token_progressive
maybe not the only progressive here
No bio...
User ID: 1737
token_progressive
maybe not the only progressive here
2mo ago
Comically, this is almost exactly a common argument I see in favor of open borders: that is, that we already have "open borders" for capital and it causes exactly those problems so it's BS that we don't have open borders for labor, too.
Not claiming it's a good argument, but I've definitely seen it pretty often.
token_progressive
maybe not the only progressive here
2mo ago
Yeah, there's a reason "electoral reform" followed closely by "legislative reform" are at the top of that list and others like it. As far as I can see, the available levers to actually effect political change of this kind (i.e. movement on an issue other than what appears in the major party platform) are:
- Voting in primaries if there's some candidates running with oddball positions you might be able to push a major party towards. (State legislature is probably the appropriate level to target.)
- Running in primaries.
- Citizen lobbying groups. I don't like IRV but at least it's not FPTP and FairVote does seem to be making some real, albeit slow, progress in getting it adopted in various places in the US. That said, I'm not sure that generalizes as there's no real anti-FairVote interest group. The opposition is mainly inertia and not wanting to spend more money (and, cynically, elected officials not wanting changes to the system that got them elected, but at least they aren't going to say that). Basically every other issue on that list has an effective lobbying group willing and able to fight against changes.
Apparently, voting for a third party in a presidential election doesn't make the list. Sure, make your protest votes if you want, but as you say, the major parties will just ignore them unless they got a lot of the vote.
token_progressive
maybe not the only progressive here
2mo ago
(or at least for their children to)
I thought second-generation immigrants nearly universally spoke English natively, with the possible exception of some insular religious communities like the Amish. Are there notable exceptions that I'm missing?
token_progressive
maybe not the only progressive here
3mo ago
traditionally sympathetic media outlets
CNN had some ownership/leadership changes in 2022 which included an explicitly stated goal of being more neutral. Whether they're a right-wing media outlet now depends on who you ask, but they're actively trying to shed their image as a pro-Democratic-Party one.
token_progressive
maybe not the only progressive here
3mo ago
They're not creating vaccines for real viruses killing in real time, they're conjuring up new threats.
Those threats exist, they just haven't reached the human population yet. It sounds like your position is that surveillance for pandemic-potential viruses shouldn't be done as you believe it's not worth the risk, and we should instead wait for the spillover to happen before studying a virus? Does this include not studying known pandemic-potential viruses like H5N1? Who defines what counts as a distinct virus (the link you gave talks about "SARS-related CoVs" after all, and was posted well after the SARS spillover)? Actually, until you've collected and analyzed the viruses, how do you even know if there's novel ones in your sample; should we stop collecting viruses from non-humans all-together? What about research on viruses affecting agriculture (see H5N1)? Or maybe I'm drawing the line at the wrong place and you think no research should be done with humanized animal models, in which case I don't know how you're going to develop any vaccines.
token_progressive
maybe not the only progressive here
3mo ago
My understanding of the problem with banning "gain of function" research is that the term is that any research on real viruses* is either (1) intentional bio-weapons research which we already have policies around (which generally read "Don't.") or (2) something that could reasonably be called "gain of function" because you can't do anything with viruses without allowing them to propagate and therefore evolve. And for (2) we already have rules about what experiments require what level BSL. Scientists tend to not approve of the proposal of "don't study real viruses".
*As opposed to pseudovirus models of some kind where you've ripped out most of the virus so you're pretty sure it's not dangerous. But, oh, yeah, to do that, you've changed the function of the virus. Has it gained function? Who's defining "gain" here? Truly not trying to play semantics games here: if only some experiments are "gain" of function, what's your process for deciding which ones those are? What happens if they're wrong? How is this any different from the current system?
token_progressive
maybe not the only progressive here
3mo ago
I'm not even sure what you (and whoever "several of us" is?) are accusing me of.
I've been posting here since the /r/SSC days (mods here theoretically know what username I was using back then) without ever drawing the attention of the mods and try to keep to citable facts / widely held (within the left) opinions.
token_progressive
maybe not the only progressive here
3mo ago
Surely both parties are in favor of reducing poverty, although they are in great disagreement over the appropriate government actions in that area. That is, the Democrats are generally more in favor of transfer payments of some sort while the Republicans are generally more in favor of economic levers to make it easier for them to be employed (and perhaps also a longer-term view of a faster rising GDP lifts all boats), including reducing immigration to reduce competition for jobs. Both may think the other's approach heartless and/or ineffective, but it seems misleading to claim either party doesn't have "reduce poverty" as a goal.
token_progressive
maybe not the only progressive here
3mo ago
Yeah, it makes perfect sense for Jews to be prejudiced against the guy [...] who moved the American Embassy in Israel to Jeruselam.
I believe the line "this, but unironically"? I think it's safe to say many people are unhappy when people take active steps to fulfill a prophecy when a popular version of that prophecy includes, among other undesirable effects, the destruction of their faith:
Many also believe that as this occurs, there will be an ongoing and mass conversion of Jews to Christ.
A lot of the Christians beliefs of what the "second coming" will look like are not great for the Jews. Or, really, any non-Christians, but the Jews in particular get used as pawns and then screwed over.
token_progressive
maybe not the only progressive here
3mo ago
Is she actively trying to conceive and having trouble? I guess the pregnancy test is more concrete confirmation, but a late/missed period is hope even without that, and it hurts to have that hope and then lose it.
token_progressive
maybe not the only progressive here
3mo ago
That is more recent than any chart I could find. The Wikipedia page I linked has that data going up to 2021 and I had also found it on Statista going up to 2022. Statista does mention a methodology change in March 2020, although it doesn't sound like it should affect that number.
But that's counting encounters at the southern border, which is very different from the count of illegal immigrants (which, admittedly, is a hard thing to count). Is the idea that you expect that number to be proportional to the number who make it across that border unnoticed? I'd worry about changes in enforcement over time adding a lot of noise there, especially if there's any policy changes encouraging repeat encounters for the same person. Also, this is ignoring illegal immigrants that enter through other methods; are you particularly more worried about the ones crossing the border illegally as opposed to overstaying visas?
token_progressive
maybe not the only progressive here
3mo ago
token_progressive
maybe not the only progressive here
3mo ago
I literally had to read your comment twice because after the first time reading it, I remembered that straight poly people exist and that might change my interpretation of your comment. I suspect this is selection effects of my friend group and straight poly people are in reality more common than queer poly people given there's a lot more straight people. In retrospect, it occurs to me that I do know some, and all of the straight poly people I can think of are either married or in relationships where I'd be surprised if they didn't get married. I can think of one couple that went monogamous when they got married. Of course, if they're not in a relationship, I probably wouldn't know if they are poly, so definite selection effects there.
But my point in highlighting that I think of poly as a mainly queer phenomenon, is that poly people may not have the same metrics for success in their dating life that you do (which from your post, I'm getting is to build a stable life-partner relationship?).
token_progressive
maybe not the only progressive here
3mo ago
Thanks for writing that out. The ACA part particularly is what I see most often.
token_progressive
maybe not the only progressive here
3mo ago
We might hear about the odd obese person whose health problems were caused by something unrelated to their weight and carelessly overlooked by a GP, but for every one I'm sure there are at least 100 cases where the GP's snap diagnosis was right on the money.
And from the fat person's perspective, they go to the GP saying "I have this new issue; I've had this body type my whole life, so that part is not new." and the GP is ignoring their history.
(See also trans activists, who demand that healthcare professionals waste hundreds of man-hours asking 6-foot tall, bearded, broad-shouldered people if they are or have been pregnant recently.)
Well, that question has been on every medical history form I've ever gotten because they don't print different ones for men and women.
token_progressive
maybe not the only progressive here
3mo ago
My understanding was that no one really thought smoking marijuana was better for you than smoking tobacco, possibly even worse, if you smoked the same amount. But tobacco smokers smoke way, way more than marijuana smokers, so in practice marijuana is a lot less dangerous. And edibles exist.
token_progressive
maybe not the only progressive here
3mo ago
I've been meaning to compose a small questions Sunday post on this topic but haven't really gotten my thoughts in order on it. But I think it fits here, so I'll try: does concentrating wealth in the "innovators" at the expense of the lower classes to generate wealth on the "a rising tide lifts all boats" theory actually work? My particular concern is that "technology level" is not a scalar; just because a civilization puts more effort towards developing technology doesn't mean they're developing the right technologies. And what are the "right" technologies is always going to vary based on who you ask, and in an unequal society, who you're asking is whoever has the money (relative weighting here; obviously no real society is going to be 100% exactly equal in wealth across its population).
We see this in the pre-Civil-War South where there was no economic incentive to automate labor that could be done by slaves, probably hurting them economically in the long-term. Did/do we have a similar lack of emphasis on labor-saving devices for domestic work because that was seen as the domain of women, or did things like the washing machine and various kitchen tools really get invented more or less as early as they reasonably could have? Another angle on this is the general tendency of tech companies to make their products in a way that makes money for VCs, not to be useful to consumers (see "enshittification"). I've seen this proposed as a fully general argument against capitalism: innovations that solve problems are greatly disfavored over innovations that allow for rent-seeking / produce profit.
... as you can see, this isn't a top-level Culture War Roundup post because my thoughts on the matter are not well-organized.
token_progressive
maybe not the only progressive here
3mo ago
That’s putting aside that birth control per se is pretty shitty for women but also relatively cheap and affordable.
You're probably thinking of birth control pills. Long-lasting birth control is both more effective and less shitty. And possibly actually cheaper, but the cost has to be paid up-front. An IUD is about $1000+ (but can last 7+ years), which isn't huge but can be a large expense for a young woman.
token_progressive
maybe not the only progressive here
3mo ago
Sorry, yes, I understand that. I'm saying I really have no idea what the other side to that story is.
token_progressive
maybe not the only progressive here
3mo ago
Sorry, yes, I understand that. I'm saying I really have no idea what the other side to that story is.
token_progressive
maybe not the only progressive here
3mo ago
The people I know who are the loudest about health care all have Type 1 diabetes. That Wikipedia article says
Within the United States the number of people affected is estimated at one to three million.
so around 0.3-1% of the population. One I know says they very intentionally went the route of working for a big company to have a stable corporate job with health care because they've known since childhood that their choices were stable employment or death. The ones I know who didn't luck into such a stable career are pretty angry about it.
Women with significant period symptoms (which are fairly common, albeit not universal) also tend to care about health care to get access to the medication to manage their periods (aka birth control).
But also, catastrophic events resulting in high medical bills don't have to be all that common before a lot of people have a friend or acquaintance who had trouble with such a situation.
token_progressive
maybe not the only progressive here
3mo ago
A lot of these people are simply in denial about how Obama treated republicans
I'm honestly not even sure what you're talking about. The story on /r/politics is that Obama's primary failure was working with Republicans too much.
token_progressive
maybe not the only progressive here
3mo ago
why do you also believe N95 masks are better than surgical masks when there is either no or very weak evidence it makes a difference?
I have not carefully reviewed the literature myself. I'm following what expert science communicators claim the literature says, as I expect them to be better identifying the flaws in studies and understanding what they actually say.
I agree that study result you linked is surprising. I guess it implies that either the masks are equivalent in quality in this setting or that masking had no measurable effect, most likely due to transmission at work being a rounding error compared to community transmission. Or something else is going on that I don't know to look for.
token_progressive
maybe not the only progressive here
3mo ago
Yes, that's the "immune debt" hypothesis. It's a completely reasonable internally consistent hypothesis; it's not at all obvious that it's better to avoid infection entirely as opposed to hopefully getting minor infections that train the immune system while not being severe enough to do any lasting damage.
... but as far as I can tell, every vaguely reputable scientist with knowledge of the immune system or epidemiology thinks it is wrong and the odds don't work out that way.
To be clear, I'm merely claiming less exposure to pathogens is healthier. There are obviously costs to going out of your way to reduce your exposure to pathogens and the trade-off may not be worth it.
This feels to me like he's going for embodying the "No, it's the children who are wrong." meme. Millennials (who aren't remotely "children" anymore but make up the plurality of Swift's fans) and younger are mostly wondering what is wrong with Republicans constantly going on about the existence of hair dye and queer people; those are normal to most of those age groups. And just maybe it's a hard sell to women looking to date men and/or intentionally have children to vote for the party who has state officials making national news for actively trying to prevent women from getting medical care to prevent infertility due to pregnancy complications; that seems a lot more likely to be popular with older women who can feel ideologically pure about opposing abortion without being worried about it affecting themselves directly.
More options
Context Copy link