumptions. You ignore sources that contradict your claims, while providing none of your own. There's no reason to trust anyone, be they a doctor or otherwise, who offers zero citations and only falls back on their own credentials. You know absolutely nothing about my personal experience in the system, the people I've met and spoken to, or how the issue has affected my own life. You have no clue about my age or demographic, the treatment programs I've been in myself, and the conflicts I've had with unscrupulous doctors. So get off your high horse.
You referred to a treatment program that isn't available in the US because the drug is illegal. Did you miss that this video is about drug policy in the US?
The only question you asked was what harm there is in self-medication. This proves you're not a serious person and are resorting to sophistry. People self-medicate depression with alcohol. People self-medicate chronic pain with opiates. People misuse prescription drugs or abuse illegal drugs because they aren't getting the treatment they need. You seem to think such behaviors are devoid of negative health consequences.
Your more recent question is an attempt to change the subject, and to shame people who look up sources to support their claims. It's not uncommon to find sources that contradict what one has already studied or believed to be true for years. Even if I answered that, you'd claim my answer is wrong because you are already an expert who doesn't need to look things up. So don't talk about moving goalposts.
You claim people aren't imprisoned for being drug addicts. At least 40% of the US prison population consists of non-violent drug offenders. Under the War on Drugs, you can be arrested merely for possession. You can be arrested on false charges simply for being suspected of drug use. You can be arrested on drug charges for being the wrong skin color.
I was arguing in favor of reforming US drug laws and the US healthcare system. You come off as being against these things, and basing that on your own self-proclaimed expertise to attempt to weasel out of citing any sources yourself.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
For anyone who is wondering, the analogy to traffic accidents parroted by right wing trolls is one of the most idiotic arguments anyone could make. First, traffic accidents are not contagious, and can't be compared to epidemiology. If someone gets into a car crash, the injured don't then walk around and spread their injuries to other people before they die. Second, driving is already strictly regulated by the government to prevent injuries and fatalities, and is considered a privilege instead of a right. Your driving license can be revoked if you break these laws too many times. Third, there are scores of safety rules people need to learn and follow to minimize the number of traffic accidents. Everyone has to take driver's education and lessons, and wait until they're old enough to get a permit. Fourth, if the vehicle fatality rate is too high, people tend to get upset and petition the government for more traffic regulations, and automakers for more safety features. But comparing the pandemic to traffic accidents is the kind of argument I'd expect from a climate denier, anti-vaxxer, or young Earth creationist.
Infectious disease causes measurable harm in human lives, and those who recover can still have permanent damage to their bodies. Economic damage is arbitrary, temporary, and based on a monetary amount. Economies can recover, dead people cannot. You can't have an economy without people who are healthy enough to make and buy the products.
2
-
2
-
@lufo4599 I would argue, it's both the leaders and the people who place so much blind faith in them. In the US, there's an almost religious reverence for top down leadership, to the point where people forget we're supposed to hold our representatives accountable. The pandemic deniers do so in defense of Trump, because they're unwilling to admit their dear leader mishandled the situation.
People do have responsibility, but I mean that in a completely different way. Right now, it's regular people, essential workers, healthcare practitioners, truckers, delivery people, etc. who are on the front lines of the pandemic. These people are the ones who are being denigrated and spit on by the right wing protesters. That's always been the game of the establishment: pit groups of people against each other, to distract from the failure of our government leaders.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nestorpoetus781 You want to talk about bad research? The Singh study that TERFs cite was based on outdated diagnostic criteria from the DSM-3 and 4, which conflated gender expression with gender identity, and mistook gender nonconforming children as having gender dysphoria. It then concluded that since none of these kids grew up to be trans, they must have "detransitioned" and therefore it must be due to peer pressure. It further lost track of more than half the individuals in the study, and concluded they detransitioned as well. It also falsely conflated desistance with transition regret, even though there is zero evidence to support this.
Better studies, like the 2021 meta analysis by Bustos, the 2023 Jedrzejewski study on GCS patients, or the 2021 Turban study on desistance, found the actual regret rate is very low, typically less than 1%. Of those who had detransitioned, which is not the same as regret, more than 80% cited factors like familial pressure, societal stigma, and losing access to healthcare. When these factors are addressed, most go on to resume their transition. It's also not uncommon for nonbinary patients to transition up to a certain point, then stop. When people have detransitioned voluntarily due to actual gender related reasons, they did not regret the experience, and were grateful for the opportunity to safely explore their identity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@john.premose It's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. Trans women in sports is a wedge issue and you fell for it hook, line, and sinker. There is zero evidence trans women post HRT have any statistically significant advantage over cis women. Trans people have been allowed to compete at the Olympic level since 2004 and there are no trans athletes running away with all the gold medals. Trans women lose to cis women all the time, and tend to place average at best. Furthermore, conservatives never cared about women's sports, and used to disparage women's sports all the time, until the anti-trans culture war turned it into a hot topic.
You are also wrong about trans rights being a losing issue. Anti-trans bigotry has already proven to be a losing electoral strategy for Republicans in 2022. The vast majority of Americans when polled support trans rights, or don't care enough to obsess about trans people every waking moment the way right wingers do. The average person is just as likely to know a trans person as they are to know a disabled person.
If you think that you, as a gay man, can appease the right by throwing trans people under the bus, history has already proven you wrong. See how well Dave Rubin's grift has worked out for him, and how much acceptance he's gotten from conservatives, especially when he and his husband announced they were having children. You can't separate the T from the LGBT. Trans people were part of the fight for gay liberation from the start.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@idmhead0160 The People's Party is being built with the support of the Green Party. A lot of GP members and representatives are throwing their weight behind it, so it's not like they're going to split the progressive movement, any more than the progressives who run as Democrats to try and take over the party from within. All are viable, and I would argue, absolutely necessary strategies.
The other thing is that presidential elections are the least important of all. State and local elections not only affect your life most directly, but are also where you have the most control. The president is just a stuffed suit. All the real work, and all the major historical achievements in US history have been done by regular people, not the presidents who stole credit for them. Having a nominally progressive president would be nice, but they'd still be useless without a mass movement of people behind them.
I know the GP won't win the presidency this time. That doesn't matter. Getting progressives into local office, organizing your communities, and getting more people on your side is what actually makes the difference in the long run.
1
-
@lufo4599 I agree that the ruling elites only represent the interests of the top 1%. As far as responsibility and blame go, it depends. A violent criminal can't be blamed for the socioeconomic conditions that forced them to turn to crime to survive, the negligence of their parents, or the incompetence of the government. However, they still have agency, should still be held responsible for their own decisions, and must be separated from society if they're too dangerous to live among others. That said, far too much focus is place on blue collar crime, while white collar crime is ignored. The bankers who ruined the economy, the war criminals in government, the crooked CEOs who profit off illness, et al should all be in prison.
The right wing pandemic deniers who are blocking off hospitals, yes they're brainwashed by the ruling elites who would sacrifice them in a heartbeat. That's not to say they have no responsibility for their actions that are directly harming others. You can pity them like one would pity a dog who was beaten to turn it vicious, but that dog still needs to be separated from others so it can't do any more harm.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The article that rates major grocery chains on food waste is citing a 2019 study from the Center for Biological Diversity, if anyone wants to look it up. The ratings are based on whether or not these companies have committed to zero waste by the year 2025. It gave Kroger, Walmart, and Ahold Delhaize top ratings, with Aldi, Target, and Whole Foods just below those. At the bottom were Trader Joe's, Costco, and Publix, as the article mentioned. What this report doesn't mention is the treatment of employees, as you could probably tell from Walmart and Whole Foods showing up on the list, so you have to factor that in separately.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Donetsk People's Republic Seeing as how you're as scientifically illiterate as you are illiterate, it would probably be a waste of time to explain that trans people have been competing at the Olympic level since 2004 and there is no string of trans athletes running away with all the gold medals. Or to explain that HRT changes a trans person's muscle mass and bone density to that of their cisgender counterparts. Or to point out the fact that economic class, way more than any physical attributes, is the leading factor in making sports unfair. I'm not even getting into how all women were originally excluded from sports, and women's leagues were founded as an afterthought, which is why they're grossly underregulated and underfunded, not that you care. Thanks to the kinds of policies you support, trans men are forced to compete with cis women, where there is indeed an unfair advantage, so nice going.
Right wingers have always shit on women's sports, complaining that they're boring, the athletes suck, and boasting that you could beat them yourselves. Now all of a sudden, since it's a popular culture war issue, you've decided to white knight for the same athletes, despite your never giving a damn about women's rights in the first place. I notice it's complete radio silence when it comes to the recent SCOTUS ruling.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
WTC7 was struck by falling debris. There are videos and photos of it, including in the sources I provided.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/
The building was not located two football fields away, it was across Vessey St. from World Trade Center Plaza. There is no evidence of a controlled demolition, as those leave behind blasting caps and detonating cord. The water pipes were damaged, allowing fires to spread, and office buildings are typically furnished with wood, plastic, and paper. This is why building codes require fireproofing measures.
Millions of buildings have collapsed due to fire, despite what Truthers claim. The Plasco Building in Tehran collapsed from fire in Jan 2017. Truthers have become obsessed with that case, insisting without evidence that it was a controlled demolition, because otherwise it doesn't fit their narrative.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GrampiesCorner It's not your place to decide that she's not transphobic. You clearly did not listen to trans people who explained why what she said was discriminatory, because you assume you know better than trans people what is and isn't transphobic. If you're starting from a place of ignoring what a minority group says, and dismissing their plight and their concerns, then you are already prejudiced against that group.
Rowling wrote an entire book where the villain is a man who dresses up as a woman in order to invade women's spaces. She used a penname based on a conversion therapist who used involuntary electroshocks on his patients. She stated, "I’d march with you if you were discriminated against on the basis of being trans," meaning she does not think such discrimination happens. She has publicly opposed the UK's ban on conversion therapy for trans people, and opposed Sweden's Gender Equality Act. You assume that just because she didn't directly state, "I hate X," or, "I want to harm X," that she couldn't possibly be transphobic, but this is moving the goalposts. That's like saying Donald Trump isn't racist just because he never directly stated he hates a certain minority group, or that he never incited violence just because he never directly told people to storm the Capitol.
1
-
1
-
@susanlindsay7511 One, I'm an anarcho-socialist who is further to the left of any of the pundits I named. Two, Lee Camp is a massive conspiracy theorist who repeatedly fails to cite any evidence for his claims, and who works for a discredited network that has pushed misinformation for years. Three, I can't stand the Democratic Party and did not vote for them in the 2020 election, because they had my state in the bag regardless of which way I voted. Four, you make a lot of assumptions which sound like projection, and just serve to demonstrate the fallacious thinking of leftist appropriating reactionary pundits.
I could go into detail about the work I've done in terms of mutual aid, environmental causes, and LGBTQ+ rights, but that point would be lost on you. What have you done lately, other than simp for right wing sellouts and conspiracy theorists?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CanadianWolverine Not for some species, but I would argue that it does when it comes to social species like humans. Humans organize into cooperative societies because a lot of different roles need to be fulfilled to support the survival of the population. Human children are also born helpless, and it takes a village to raise a child. If someone simply reproduces and dies immediately, they won't be able to contribute to that. Humans don't just pass on genes, but also knowledge and behaviors as well, so if a parent dies early on, that child will not carry on after that parent. It will be as if someone else raised that child, because that's exactly what will happen now.
So hopefully, any children this idiot leaves behind won't have picked up any of their father's bad habits or irresponsible behaviors, and will grow up completely different from him. In the end, it's the same result as his not having had any children of his own.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/mental-illness-and-violence
The stigma against people with mental illness is similar to the stereotype of certain minority groups being more likely to commit violent crimes. Socio-economic factors are a better predictor of violent crime than mental illness. It also would depend largely on the type of mental illness, and what kinds of treatment programs are available in a given country.
This stigma has real consequences, even coming from mental health professionals. I've been in treatment for depression most of my life. One of my doctors saw me as a dangerous aggressive person, even though I've never behaved that way. Her approach, which is far too common, was to throw pills at me, and then threaten to hospitalize me against my will if I expressed my wishes to stop taking the medications.
I often hear people jump to the conclusion that Donald Trump must be mentally ill, to explain why he speaks and acts the way he does. He is not. His behavior is very typical of corrupt millionaires and billionaires who are used to getting their way. American culture conditions us to exalt the rich and treat wealth as a sign of virtue and intelligence, so this is the way he's always been treated. He never takes responsibility because he's never been held accountable for his actions.
When it comes to crimes like gun violence, the media and politicians are quick to blame mental illness. Some shooters did have a history of psychiatric problems, but others did not. Again, look at American culture, especially among the far right, where people are obsessed with the idea of the "alpha" and being dominant in the social hierarchy, and guns are accepted as a part of everyday life. This can lead people, who feel frustrated and looked down upon by their peers, to think that they need to reassert their dominance, by using the best means available. When they go through with the shooting, they get their wish, as the media gives them instant fame and notoriety.
The mentally ill need empathy, not scorn from society. For all the talk about mental illness among politicians and pundits, very few are willing to propose actual solutions, like expanded treatment programs under a Medicare for All system.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yeah, just make blank assertions without any citations or logical explanation. You know what causes an increase in demand under the current system? The need for emergency care due to lack of preventive care, with the former being much more expensive. People go to the ER because they have no other choice, typically for conditions that could have been caught earlier and treated more cheaply with preventive care.
https://www.thebalance.com/preventive-care-how-it-lowers-aca-costs-3306074
You have yet to prove how the two figures are mutually exclusive or contradictory. The $32 trillion figure comes from adding up the costs of different types of healthcare. The $49 trillion projected NHE is tabulated by adding up, "...type of good or service delivered (hospital care, physician and clinical services, retail prescription drugs, etc.), source of funding for those services (private health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, out-of-pocket spending, etc.) and by sponsor (businesses, households and governments)." A single-payer system would eliminate out of pocket expenses, business expenditures on insurance, and private health insurance. The providers would be the same, Medicare and Medicaid would be combined, and the government would be the sole sponsor. One figure looks at who pays for it, the other looks at what it pays for.
You are essentially arguing that one can't compare the charges for a $1,000 emergency to the expenditures on a $1,000 emergency, because the cost is based on the treatments provided, and the money spent depends on who pays for it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1