DisasterlyDisco's recent activity
-
Comment on What are your favourite anime and/or manga? in ~anime
-
Comment on Luigi Mangione pleads guilty to federal stalking charges in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO in ~news
DisasterlyDisco Link ParentCertainly, I think our views are fundamentally different, and that it is impossible for us to reach a consensus within this medium. Nontheless, thank you for the discussion, it was testing - I'll...Certainly, I think our views are fundamentally different, and that it is impossible for us to reach a consensus within this medium. Nontheless, thank you for the discussion, it was testing - I'll look forward to the next one, if it is to happen.
-
Comment on Luigi Mangione pleads guilty to federal stalking charges in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO in ~news
DisasterlyDisco Link ParentI do not get this reduction to supply and demand. This belief in the market as an organ for resource allocation. I understand the simplified theory, but I've yet to see concrete proof that it fits...It’s two sides of the same coin. In the US system, profit is the incentive for the sides of the healthcare system to keep each other in check, and the market overall exists to allocate resources. Whether they’re allocated by mandate or allocated by market, it is nonetheless a game of resource allocation. It is just supply and demand. We like to treat human lives as priceless, but in practice they always have a price, and it’s usually not that high either.
I do not get this reduction to supply and demand. This belief in the market as an organ for resource allocation. I understand the simplified theory, but I've yet to see concrete proof that it fits reality.
As for both market and mandate allocation being games of resource allocation, I reject the notion that their rules are then fundamentally similar. That the number of players are the same, that the goals for the players are the same. If we are to compare them as games, then I think we ought to actualky cobtrast and compare their rules in earnest.
What effect? Luigi shot someone and the only effect was an increased spending on podcast ads as far as I can see. A CEO is just an employee in the end. They can be fired and hired on a dime. It really makes no difference.
I don't get that. You don't think CEOs can influence their company? That two different CEOs would lead the company differently? That is not my experience. Yes if one CEO steps down, a new CEO will take their place. Might be that they change the company, might be that they won't. But they have the possibility.
Just a year ago the No Surprises Act was quietly passed by Congress, which outlawed surprised out-of-network bills. That’s a helluve a lot more change than a CEO change.
It’s not even just federal politics. Massachusetts has a heavily state subsidized healthcare scheme. Because people voted for it.
Really glad to hear that, that sounds like good work, good change. Some faith restored. I'm still not convinced that that didn't take some personal action (as in phoning your representative, not car bombs). But maybe you don't agree to that either? This subthread was for me motivated by what I read to be the democratic mindset of "vote, trust the government, mind my own business outside of that". But this and other comments in other threads leads me to believe that you also think it important to engage with your democracy by spreading you opinions, discussing, maybe even activition? Or am I mistaken?
Yep. With politics. Other than that it is what it is.
This I think is a core philosophical disagreement. Exploring this here would certainly constitute "noise".
-
Comment on Luigi Mangione pleads guilty to federal stalking charges in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO in ~news
DisasterlyDisco Link ParentFair.Fair.
-
Comment on Luigi Mangione pleads guilty to federal stalking charges in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO in ~news
DisasterlyDisco Link ParentThe scope? The motivation? When people start dying, don't get the care they need, are mistreated, we can object to the budget decisions, the management. Because the core motivation isn't profit...What’s the difference between being denied care and being placed on a waitlist so long you’ll die before you get care?
The scope? The motivation? When people start dying, don't get the care they need, are mistreated, we can object to the budget decisions, the management. Because the core motivation isn't profit but national health. Yes, the government has to balance their books, but there is no intrinsic profit incentive, no bleeding of resources to wealth hoarding at first approximation. How people are being treated in the health system can and do become local and natinal agendas, are used in the political processes, become national news, leads to change! Certainly the limiting factor are resources, but nothing so simple as just demand and supply, not just cash flow.
Why is it irresponsible? What’s more likely to change the US healthcare system, a CEO of UHS resigning or refusing to take the job, or government action?
Sure, IF the givernment would take action, THEN they would have more power to chabge things. But we can't rely ob this alone, and a CEO resigning (or, gods willing, trying to CHANGE their company for the better) would still have some effect. It won't change the whole world, but it will be a step.
Well, yeah, everything in the world can go wrong. It is what it is.
And then we fix it. Try to change it. Combat it. It only is what it is until it isn't.
-
Comment on Luigi Mangione pleads guilty to federal stalking charges in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO in ~news
DisasterlyDisco Link ParentYou argued that there was a great difference between crime and personal belief, I thought that you overstated the difference. In this thread (I realise that by now we have several) I contest this...You argued that there was a great difference between crime and personal belief, I thought that you overstated the difference. In this thread (I realise that by now we have several) I contest this point primarily. Your assertion on vigilante violence was not explicitly mentioned in this thread, and I've only belatedly realised that you argued it elsewhere. I myself am unsure if violence is justified, in this case as in most others, but I do hope that my point serves to put vigilante violence closer to lawful violence, personal conviction closer to common law, if not on even footing.
-
Comment on Luigi Mangione pleads guilty to federal stalking charges in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO in ~news
DisasterlyDisco Link ParentAnd here we disagree. I don't think only criminal behaviour should impel action. I believe its important to take personal action when one believes there is an injustice. Tempered, proportional,...And here we disagree. I don't think only criminal behaviour should impel action. I believe its important to take personal action when one believes there is an injustice. Tempered, proportional, legal. Profiteering off of the denying people healthcare seems absolutely heinous even if it is legal and therefore I'd like to change that. A healthcare CEO is someone who runs that system. They have some measure of power over that system, and as such holds some measure of responsibility for perpetuating it. I'd like to make such a system illegal, and to get there I must act to forward that agenda. I don't think the murder of CEOs (or murder in general) is the solution, but action must be taken, and we need some way combat this behaviour outside of the money we don't have.
I don't think all rich people are bad. But they are powerful, the very rich tremendously so, and that power is unchecked. What do we do when they use that power for selfish but legal reasons to the severe detriment of most others? Must we accept that just because they would be found innocent in the court of law?
(I'm also generally sceptical of the means necessary to achieve the end of great wealth. To me it seems lees like something one is given because it is deserved and more sonething that is taken because it was possible, with all the exploitation that this entails. This mainly targeted tiwrds those that are not just single digit millionaires, but in the doubles and above. I'm certain that it is possible, but I'm doubtful that it is the norm.)
-
Comment on Luigi Mangione pleads guilty to federal stalking charges in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO in ~news
DisasterlyDisco Link ParentNo? At least not necessarily in that way? In our health system a doctor cannot deny you care. They define what help you need, which they might be more or less competent at, and you might end up on......but denying claims is something all healthcare systems do.
No? At least not necessarily in that way? In our health system a doctor cannot deny you care. They define what help you need, which they might be more or less competent at, and you might end up on a waiting list if your treatment needs specil equipment or rare expert staff (which, yes, might have fatal or dbilitating consequences). But they can't deny you care, if they know you need it. They are not allowed to.
It is not an insurance system, just statefunded healthcare. Private clinics, paid by the state, public hospitals.We do have a seperate health insurance company (one, singular) and private hospitals, but the insurance company is at best a necessary evil and at worst a scam and the private hospitals are for the wealthy.
They’re doing their role in the system we set up. If change is to be had, it’s in the hands of the elected government.
I'll timidly concede to the first sentence, but I think the second is wildly irresponsible. I admire the principle, the belief in the system and society as a whole, choosing to work within it, the collaborative spirit of it. But I don't think it's realistic. Governments can and do go bad. Democratic processes implode. Power goes corrupt. At some point you can't elect a government that is willing to make the change necessary for the betterment of the people.
It do be what it do be, but it damn well doesn't have to keep do being what it do... or something.
-
Comment on Luigi Mangione pleads guilty to federal stalking charges in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO in ~news
DisasterlyDisco Link ParentThat is fair, I think my general despondency got the better of me, we certainly should search for a better deterrence than violence in the face of the very rich avoiding the deterrence of law. I...That is fair, I think my general despondency got the better of me, we certainly should search for a better deterrence than violence in the face of the very rich avoiding the deterrence of law.
I suppose my personal problem is that I don't know what that is. I don't see a lever for the common person to combat this problem. It is power against power, which within the law means money against money.
How does the common person compete in that game? Truly, I'd like your opinion, what is the moral action faced with such opposition?
-
Comment on Luigi Mangione pleads guilty to federal stalking charges in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO in ~news
DisasterlyDisco Link ParentI agree that there is a difference, I don't agree that it is crucial in this case, and I think that even though you don't believe the law to be actually Objective, you are still presenting it as a...I agree that there is a difference, I don't agree that it is crucial in this case, and I think that even though you don't believe the law to be actually Objective, you are still presenting it as a much more objective thing than it is. "[T]he legal code of the United States, as interpreted and executed by the US criminal justice system" is not a self-consistent thing. Within the justice system, judges wil disagree. Present then with the same facts and they will give you different verdicts. The text of the law itself is interpreted by the judges. Their verdicts become precedent for future verdicts. But even this can and does get overturned, explicitly, implicitly. This is especially the case when the cases are rare - common theft not so much. But while a judge might pass quick verdict and define the crime of shoplifting, the actual enforcement of it's illegality (the crimes practical definition, if not it's theoretical definition) is dependent on the police officer or shopowner, both of which might be more lenient or strict based on personal convictions.
While our system of law is a mutually-agreed upon fiction, the definitions of the criminal are not. We delegate this to a system and it then defines this, essentially on a case by case basis. Certainly some things would never hold in (or go to) court, and some things are nearly consensually criminal. But many things lie in the inbetween, their criminality and severity being determined by the whims (well informed, but none the less) of those that man the posts of justice.
Say, you accuse your former president of crimes. But are they crimes until he has been convicted of them? Can you, according to your justice system, call him a criminal yet? You might think that he is, and others might agree, but he has not yet been convicted, and what actions he's done have not yet been judged. Unless his actions have very very clear precesence as illegal, the criminality of his actions would be up to the justice system.
The morality of people outside the law, is, conversely, also not as disparate as "I, persobally, think it's bad". Much of that morality is social, cultural, shared. Would youbkick a puppy? Would you help a friend in need?
Again, I think you are overstating the consistency of the justice system, and understating the consistency of social norms.
-
Comment on Luigi Mangione pleads guilty to federal stalking charges in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO in ~news
DisasterlyDisco Link ParentOkay, assuming that we can - and should - put a price on life so as to better be able to calculate the... I'm going to say efficacy, instead of profitability, because I might be able to see my...Okay, assuming that we can - and should - put a price on life so as to better be able to calculate the... I'm going to say efficacy, instead of profitability, because I might be able to see my self believing that, I'm not convinced that the tradeoffs made in the US medical system, specifically focusing on health insurance, are some anyone has to make.
I don't live in the US. I'm priviliged, my healthcare is funded and run by my government. There are also tradeoffs in our healthcare, not all of them I agree with, but they seem drastically fairer, and more efficient, than those made in the US insurance based system.
I'm not saying I'm right, just that I'm unconvinced that you are :)
-
Comment on Luigi Mangione pleads guilty to federal stalking charges in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO in ~news
DisasterlyDisco Link ParentWhat is this objectivtiy you're speaking of? What makes criminality objective? There are laws, but they were written based on subjective morals. There are judges, but they are affected by their...What is this objectivtiy you're speaking of? What makes criminality objective? There are laws, but they were written based on subjective morals. There are judges, but they are affected by their subjective morals. There are police officers, but they apprehend based on their subjective morals.
We've codified some of our morality as laws, defined some immoral behaviour as crimes. That does make it different from the uncodfiied cultural morality, but that doesn't make it objective. We still very much can - and do - disagree on what a crime is, on what us legal. Between countries, between states, between judges, between lawyers, between people.
Do you disagree?
-
Comment on Luigi Mangione pleads guilty to federal stalking charges in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO in ~news
DisasterlyDisco Link ParentI'm not sure your analogy works. The crux of the matter is that very wealthy people are much more able to avoid legal consequences when they do others harm. Seeing as we want especially them to...I'm not sure your analogy works. The crux of the matter is that very wealthy people are much more able to avoid legal consequences when they do others harm. Seeing as we want especially them to behave well in our society, as they have a much greater influence on than most people, we need other ways to motivate them to act responsibly. Other ways to stop them. Vigilante justice is not a nice solution, not a good solution, but it might still be just. And regardless, for the people that need some external motivation to behave - and who happen to be rich - the fear of retributive violence is better than no fear at all.
I also disagree that "bringing harm" and "corruption" are nearly possible to faily define. If I cut off your arm, I've brought you harm, and you yourself say that corruption is a specific thing. If I truly believed that abortion was as horrible as profiteering off of denying people lifesaving treatments, if it was just as harmful, then I would also find it just and maybe necessary that violence found a very rich person that actively worked for increasing access to abortion. Again, the core problem is that a rich person lacks the checks that apply to the common people, not that they are necessarily less moral and therefore more deserving of violence.
I don't personally think that anyone deserves violence. I don't want a society where we solve our differences with destruction of the other, no matter how mild. And I don't know if Brian Thompson was someone who hurt the world drastically more than he helped it. Deferring a judgement that I cannot reasonably make, I choose instead to mourn the loss of Brian Thompson and Luigi Mangione. But I think that it is possible that such violence as was done against Brian Thompson can be just and necessary given the failures of our current society, if nothing else, then as a deterrence.
-
Comment on I run a speculative fiction book club in ~books
DisasterlyDisco LinkSounds real interesting - I've needed some external motivation to read fiction lately, that discord would be real nice.Sounds real interesting - I've needed some external motivation to read fiction lately, that discord would be real nice.
-
Comment on Elon Musk on tomatoes in ~food
DisasterlyDisco Link ParentIt isbnot my intention to debate semantics. It is my intention to clarify them. I read Gregs "natural law" statement as one saying "no fundamental principle explicitly says that sociopaths will...It isbnot my intention to debate semantics. It is my intention to clarify them. I read Gregs "natural law" statement as one saying "no fundamental principle explicitly says that sociopaths will always come out on top in a society" and your version of "natural law" being "we can derive that sociopaths will always come out on top in society from our worlds fundamental principles". I think it is valid to say that your version of "natural law" is more or less as strong as if "sociopaths always win society" was explicitly written in the firmament, assuming that we actually can derive that phenomenon from first principles.
To this, your third paragraf becomes important. Your wording makes it sound like systems are prone to exploitation because any amount of misalignment leads to non-neglible sociopath explotation. As perfect alignment is impractical - if not outright impossible (even libraries lose books to theft - this makes socipathic supremacy an inevitability, and thus a de facto "natural law" by derivation. But this understanding I would (and did) question.
You clarification though softens what misalignment is and means. Any misalignment still gives an advantage to the sociopath, but it is not inevitable that a system is misaligned. I can agree to that definition. What follows though is also that it is no longer "a natural law that allows sociopaths to win", not even an implocit one derived from fundamental peinciples. It is "just" a misaligned system. It can be rectified. The socipath can be fought with systemic change.
It is just choices made by the society, and thus we can make new ones. It's probably going to be hard, yeah, but we, humans, do things that are hard all the time. Especially - and only - once we've realised it isn't naturally impossible.
-
Comment on Elon Musk on tomatoes in ~food
DisasterlyDisco Link ParentAre you certain of that? Any misalignment? There are no dampening effects? Regulation and judication can't be well enough applied to make the unintended advantage of game exploitation neglible?In a system that has any misalignment between the reward system and the intended behaviors that get rewarded, one can expect that those most willing to ‘play the game’ will get furthest ahead.
Are you certain of that? Any misalignment? There are no dampening effects? Regulation and judication can't be well enough applied to make the unintended advantage of game exploitation neglible?
-
Comment on What is your Mandela effect moment? in ~movies
DisasterlyDisco Link ParentI don't think first-must-burn was talking about just any alternate ending not existing... ... but specifically that they remember an ending where Constantine lights up a cigarette in the end, as...I don't think first-must-burn was talking about just any alternate ending not existing...
... but specifically that they remember an ending where Constantine lights up a cigarette in the end, as opposed to eating gum as he does in both the ending that first-must-burn recently watched and the alternate ending that you linked to. -
Comment on What are your favourite fragrances, and why? in ~talk
DisasterlyDisco Link ParentYou might be able to smell it if you are in a place with good vegetation during a ligjt drizzle after a long dry spell; petrichor isn't as much the smell of rain, as it is the smell of plant...You might be able to smell it if you are in a place with good vegetation during a ligjt drizzle after a long dry spell; petrichor isn't as much the smell of rain, as it is the smell of plant signaling oils and microflora byproducts that the rain whirls into the air. It's what the name "petrichor" comes from - loosely translated "Blood of the Earth".
This is a bit off topic, but apart from the beautiful smell and the poetic symbolism, the reason I really love this smell is that it usualky accompanies my favourite weather around my neck of the woods: light sporadic rain in the early evening from a sky about as cloudy as it is clear. The way the light shines in the raindrops, like strands of glass, the ground wet and glistening from the low sunlight, the numerous rainbows hiding in patches around the horizon. Truly magical - and the smell of petrichor always just fits!
-
Comment on What are your favourite fragrances, and why? in ~talk
DisasterlyDisco Link ParentI've been by their online storefront, but, like all the american perfumers I've found alluring, they don't ship outside of the U.S. It is part of why I'm currently between suppliers - beaides my...I've been by their online storefront, but, like all the american perfumers I've found alluring, they don't ship outside of the U.S. It is part of why I'm currently between suppliers - beaides my mothertongue, I'm only really profecient in English, and both are (maybe surprisingly) inadequate when looking for small perfumers in the EU.
Going to a renfair later this month - hopefully someone brings something that sings of spring rain and too long held tears finally falling. That would be cathartic and nice. -
Comment on The colonization of confidence in ~books
DisasterlyDisco LinkI'm tearing up. Why am I tearing up after reading this story? What the fuck? I'm sitting in a pizza parlor, last nodule of crust grinding between my teeth, clamping down a sob cramp. Why do I feel...I'm tearing up. Why am I tearing up after reading this story? What the fuck?
I'm sitting in a pizza parlor, last nodule of crust grinding between my teeth, clamping down a sob cramp.
Why do I feel seen, I'm not a writer? Is this hope?
Thank you for sharing. Fuck.
Three spring to mind, an old fave, a clear winner and a new craze.
Code Geas was probably the first anime I watched after binging Bleach as a kid, and what really convinced me that anime was for me. Mind games, trickery, mech fights, lore - I just think it's neat. My inner rat fic lover was birthed with this show. I can also say from personal experience that watching the second part of the show without even knowing the first part exists is both possible AND results in a surprisingly coherent narrative (although I'm certain watching them in order is probably the intended experience :p).
Frierin, beyond journys end is da best. Beautiful art, beautiful storytelling, beautiful characters, beautiful morals. An amazing story, 11/10, won't stop recommending.
Needy Girl Overdose is a disgusting mess, an absurd piece of art, one of the most alienating things I've ever seen, and I found it fascinating. And charming behind the very real horror of the show. I never really got into watching streamers of any kind, and I'm very perplexed with VTubing and related subcultures, and those are the main subjects of the show. Its steeped in their aesthetic, which is conpletely foreign to me, which alone makes it intruiging. It is not for the faint of heart though; it's unpleasently real and very very dark.