Show newer

@freemo Any phrase used as a tribal identity marker tends to attract stupidity because the point is allegiance not analysis; any topic of considerable depth discussed in 280 or less character chunks tends towards stupid because there isn't enough space to advance sufficiently nuanced ideas; and in this case the starting point is counterfactual, which poses serious challenges for non-idiotic support.

So, yeah, if it was anything other than a maelstrom of stupidity, we ought to be mightily surprised.

(I do note with displeasure that a lot of people more on the sane side of things tend to overestimate the degree to which one can conclude things like "vaccines are totally safe" from observations like "the anti-vax side is comprised of idiots". That's not how it works! Is there a talkorigins.org equivalent for Covid vaccines yet?)

@401matthall

Im an american expat who has lived in many coubtries and had healthcare in a great many of them... hate to say it byt while socialuzed healthcare addresses some problems in the american system it seems to offset what it fixes with its own unique set of problems that are just as bad.

Neither approach is a good solution, both approaches are failures IMO

@quinn

@tonic

You may be right still havent seen that data proven out well yet in this thread.

@rbreich

@quinn never clained government shouldnt be involved in healthcare or in infrastructure. I said it socialized healthcare has huge issues and isnt the best solution (though i also said neither is free market solutions). I never went ibto detail as to what the solution is, though happy to discuss that.

@quinn ironically the reason I needed spinal surgery at all was **because** of socialized healthcare. If it wasnt due to its limitations i coukd have gotten convential treatment that woukd have avoided the need altogether.

And no all of the data isnt against my theory, quite the opposite, but for that you might need a better idea as to what my "theory" exactly is.

@tonic @rbreich

Another thing that poped up.. these are the biggest corporate PACS and shows the breakdown of how they have donated... looks relatively balanced with more donations going to democrats not republicans again.

@tonic @rbreich

A quick 10 second search led me here: statista.com/statistics/112041

Not really a good source either, but it shows the top 100 biggest donors of both democrats and republicans and shows how much they donated. If this is any indication democrats seem to actually have much more money donated to them, at least if we look at their top 100 biggest donors.

@tonic

We are talking about rich people donating, either through a PAC or not. Comparing PACS is not a comparison of how many rich people donate.

@rbreich

@tonic

Actually now you just moved the goal post (though im sure it was unintentional)... I never claimed the rich democrats were as awful as the rich republicans (I mean they kinda are, but im not arguing that now)... We are talking about oligarchies, so we are talking about rich people donating to swing elections, which is unfair. Whether one side is the "good" side or not in doing that is a separate question.

Good or bad the fact is, democrat or republican you have a long list of very rich donors that used their money to swing the vote thus putting fair democracy in question.

@rbreich

@quinn even if the tories were the reason, it just goes to show exactly why the government shouldnt get involved with healthcare, it will always be incompetant, the tories wont go away.

I dont think the american system works but ive lived in many coubtries and been subject to many socialized healthcare systems. If one thibg is obvious to me its thst socialized healthcare doesnt work either (not talking about helpibg out poor people financially with healthcare costs, that part i support)

@splitshockvirus

Honestly being on a few block lists is a sign you are doing right by your users. The only way you coukd stay off blocklists is to be very abusive to your own community for the sake of appeasi g other admins.

@flexghost hmm i dont think i coukd support a company getting taxed more simply for being big. Though im not ready to say there isnt a problem here either, id need to look into it more to form an opinion.

I will say economies at scale does make food production far more efficient so in and of itself probably isnt sonethibg we want to discourage outright, but it can be problematic in other ways too.

@tonic

Yes it would be nice if the op gave actual numbers to justify their one-sidism.

I can think of plenty if awful billionairs who are repiblican but for every one i can think of a democrat billionaire too. More over we are talki g oligarchies, which isnt limited to money, anyone in power is game.

Also for every rich republican i can think of probably 10 rich people in entertainment who are also democrats.

@rbreich

@rbreich dont think for a second the oligarchies arent fubding the democrats to the same extent. Why we are talkibg about Trump and not Biden in thisnpost is very telling. If Trump were still president, sure. But he is the past and we have a new, democrat, in office who was elected by oligarchies, lets focus on the now.

@dstephenlindsay yea there is a certain coolness from the fact that im looking at my own organs.

Show older
CleverLibre Social

CleverLibre Social is an inclusive social instance for open discussion, learning, and community.
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.