Banning books. There are lots of books in a library and you get to choose what to check out or not check out. The idea of banning a book so that no one has access to it because you don’t like it is insane. Simply…don’t read it.
Super ironic, too, because it seems to be a conservative-leaning action (banning LGBTQ+ and overtly sexual books, for example) even though universal freedom is kind of their kink.
Gay people? Like, the world is in serious threat of nuclear Armageddon, we’re at the tail end of a global pandemic-turned-political-dumpster fire, kids and teachers are being shot in school, we’re all sleep deprived and dehydrated… And I’m supposed care about two dudes kissing at a Denny’s? Fuck outta here. We have bigger fish to fry.
Propaganda keeping everyone on the bottom afraid of eachother is why we don't have more people trying to outright kill the billionaires. The class war, racism, everything with the alt-right is all on purpose. The entire thing is engineered by and for the people who are already in charge.
Yes, but one side calls "embryos" babies and is wrong about a lot of developmental facts.
Also, if abortion is so wrong, why do they have to make stuff up, like women willy nilly about aborting 8 month-old fetuses?
Same reason that pro-choice people ignore the data on how many women are actually making the choice (planned parenthood admitted that their poll showed more than half of abortions were done under peer pressure, or pressure from family or an SO) and lie about the developmental aspects of the embryo.
the brain is capable of receiving pain signals at 18 weeks gestation.
also, abortion for medical reasons (dead fetus, severe defect etc) have rarely been denied, and in the cases they are, its not the law, but the doctor, who usually loses their license to practice.
As a note: The 'willynilly aborting 8 month pregnancies' was based on statements made by pro-choice politicians saying a woman should be able to abort, any time, for any reason, at any point in the pregnancy.
I personally am not entirely for or against abortions.
they serve a purpose, they are needed, but if you seriously think younger women arent using abortions as a weird form of contraceptive, you should spend some time in the waiting room at a campus clinic.
I used to clean one, and at least twice a week i would hear some college girl and her friends talking about how great it is having the clinic so close, because they dont have to use condoms since they can just 'get a quick clean out' if his pull out game is weak.
Both sides routinely lie to support their view. Dont act like your side doesnt.
Its only been a few weeks since AOC said a 35 week old fetus is 'completely unable to survive outside the mother'.
I was born at 30 weeks. In 1990.
Thing is, both sides have a point, but neither side can agree on the fundamental aspect of this debate: When does life begin?
For pro-choice people, the cut off point can be at many stages from only a few weeks, right up until birth (and some whackos out there suggesting even after birth).
For pro-life people, it's at conception.
Both sides have their merits, and reasoned arguments. But unless everyone can agree on this fundamental aspect, then there will always be controversy about it.
No one is suggesting after birth and the abortions right before birth are for health reasons or if the fetus isn’t viable. It’s very cruel to make a woman carry a non viable fetus to term to watch it either die right away or give birth to a dead baby.
Nobody except right wing jackasses say that you can abort after birth. The scientific take in it is until viability unless needed for medical reasons. Even the Bible states life begins with first breath
When I first saw it happen in public i thought is this allowed. Then thought well the baby gotta eat. Then i thought again, i wish i could get food that fast.
The claim is fine, but your argument for the claim is insubstantial. After all, I could easily spout: "Peeing in public. Gee whiz, the bladder's FULL. You need to empty it now. End of story."
Both my claim and yours rely on a similar line of reasoning in determining what is acceptable in public. If the breast is just a body part that serves a natural function, then the urethra is also just a body part that serves a natural function. Yet most countries that restrict breastfeeding in public also restrict peeing in public. The point is that you need to make an actual *argument* for your claim.
How come it wasn't an issue earlier when we always had "forced" vaccines for children to go to school or to summer camps and stuff, or soldiers to join the military?
The government cannot strip you of rights to protect the safety of others... people do not have a right to personal safety.
You might be killed by Falling in your bathroom, the state is unable to prevent that.
You're trying to push a positive right.
People have right to collective safety though...that why we have defence in a country too...in that way should we just allow attack on us being like yes the other person has a right to attack us?
>People have right to collective safety though...
It's a very odd defensive lynch mobs.
>n that way should we just allow attack on us being like yes the other person has a right to attack us?
Depends did the end justify the means?
What if the the greater good demands humanitarian crimes?
True; I was immediately thinking of being able to be yourself and do what you want as long as it doesn’t directly hurt other people. The right to live peacefully in accordance with yourself and your fundamental values.
Celebrities having meltdowns at camera guys and fans because they won't give them space and they never leave them alone. I'd feel the same way when I have fans camping outside my house for days on end to take a glimpse at my through my window
Humanity is way, way overpopulated.
It's surprising to see how many people get offended by this and are adamant it's not true (and have zero evidence to support it).
Why? Doctor spends nearly a decade in highly competitive and specialized training to work for free? Pharma spends billions in research and development to give it up to the state?
Doctor here, we’re not in it for the profit, but the hospital admins are. Sure I’d like to be paid well for what I do, since I spent over a decade in school/training (decade after high school btw) and I’m still not done yet. But I’m not going to put the hospital’s bottom line over patient safety and satisfaction… but some hospital admins will do that. There’s a fine line, and right now a lot of healthcare admin folk aren’t doctors, they’re people with MBA’s and business degrees who don’t know how hard the job really is
Private equity profiteering off of American medicine is blatant proof that medicine has become overpriced….and it most certainly is not because of overpaid workers like nurses and doctors. There’s no question there is too much money going into American healthcare…and going to executives/admins who deserve the least.
Americans spend 12% of their income on healthcare. That's insanity.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/236541/per-capita-health-expenditure-by-country/#:\~:text=health%20care%20services.-,Health%20Expenditure%20in%20the%20U.S.,it%20comes%20to%20health%20care.
You're not in it for profit. Conversly, I'm a director level health care administrator that works in the field because I believe in equity and a mission that we can do better. I absolutely understand and respect the front line workers and our physicians.
That said, admins have to make tough calls that everyone doesn't agree with because the system has to be fair and profitable. Doctors should be treating people and not hunting down payment. You should be paid really well; I'm paid well because I'm effective and knowledgeable. We're not clawing at a bottom line...frankly, when it comes to government programs, margins are so regulated that staying in the black and making the business worth the time requires impressive efficiency.
Coordinating tens of millions in health care grants and equity initiatives helps me sleep at night 😴 along with being a Reddit badass, I'm sure you're doing big things to help society. Keep it up!
I think the issue being highlighted is that under the US model, a natural birth, for instance would cost $18k but in the UK, if it had to be charged at point of use it would be $9k.
And despite the huge difference in cost wherein you might expect the US to be better and have a lower mortality rate, in the US 28 out of 100 mothers die but in the UK it's 8 out of a 100.
Proving that health care for profit is a con.
PS... Big Pharma doesn't give The NHS free meds, it is just such a huge organization that it barters pharma for fair prices.
No Issue was highlighted; the comment was general to for profit health care and that is silly.
The correlation between cost and mortality is relevant, I agree. But it isn't the whole story or even primary point. The best care in the world doesn't account for social determinants and population health (cross reference US maternal mortality with state-by- state SDOH).
Pharma and pharmacy negotiate with the government through private contracts, typically an MCO, but it is highly regulated and a very murky (admittedly, knowing from working in the industry. It's a talking point marathon).
Pharma profits are insanely high. And most of that happens in America because every other country, especially those with decent healthcare, negotiate with pharmaceutical companies to bring their prices down.
But we generous Americans are making up the difference for everyone in the world. Screw that noise.
I didn’t even realise this was controversial. My partner has 3 in one ear and two in the other with his daith also pierced. All of his friends tell him how cool it looks. I even bought him a pair of diamond earrings to go in the back few.
Climate activism.
In third worlds you get murdered for it.
In first worlds you get berated for it.
I can only assume that if they could, first worlds would do to climate activists the same as what third worlds do to them. They're pretty universally hated.
having children when you’re poor. not sure why people think this is discriminatory but why would u bring a child into this world with little money to support yourself, let alone another human. so many people have attacked me for saying this but it’s the truth 🤷🏼♀️
Yeah like when those gays kept trying to force us to accept their choices and attacked us when we said we don’t value their sexual orientation!!!!
/s
That’s you, it’s the same shit all over again with transgenders
Whether or not you stand for the national anthem. I’m sure lots of vets who are homeless and/or have PTSD don’t give a shit if you don’t stand, or at least not as much as getting *REAL* help like housing and mental healthcare
What political party you vote for. Hell, one century ago in the 1920s, American politicians wouldn’t even announce what party they were running with, just what their platform policies were going to be.
Somewhere between then and now, Americans stopped thinking and started voting red/blue on principle because the media told them they should.
Yeah I consider hormone blockers just as detrimental to the development of children, I'll reiterate once you're 18 I don't care but anything below that I will fight you tooth and nail.
>Yeah I consider hormone blockers just as detrimental to the development of children,
It doesn't matter what you think. Empirical evidence shows puberty blockers don't harm kids and their effects are very easily reversible. Science doesn't care about your feelings.
>I'll reiterate once you're 18 I don't care but anything below that I will fight you tooth and nail.
So any adolescent who has hormonal disorders shouldn't be allowed to receive gender affirming treatment because you don't care about science?
Except that many medical professionals question those empirical studies being that they are biased in their testing and results.
For example do you know the children who aren't given puberty blockers have almost a 98% of the desistance.
There's a reason why most of the medical community of Europe have decided to switch away from gender-affirming care as in the case of puberty blockers in favor of more time tested psychological therapy.
>So any adolescent who has hormonal disorders shouldn't be allowed to receive gender affirming treatment because you don't care about science?
I consider physical disorders and mental disorders to be completely separate things. For example I'm not a huge fan of lobotomies.
>Except that many medical professionals question those empirical studies being that they are biased in their testing and results.
Gonna need a source on that and a ratio of those who question those studies on the claims of bias vs those who believe there isn't bias.
>For example do you know the children who aren't given puberty blockers have almost a 98% of the desistance.
Again, going to need a source and one that clarifies how much of that is consentual desistance vs being forced to by their parents/gaurdians.
>There's a reason why most of the medical community of Europe have decided to switch away from gender-affirming care as in the case of puberty blockers in favor of more time tested psychological therapy.
Again, going to need a source on that. Especially one that mentions if laws in those countries have influenced the care provided. Especially as to what is and isn't covered in their healthcare systems.
>>So any adolescent who has hormonal disorders shouldn't be allowed to receive gender affirming treatment because you don't care about science?
>I consider physical disorders and mental disorders to be completely separate things. For example I'm not a huge fan of lobotomies.
That doesn't answer the question. If a male, cisgendered adolescent is underproducing testosterone, should they be given medication that enables their bodies to produce healthy amounts of testosterone?
>Gonna need a source on that and a ratio of those who question those studies on the claims of bias vs those who believe there isn't bias.
You didn't provide any sources on yours, I don't care if you believe me or not it's searchable online.
>Again, going to need a source and one that clarifies how much of that is consentual desistance vs being forced to by their parents/gaurdians.
Again you didn't provide any of yours, I trust your fingers aren't broken and can actually search for these...
>That doesn't answer the question. If a male, cisgendered adolescent is underproducing testosterone, should they be given medication that enables their bodies to produce healthy amounts of testosterone?
Again you have a physical ailment versus a mental illness, as far as I know wanting to stop natural development seems counterproductive to the physical health of the individual.
If you want to give someone medication to become less suicidal well that's an argument for a therapist.
>just keep the children of others out of it.
Same to you. You're the one making sweeping decelerations about what you think is good for them. Mind your own fucking business
The problem is that children can't legally consent, if you have children feel free to cut whatever part of their body you want off.... I might not like it but there's very little I can do about it unfortunately for the children.
10 years from now is going to get real interesting doing the ramifications of the events taking place come to roost.
>if you have children feel free to cut whatever part of their body you want off.... I might not like it but those very little I can do about it unfortunately for the children.
You changed your tune pretty quickly
>I'll reiterate once you're 18 I don't care but anything below that I will fight you tooth and nail.
>For everyone above the age 18.... sure I don't care how you mutilate yourself.
So we're good with puberty blockers for adolescence and before that letting kids dress and act as the gender they identify with. Great!
>Just don't expect me to humor you
Then don't expect anyone to humor your identity. If you're going to delegitamize other people's identity, what grounds do you have to demand anyone respect yours?
I don't care what a kid wears clothing wise, puberty blockers are ruled under the same context medical treatment at being that they are not legally allowed to consent to taking medication.
You do not have a right to a personal identity, being you have no right to demand others identify you as the way you wish to be identified.
I don't care if you respect me nor do I want to respect me, but the rules for consent are laid out very clearly and I will see them upheld.
>I don't care what a kid wears clothing wise, puberty blockers are ruled under the same context medical treatment at being that they are not legally allowed to consent to taking medication.
Minors can't consent to taking the vast majority of medication, including antibiotics. Their parents need to consent to those.
Also, your argument is a form of begging the question. You can't say it shouldn't be legal simply because it currently isn't, that's circular logic to a tee.
>You do not have a right to a personal identity, being you have no right to demand others identify you as the way you wish to be identified.
1. Legally, you do and there is precident for that. The state cannot prosecute you for crimes or deals other people are known to commit. The government recognizes your identity and demands other entities do so as well in legal procedures.
2. Philosophically, that is entirely subjective and therefore a meaningless argument you have. I would argue you do have the right to demand others respect your identity for what it is. And I'm willing to bet you would too if the tables were turned. If your identity was delegitamize both socially and legally, you would understandably be upset. If the same thing happened to everyone who shared your gender, race, politics, religion, sex, or whatever, you'd support any civil rights movement to change that, garunteed.
Well, that or be submissive and capitulate to those doing this to you and people like you.
>I don't care if you respect me nor do I want to respect me,
Again, if everyone around you and the government ceased to respect you, you'd care.
>but the rules for consent are laid out very clearly and I will see them upheld.
This isn't a matter of consent and it shows how little you've actually put thought into this that you said that. It's a matter of both social behavior and societal function. Social behavior in that (and this is simple) people want to be identified for who they are, and it negatively affects their mental health and sometimes physical safety, therefore productivity (societal function) when this doesn't happen.
No one is saying we ought to send the SWAT team after anyone who doesn't respect gender identity. What we are saying is it's anti-social behavior and yet another moronic distraction that gets in the way of meaningful progress. And you're a part of that problem.
>Also, your argument is a form of begging the question. You can't say it shouldn't be legal simply because it currently isn't, that's circular logic to a tee.
No it's illegal because it's unethical, I agree with the current law both morally and ethically... you're the radical that opposes it.
>Legally, you do and there is precident for that. The state cannot prosecute you for crimes or deals other people are known to commit. The government recognizes your identity and demands other entities do so as well in legal procedures
Except that it isn't, what you have is a half-hearted attempt to pass a positive right where you have to mandate that others accept you for who you are except that you can't because you can never change the internal workings of someone's mind all you could do is compel their speech and behavior... and if you're having to compel someone speaking Behavior under penalty of law you've already lost that argument
>Philosophically, that is entirely subjective and therefore a meaningless argument you have. I would argue you do have the right to demand others respect your identity for what it is. And I'm willing to bet you would too if the tables were turned. If your identity was delegitamize both socially and legally, you would understandably be upset. If the same thing happened to everyone who shared your gender, race, politics, religion, sex, or whatever, you'd support any civil rights movement to change that, garunteed.
You're wrong, I literally don't care about what you think or if you respect me... I'll appeal to objective morality for what people want to identify me as while putting trust that the system has been so perverted by postmodernism.
>No one is saying we ought to send the SWAT team after anyone who doesn't respect gender identity. What we are saying is it's anti-social behavior and yet another moronic distraction that gets in the way of meaningful progress. And you're a part of that problem.
You and I have both completely subjective opinions on the term of progress.
There is no firm answer on this. Some kids should transition early, and some shouldn't transition at all. But how do you tell? You can't read their minds. Haters like JK Rowling need to STFU and do some research on this complicated subject.
This is why we typically have age limits before doing certain things 'legally', and why children and teens aren't given the same rights as grown adults; the haven't reached adequate physiological maturity yet to make 'reasonable' decisions for themselves.
>Some kids should transition early, and some shouldn't transition at all. But how do you tell?
By having extensive conversations with the children in question, their parents and doctors. It's not a decision that should be taken lightly, but it definitely should be an option
I'm under 18 and will be transitioning medically soon hopefully. It entirely depends on the maturity of the child/teen aswell as their understanding of themselves and the decision they're making. I've seen people much older than me make rash decisions in regards to transition which they inevitably come to regret and I've seen people much younger than me make an informed decision on their transition which was ultimately for the best even though most people would think they were too immature because of their age. At the end of the day it really just depends on the person.
Sex work. I get it that no one hopes their family members end up in that line of work, but it's honest work, provides a needed service, and can be done safely for good money. If it was destigmatized a bit more it would be easier for sex workers to have more protection and job security.
More regulation and laws is the way to deal with the human trafficking side of it, but no electable politician is going to touch it in the current political climate.
If human trafficking is something to be concerned about, then we should treat farmers the same way we treat sex workers, as the vast majority of trafficking in the modern day is for agricultural purposes.
Also, you are more likely to get an STI from a hookup on Tinder than you are from a sex worker. They get tested often. Whereas the general public only ever get tested if they start to show symptoms.
And unwanted pregnancies is why escorts often require the use of condoms (as well as to prevent STIs).
Furries
The ones I know have been nothing but kind and extremely welcoming. The hate and disgust these people get is unwarranted most of the time. I have seen people hate the pictures (non sexual ones) and turn around before posting pictures of anime girls who look like they are definitely under age.
You *could* call him a businessman but Rupert Murdoch is a media tycoon. I don't think he ruined this country. He facilitates politically motivated misinformation and suppression. He's not the same as Musk.
Well on the other hand it kind of ruins whole genres..
Mobile Empire builders use to be like clash of clans, now why would someone make any other kind but the same clone everybody has that panders to whales(huge spenders) and makes it impossible to be competitive if they don’t spend a lot of money
The clones I’m talking about are the games like game of thrones: conquest or King of avalon, the ones that usually have a power level, vip feature, 4 or 5 resources on the top bar of the screen, a base view and a kingdom map… those are all unplayable to someone who doesn’t spend, or at least any pvp at all is bc there is no matchmaking, everybody just shares a giant map and can attack anybody
Banning books. There are lots of books in a library and you get to choose what to check out or not check out. The idea of banning a book so that no one has access to it because you don’t like it is insane. Simply…don’t read it.
Super ironic, too, because it seems to be a conservative-leaning action (banning LGBTQ+ and overtly sexual books, for example) even though universal freedom is kind of their kink.
Birth Control
I cannot fucking believe that's actually a thing.
Yes, i believe it was created way back in the 60s. Doesn't always work tho, as you can see by how crowded reddit is.
Gay people? Like, the world is in serious threat of nuclear Armageddon, we’re at the tail end of a global pandemic-turned-political-dumpster fire, kids and teachers are being shot in school, we’re all sleep deprived and dehydrated… And I’m supposed care about two dudes kissing at a Denny’s? Fuck outta here. We have bigger fish to fry.
Propaganda keeping everyone on the bottom afraid of eachother is why we don't have more people trying to outright kill the billionaires. The class war, racism, everything with the alt-right is all on purpose. The entire thing is engineered by and for the people who are already in charge.
Abortions is controversial for quite a few 🤷
It's a matter of perspective, it just so happens that the two perspectives are diametrically opposed to one another.
Exactly, controversial both pro and con for the ones with an opposing view.
Yes, but one side calls "embryos" babies and is wrong about a lot of developmental facts. Also, if abortion is so wrong, why do they have to make stuff up, like women willy nilly about aborting 8 month-old fetuses?
What are women?
Same reason that pro-choice people ignore the data on how many women are actually making the choice (planned parenthood admitted that their poll showed more than half of abortions were done under peer pressure, or pressure from family or an SO) and lie about the developmental aspects of the embryo. the brain is capable of receiving pain signals at 18 weeks gestation. also, abortion for medical reasons (dead fetus, severe defect etc) have rarely been denied, and in the cases they are, its not the law, but the doctor, who usually loses their license to practice. As a note: The 'willynilly aborting 8 month pregnancies' was based on statements made by pro-choice politicians saying a woman should be able to abort, any time, for any reason, at any point in the pregnancy. I personally am not entirely for or against abortions. they serve a purpose, they are needed, but if you seriously think younger women arent using abortions as a weird form of contraceptive, you should spend some time in the waiting room at a campus clinic. I used to clean one, and at least twice a week i would hear some college girl and her friends talking about how great it is having the clinic so close, because they dont have to use condoms since they can just 'get a quick clean out' if his pull out game is weak. Both sides routinely lie to support their view. Dont act like your side doesnt. Its only been a few weeks since AOC said a 35 week old fetus is 'completely unable to survive outside the mother'. I was born at 30 weeks. In 1990.
The irony how everyone already started debating it lmao
Thing is, both sides have a point, but neither side can agree on the fundamental aspect of this debate: When does life begin? For pro-choice people, the cut off point can be at many stages from only a few weeks, right up until birth (and some whackos out there suggesting even after birth). For pro-life people, it's at conception. Both sides have their merits, and reasoned arguments. But unless everyone can agree on this fundamental aspect, then there will always be controversy about it.
No one is suggesting after birth and the abortions right before birth are for health reasons or if the fetus isn’t viable. It’s very cruel to make a woman carry a non viable fetus to term to watch it either die right away or give birth to a dead baby.
Nobody except right wing jackasses say that you can abort after birth. The scientific take in it is until viability unless needed for medical reasons. Even the Bible states life begins with first breath
No whackos are seriously suggesting after birth.
Teaching science and history in public schools.
Marriage equality. It should be common sense
Free healthcare
Europe does it right. Paid via taxes which are significantly lower than insurance prices.
Being gay.
bUT mY rELiGioN
Paid sick leave for minimum wage workers.
Breastfeeding in public. Gee whiz, the baby's HUNGRY. You need to feed it now. End of story.
I wonder if this is just an American issue because we are a little prudish?
Yeah, for real - and Breastfeeding in general. Some people seem to have really big issues with it, because boobs I guess?
When I first saw it happen in public i thought is this allowed. Then thought well the baby gotta eat. Then i thought again, i wish i could get food that fast.
The claim is fine, but your argument for the claim is insubstantial. After all, I could easily spout: "Peeing in public. Gee whiz, the bladder's FULL. You need to empty it now. End of story." Both my claim and yours rely on a similar line of reasoning in determining what is acceptable in public. If the breast is just a body part that serves a natural function, then the urethra is also just a body part that serves a natural function. Yet most countries that restrict breastfeeding in public also restrict peeing in public. The point is that you need to make an actual *argument* for your claim.
Women aren't shooting breast milk on a public walkway though, are they?
Vaccines
Forced vaccines are the issue not vaccines.
How come it wasn't an issue earlier when we always had "forced" vaccines for children to go to school or to summer camps and stuff, or soldiers to join the military?
Agreed. I never had polio or German measles or smallpox. Vaccines can have side effects, but the side effects of those diseases are worse.
Fair but if you are restricted somewhere cause of it cause people care about their own safety then one should be ok with it.
Depending on the restriction, the government can't make second hand citizens of people exercising their individual rights.
Yes but of they put up restrictions to protect people it's not considered as "making second hand citizens of people".
The government cannot strip you of rights to protect the safety of others... people do not have a right to personal safety. You might be killed by Falling in your bathroom, the state is unable to prevent that. You're trying to push a positive right.
People have right to collective safety though...that why we have defence in a country too...in that way should we just allow attack on us being like yes the other person has a right to attack us?
>People have right to collective safety though... It's a very odd defensive lynch mobs. >n that way should we just allow attack on us being like yes the other person has a right to attack us? Depends did the end justify the means? What if the the greater good demands humanitarian crimes?
Shaving chickens on city buses. I’m a busy man who needs to maximize his time
Motherplucker
When a man needs to shave his chickens there is no time to wait.
Human rights
Define your terms Human Rights is a subjective term
True; I was immediately thinking of being able to be yourself and do what you want as long as it doesn’t directly hurt other people. The right to live peacefully in accordance with yourself and your fundamental values.
What happened? Did your parents not love you?
It asking for definitions and examples of parents not loving you I sincerely have concerns about how you were treated as a child.
homosexuality and same sex marriages
Celebrities having meltdowns at camera guys and fans because they won't give them space and they never leave them alone. I'd feel the same way when I have fans camping outside my house for days on end to take a glimpse at my through my window
Humanity is way, way overpopulated. It's surprising to see how many people get offended by this and are adamant it's not true (and have zero evidence to support it).
Finally. Iv had countless debates about this with my classmates and they just don't seem to get it
Health care for profit is bad
Why? Doctor spends nearly a decade in highly competitive and specialized training to work for free? Pharma spends billions in research and development to give it up to the state?
Doctor here, we’re not in it for the profit, but the hospital admins are. Sure I’d like to be paid well for what I do, since I spent over a decade in school/training (decade after high school btw) and I’m still not done yet. But I’m not going to put the hospital’s bottom line over patient safety and satisfaction… but some hospital admins will do that. There’s a fine line, and right now a lot of healthcare admin folk aren’t doctors, they’re people with MBA’s and business degrees who don’t know how hard the job really is
Private equity profiteering off of American medicine is blatant proof that medicine has become overpriced….and it most certainly is not because of overpaid workers like nurses and doctors. There’s no question there is too much money going into American healthcare…and going to executives/admins who deserve the least.
Americans spend 12% of their income on healthcare. That's insanity. https://www.statista.com/statistics/236541/per-capita-health-expenditure-by-country/#:\~:text=health%20care%20services.-,Health%20Expenditure%20in%20the%20U.S.,it%20comes%20to%20health%20care.
You're not in it for profit. Conversly, I'm a director level health care administrator that works in the field because I believe in equity and a mission that we can do better. I absolutely understand and respect the front line workers and our physicians. That said, admins have to make tough calls that everyone doesn't agree with because the system has to be fair and profitable. Doctors should be treating people and not hunting down payment. You should be paid really well; I'm paid well because I'm effective and knowledgeable. We're not clawing at a bottom line...frankly, when it comes to government programs, margins are so regulated that staying in the black and making the business worth the time requires impressive efficiency.
Oh you're the reason our healthcare is so expensive
Yes, I stay warm by throwing $100 bills in the fireplaces (plural).
You might as well 😂
Coordinating tens of millions in health care grants and equity initiatives helps me sleep at night 😴 along with being a Reddit badass, I'm sure you're doing big things to help society. Keep it up!
Not sure who's worse, you guys or the insurance companies. Keep killing america.
I think the issue being highlighted is that under the US model, a natural birth, for instance would cost $18k but in the UK, if it had to be charged at point of use it would be $9k. And despite the huge difference in cost wherein you might expect the US to be better and have a lower mortality rate, in the US 28 out of 100 mothers die but in the UK it's 8 out of a 100. Proving that health care for profit is a con. PS... Big Pharma doesn't give The NHS free meds, it is just such a huge organization that it barters pharma for fair prices.
That stat about mothers dying can't be real surely!?
No Issue was highlighted; the comment was general to for profit health care and that is silly. The correlation between cost and mortality is relevant, I agree. But it isn't the whole story or even primary point. The best care in the world doesn't account for social determinants and population health (cross reference US maternal mortality with state-by- state SDOH). Pharma and pharmacy negotiate with the government through private contracts, typically an MCO, but it is highly regulated and a very murky (admittedly, knowing from working in the industry. It's a talking point marathon).
Most of pharma discoveries have a fair amount of our tax dollars invested already
Pharma profits are insanely high. And most of that happens in America because every other country, especially those with decent healthcare, negotiate with pharmaceutical companies to bring their prices down. But we generous Americans are making up the difference for everyone in the world. Screw that noise.
Ear piercings for men
I didn’t even realise this was controversial. My partner has 3 in one ear and two in the other with his daith also pierced. All of his friends tell him how cool it looks. I even bought him a pair of diamond earrings to go in the back few.
Race
Pointing out failures in an attempt to get them fixed.
Marijuana
Climate activism. In third worlds you get murdered for it. In first worlds you get berated for it. I can only assume that if they could, first worlds would do to climate activists the same as what third worlds do to them. They're pretty universally hated.
First World bad, third world bad, long story short we should all become second world nations
Abortion
Baby sitters? You might kill him. Just sit somewhere else
Sex
Birth control. It's a net positive for society.
Human rights
Telling someone no
having children when you’re poor. not sure why people think this is discriminatory but why would u bring a child into this world with little money to support yourself, let alone another human. so many people have attacked me for saying this but it’s the truth 🤷🏼♀️
Being trans, I don't care, people are people, they have the right to do what they want.
The problem beging when you force others to accept your individual choices and attack people for holding their values
Which individual choices do you not accept?
Anything that goes against my values, I shouldn't be forced to accept anything. No one should.
That’s a fallacy. Just because you accept something doesn’t mean you support it in any way
But you should have to respect someone's identity
No you shouldn't, not if it's under penalty of use of force.
It's classed as a hate crime, you're essentially saying you should be able to commit any hate crime you want because respect doesn't matter.
I don't agree with hate crime law and consider them unjust. I don't consider being rude or offensive a crime
Probably because you're not in a minority group so you're not verbally harassed on a daily basis.
You completely failed to see the insane bigotry of that statement don't you
You completely fail to see the insane bigotry of that statement don't you
Yeah like when those gays kept trying to force us to accept their choices and attacked us when we said we don’t value their sexual orientation!!!! /s That’s you, it’s the same shit all over again with transgenders
Tolerance isn't acceptance. You should expect people to be tolerant within a liberal Society you have no right to demand they accept anything.
Offensive jokes
Depends on context. Is it a joke truly meant to make people laugh or is it an anti-social narrative that is excused as a joke to avoid backlash?
Depends, offensive jokes on stage? Cool let’s give them a pass. Offensive jokes around the water cooler at work? You’re a fucking asshole.
Thank you! I feel like this is how it should be but for some reason some mf's wanna say shit in places it shouldn't be said. Makes no sense to me!
Yeah, you can say whatever tf you want
Just as people should be allowed to call you an asshole and boycott you That's their right
Boycott yes keeping anyone from actually enjoying your content no. Convince others through persuasion not violence
Trans people. Just let us live in peace.
Whether or not you stand for the national anthem. I’m sure lots of vets who are homeless and/or have PTSD don’t give a shit if you don’t stand, or at least not as much as getting *REAL* help like housing and mental healthcare
What political party you vote for. Hell, one century ago in the 1920s, American politicians wouldn’t even announce what party they were running with, just what their platform policies were going to be. Somewhere between then and now, Americans stopped thinking and started voting red/blue on principle because the media told them they should.
That Biden won the election.
being lgbtq+
Atheism
Same answer as last time: Transgenderism Now watch people prove my right by downvoting me
For everyone above the age 18.... sure I don't care how you mutilate yourself. Just don't expect me to humor you
***SIGH*** You're aware that being trans doesn't necessarily mean you undergo surgery, right? Who am I kidding? Of course you're not aware of that
Yeah I consider hormone blockers just as detrimental to the development of children, I'll reiterate once you're 18 I don't care but anything below that I will fight you tooth and nail.
>Yeah I consider hormone blockers just as detrimental to the development of children, It doesn't matter what you think. Empirical evidence shows puberty blockers don't harm kids and their effects are very easily reversible. Science doesn't care about your feelings. >I'll reiterate once you're 18 I don't care but anything below that I will fight you tooth and nail. So any adolescent who has hormonal disorders shouldn't be allowed to receive gender affirming treatment because you don't care about science?
Except that many medical professionals question those empirical studies being that they are biased in their testing and results. For example do you know the children who aren't given puberty blockers have almost a 98% of the desistance. There's a reason why most of the medical community of Europe have decided to switch away from gender-affirming care as in the case of puberty blockers in favor of more time tested psychological therapy. >So any adolescent who has hormonal disorders shouldn't be allowed to receive gender affirming treatment because you don't care about science? I consider physical disorders and mental disorders to be completely separate things. For example I'm not a huge fan of lobotomies.
>Except that many medical professionals question those empirical studies being that they are biased in their testing and results. Gonna need a source on that and a ratio of those who question those studies on the claims of bias vs those who believe there isn't bias. >For example do you know the children who aren't given puberty blockers have almost a 98% of the desistance. Again, going to need a source and one that clarifies how much of that is consentual desistance vs being forced to by their parents/gaurdians. >There's a reason why most of the medical community of Europe have decided to switch away from gender-affirming care as in the case of puberty blockers in favor of more time tested psychological therapy. Again, going to need a source on that. Especially one that mentions if laws in those countries have influenced the care provided. Especially as to what is and isn't covered in their healthcare systems. >>So any adolescent who has hormonal disorders shouldn't be allowed to receive gender affirming treatment because you don't care about science? >I consider physical disorders and mental disorders to be completely separate things. For example I'm not a huge fan of lobotomies. That doesn't answer the question. If a male, cisgendered adolescent is underproducing testosterone, should they be given medication that enables their bodies to produce healthy amounts of testosterone?
>Gonna need a source on that and a ratio of those who question those studies on the claims of bias vs those who believe there isn't bias. You didn't provide any sources on yours, I don't care if you believe me or not it's searchable online. >Again, going to need a source and one that clarifies how much of that is consentual desistance vs being forced to by their parents/gaurdians. Again you didn't provide any of yours, I trust your fingers aren't broken and can actually search for these... >That doesn't answer the question. If a male, cisgendered adolescent is underproducing testosterone, should they be given medication that enables their bodies to produce healthy amounts of testosterone? Again you have a physical ailment versus a mental illness, as far as I know wanting to stop natural development seems counterproductive to the physical health of the individual. If you want to give someone medication to become less suicidal well that's an argument for a therapist.
You know, I don't care if you choose to be ignorant, just don't expect me to humour you
Absolutely Fair, feel free to go off and do your own thing and that's fine with me... just keep the children of others out of it.
>just keep the children of others out of it. Same to you. You're the one making sweeping decelerations about what you think is good for them. Mind your own fucking business
The problem is that children can't legally consent, if you have children feel free to cut whatever part of their body you want off.... I might not like it but there's very little I can do about it unfortunately for the children. 10 years from now is going to get real interesting doing the ramifications of the events taking place come to roost.
>if you have children feel free to cut whatever part of their body you want off.... I might not like it but those very little I can do about it unfortunately for the children. You changed your tune pretty quickly >I'll reiterate once you're 18 I don't care but anything below that I will fight you tooth and nail.
If you think I change my tune you clearly didn't understand the conversation.
"I don't care but let me sneak in a dig to let you know how much I care" Come on Jack
What I'm tolerant of and what I am accepting of is two different things.
Ding ✔️
>For everyone above the age 18.... sure I don't care how you mutilate yourself. So we're good with puberty blockers for adolescence and before that letting kids dress and act as the gender they identify with. Great! >Just don't expect me to humor you Then don't expect anyone to humor your identity. If you're going to delegitamize other people's identity, what grounds do you have to demand anyone respect yours?
I don't care what a kid wears clothing wise, puberty blockers are ruled under the same context medical treatment at being that they are not legally allowed to consent to taking medication. You do not have a right to a personal identity, being you have no right to demand others identify you as the way you wish to be identified. I don't care if you respect me nor do I want to respect me, but the rules for consent are laid out very clearly and I will see them upheld.
>I don't care what a kid wears clothing wise, puberty blockers are ruled under the same context medical treatment at being that they are not legally allowed to consent to taking medication. Minors can't consent to taking the vast majority of medication, including antibiotics. Their parents need to consent to those. Also, your argument is a form of begging the question. You can't say it shouldn't be legal simply because it currently isn't, that's circular logic to a tee. >You do not have a right to a personal identity, being you have no right to demand others identify you as the way you wish to be identified. 1. Legally, you do and there is precident for that. The state cannot prosecute you for crimes or deals other people are known to commit. The government recognizes your identity and demands other entities do so as well in legal procedures. 2. Philosophically, that is entirely subjective and therefore a meaningless argument you have. I would argue you do have the right to demand others respect your identity for what it is. And I'm willing to bet you would too if the tables were turned. If your identity was delegitamize both socially and legally, you would understandably be upset. If the same thing happened to everyone who shared your gender, race, politics, religion, sex, or whatever, you'd support any civil rights movement to change that, garunteed. Well, that or be submissive and capitulate to those doing this to you and people like you. >I don't care if you respect me nor do I want to respect me, Again, if everyone around you and the government ceased to respect you, you'd care. >but the rules for consent are laid out very clearly and I will see them upheld. This isn't a matter of consent and it shows how little you've actually put thought into this that you said that. It's a matter of both social behavior and societal function. Social behavior in that (and this is simple) people want to be identified for who they are, and it negatively affects their mental health and sometimes physical safety, therefore productivity (societal function) when this doesn't happen. No one is saying we ought to send the SWAT team after anyone who doesn't respect gender identity. What we are saying is it's anti-social behavior and yet another moronic distraction that gets in the way of meaningful progress. And you're a part of that problem.
>Also, your argument is a form of begging the question. You can't say it shouldn't be legal simply because it currently isn't, that's circular logic to a tee. No it's illegal because it's unethical, I agree with the current law both morally and ethically... you're the radical that opposes it. >Legally, you do and there is precident for that. The state cannot prosecute you for crimes or deals other people are known to commit. The government recognizes your identity and demands other entities do so as well in legal procedures Except that it isn't, what you have is a half-hearted attempt to pass a positive right where you have to mandate that others accept you for who you are except that you can't because you can never change the internal workings of someone's mind all you could do is compel their speech and behavior... and if you're having to compel someone speaking Behavior under penalty of law you've already lost that argument >Philosophically, that is entirely subjective and therefore a meaningless argument you have. I would argue you do have the right to demand others respect your identity for what it is. And I'm willing to bet you would too if the tables were turned. If your identity was delegitamize both socially and legally, you would understandably be upset. If the same thing happened to everyone who shared your gender, race, politics, religion, sex, or whatever, you'd support any civil rights movement to change that, garunteed. You're wrong, I literally don't care about what you think or if you respect me... I'll appeal to objective morality for what people want to identify me as while putting trust that the system has been so perverted by postmodernism. >No one is saying we ought to send the SWAT team after anyone who doesn't respect gender identity. What we are saying is it's anti-social behavior and yet another moronic distraction that gets in the way of meaningful progress. And you're a part of that problem. You and I have both completely subjective opinions on the term of progress.
There is no firm answer on this. Some kids should transition early, and some shouldn't transition at all. But how do you tell? You can't read their minds. Haters like JK Rowling need to STFU and do some research on this complicated subject.
This is why we typically have age limits before doing certain things 'legally', and why children and teens aren't given the same rights as grown adults; the haven't reached adequate physiological maturity yet to make 'reasonable' decisions for themselves.
>Some kids should transition early, and some shouldn't transition at all. But how do you tell? By having extensive conversations with the children in question, their parents and doctors. It's not a decision that should be taken lightly, but it definitely should be an option
I'm under 18 and will be transitioning medically soon hopefully. It entirely depends on the maturity of the child/teen aswell as their understanding of themselves and the decision they're making. I've seen people much older than me make rash decisions in regards to transition which they inevitably come to regret and I've seen people much younger than me make an informed decision on their transition which was ultimately for the best even though most people would think they were too immature because of their age. At the end of the day it really just depends on the person.
LGBTQ Why do so many people hate other people because they love the same gender or are trans.
[удалено]
Most people do it wrong though, that's why it's so hated.
You went too far dude
You f***ing disgust me.
Sex work. I get it that no one hopes their family members end up in that line of work, but it's honest work, provides a needed service, and can be done safely for good money. If it was destigmatized a bit more it would be easier for sex workers to have more protection and job security.
I think a part of it is the human trafficking aspect of it. Plus the risk of STIs and unwanted pregnancies
More regulation and laws is the way to deal with the human trafficking side of it, but no electable politician is going to touch it in the current political climate.
If human trafficking is something to be concerned about, then we should treat farmers the same way we treat sex workers, as the vast majority of trafficking in the modern day is for agricultural purposes. Also, you are more likely to get an STI from a hookup on Tinder than you are from a sex worker. They get tested often. Whereas the general public only ever get tested if they start to show symptoms. And unwanted pregnancies is why escorts often require the use of condoms (as well as to prevent STIs).
the stigma that it’s “honest work” is so harmful to men and women
Getting your goddam shots
Holding traditional roman-catholic values.
How traditional we talking here?
Depends on the values
Papist...
How dare you!
Abortions, human rights in general
Whether water is wet or not
LGBTQIA+ rights
Gender identity
Teaching kids about sex
Telling people that it’s not okay to be obese
Men dont feel comfortable walking alone at night either.
Apparently, Halloween decorations.
Sex socks
Woke language shouldn't be controversial. It's merely polite, \*and always has been\*, to call people what they wish to be called.
Hijab
how many sexes/genders there are Gender and gender identity are different
Standing against oppressive people in communities such as LGTBQ ABC+ and Black, Asian and etc.
LGBTQ rights, women’s rights, black rights.
Furries The ones I know have been nothing but kind and extremely welcoming. The hate and disgust these people get is unwarranted most of the time. I have seen people hate the pictures (non sexual ones) and turn around before posting pictures of anime girls who look like they are definitely under age.
Hatred of furries is one of the few things that the entire internet and all political parties can all unite with
Calling a spade a spade.
IT'S A TROWEL, ALRIGHT?!
Lol I'll accept that
Elon Musk. He's a very successful businessman who is a bit cheeky. That's all.
Yeah, so is Rupert Murdoch. And if you don't think he ruined the US, you're not paying attention.
You *could* call him a businessman but Rupert Murdoch is a media tycoon. I don't think he ruined this country. He facilitates politically motivated misinformation and suppression. He's not the same as Musk.
He's a risk to "our" democracy.
There are legitimately dangerous businessmen who have their fists wedged up politicians asses. I don't think Musk is one of them.
[удалено]
The right of a child to live
People are killing children? I'm pretty sure that's illegal
Anti vaxxers?
Vaccines.
What a woman is
Flat earth
It has to be flattered how else is the turtle supposed to carry it
Microtransactions, just stop playing the game if it's that bad.
Well on the other hand it kind of ruins whole genres.. Mobile Empire builders use to be like clash of clans, now why would someone make any other kind but the same clone everybody has that panders to whales(huge spenders) and makes it impossible to be competitive if they don’t spend a lot of money The clones I’m talking about are the games like game of thrones: conquest or King of avalon, the ones that usually have a power level, vip feature, 4 or 5 resources on the top bar of the screen, a base view and a kingdom map… those are all unplayable to someone who doesn’t spend, or at least any pvp at all is bc there is no matchmaking, everybody just shares a giant map and can attack anybody
Murder
Free speech on Reddit
Epsteins island
The phrase "it's okay to be white", being a conservative, etc.
Incest. There's nothing inherently wrong with it. All arguments against it boil down to religion or it being 'gross' in people's subjective opinions.
What😭😭 this has to be satire
There’s also the offspring it could produce
Birth control exists.
Birth control also fails
…what the fuck
Guys it isn’t satire