post_below's recent activity
-
Comment on Question for the women in relationships: how would you react if a male friend asked to hang with you alone? in ~life.women
-
Comment on Medicare for all would save 68,000 lives per year and reduce costs by $450 billion in ~health
post_below Link ParentI'm a little mystified my post was so easy to misread. Perhaps using as an example an asinine but effective argument against single payer makes refuting it as though I'm stating it too tempting :)I'm a little mystified my post was so easy to misread. Perhaps using as an example an asinine but effective argument against single payer makes refuting it as though I'm stating it too tempting :)
-
Comment on Medicare for all would save 68,000 lives per year and reduce costs by $450 billion in ~health
post_below Link ParentThe bit in quotes (single payer will cost you more) is demonstrably false, but is nevertheless one of the effective propaganda strategies against single payer.The bit in quotes (single payer will cost you more) is demonstrably false, but is nevertheless one of the effective propaganda strategies against single payer.
-
Comment on Medicare for all would save 68,000 lives per year and reduce costs by $450 billion in ~health
post_below Link ParentI think maybe you misread? Realistically meaning we can't just say "this is the basic human right thing to do so let's do it" Yes absolutely single payer is the right choice from an economic...I think maybe you misread? Realistically meaning we can't just say "this is the basic human right thing to do so let's do it"
Yes absolutely single payer is the right choice from an economic perspective, but we need studies like the one mentioned in the OP article to help make the case. If it being obviously a good choice was enough we'd have done it already.
-
Comment on Medicare for all would save 68,000 lives per year and reduce costs by $450 billion in ~health
post_below Link ParentI agree with you personally but it's a moral stance and therefore debatable. It's easy to muddy the waters which makes it harder to sell politically. "Single payer will cost you more in taxes and...If it costs ten trillion dollars more, so be it; we should do it anyway because what the fuck is the point of a society if it isn't to help our fellow human beings and prevent them from dying for preventable reasons?
I agree with you personally but it's a moral stance and therefore debatable. It's easy to muddy the waters which makes it harder to sell politically. "Single payer will cost you more in taxes and you won't be able to feed your kids." When it comes to choosing the 'right' thing to do, feeding your family is always going to win
In a perfect world selling it politically wouldn't be necessary, in the world we occupy, both now and historically, making a financial case in addition to moral is a good idea. Research is a good idea too, because there's less bias, or it's perceived to have less bias.
Why do we need to economically justify the statement "no one should die because they can't afford treatment"? Money is fake. Make it work.
When something is tied to basic needs it's real regardless of whether or not it's fake in a particular conceptual framework. Because of that we can't ignore money even we want to. In our personal lives sure, assuming we have enough of it, we can prioritize other things. But at the scale of a nation we can't ignore it. At least not until pretty much everyone has enough.
The point being that if we want to change things, we have to approach them realistically. That sounds patronizing having typed it, but I don't know how else to say it.
-
Comment on ‘Unprecedented risk’ to life on Earth: Scientists call for halt on ‘mirror life’ microbe research in ~science
post_below Link ParentThis isn't in the OP article, I read it elsewhere... Not everything is chiral, which means mirror bacteria could theoretically eat some of the same things regular bacteria can (such as glycerol)....it's not unreasonable that they would have the same issue.
This isn't in the OP article, I read it elsewhere... Not everything is chiral, which means mirror bacteria could theoretically eat some of the same things regular bacteria can (such as glycerol). Meaning they could survive in 'our world'. An organism infected with those bacteria might be unable to fight off the infection as its immune system would likely have trouble identifying and killing the pathogen.
The pathogen, meanwhile, is happy as long as it has a food source. The bacteria wouldn't have to attack the organism directly, it would just need to multiply enough that it overwhelmed its host. It could potentially kill the host via its waste products.
If that were to happen, and if it could survive in the environment and easily spread, it could pretty much wipe out whatever it was infecting. If it was people, and we couldn't come up with an antibiotic that worked quickly enough, it would be apocalyptic. Even if it wasn't infecting people, if it was insects or plants for example, and it could infect enough species, it could precipitate an ecological collapse. Or alternatively it could just outcompete something important, such as fungus. It could take out entire forests by wiping out the mycelial networks. At the microbial level it's a constant arms race, lots of chemicals to kill the competition (think penicillium mold or the antibiotics produced by most plants) and mirror bacteria could potentially be immune to everyone's weapons.
I'm definitely with the experts, the risk is too big to be worth the possible upsides. Never stopped us before though.
-
Comment on 40% of new Netherlands housing construction halted by two-thirds affordable requirement in ~society
post_below Link ParentAgain I'm not weighing in on the affordability measures in this case, I was just pointing out that the source of the information was reason for pause. Without getting caught up in the fine...Again I'm not weighing in on the affordability measures in this case, I was just pointing out that the source of the information was reason for pause.
Without getting caught up in the fine details, the case that "the market" in the form of groups and individuals with huge amounts of capital can do a better job of solving problems at the intersection of commerce and basic needs is very hard to make. It didn't work in health care, it didn't work with prisons, it's not working with phone and internet access, it's already been failing in real estate, particularly where rentals are concerned.
By not working I mean not working better than the public, or more heavily regulated, alternatives we can look to in many places.
I think it's likely to get worse not better. Real estate is a reliable asset and they'll look hard to come up with a way to leverage it for profit through financial instruments, subsidies or some other scheme even in a weaker market. The slow but accelerating trend of private equity getting into real estate at scale predates the current housing market by decades.
And you could be right, a selloff could happen, but private equity isn't likely to completely leave residential real estate unless the government gets involved. There's a good chance that over time their stake and influence will increase. In the meantime they're definitely making things worse not better. If there's an argument to be found it's about degree.
Smaller scale investors though, without the resources to take over large parts of a market and then use government to solidify their hold, can do all sorts of good.
-
Comment on 40% of new Netherlands housing construction halted by two-thirds affordable requirement in ~society
post_below Link ParentThey're part of the problem in the larger sense. Publicly traded companies and hedge funds increasingly getting involved in residential real estate has been contributing to housing crises in...They're part of the problem in the larger sense. Publicly traded companies and hedge funds increasingly getting involved in residential real estate has been contributing to housing crises in various countries.
In this instance some questions to ask are how much profit are they looking for and are they being entirely honest about the degree to which the program really makes development unviable.
They exist only to increase profits, it's a no brainer for them to do everything they can to either increase subsidies or get rid of restrictions.
-
Comment on Ten years ago, one of the uber-wealthy predicted "the pitchforks are coming for us" in ~society
post_below LinkWhat I hope for is the conversation continuing to change and eventually landing on common knowledge that the biggest factor in nearly all of society's biggest problems is wealth consolidation....What I hope for is the conversation continuing to change and eventually landing on common knowledge that the biggest factor in nearly all of society's biggest problems is wealth consolidation. Certainly right now awareness around that where health care is concerned is increasing but it's also a major factor in housing, climate change, political and judicial corruption, wage stagnation and on and on.
Here on Tildes perhaps this is somthing like common knowledge, but in the larger world there's still a long way to go. If we do manage to get somewhere close to society wide understanding that will hopefully create an environment where Berniesque candidates have a shot at winning in spite of the corporate media and capital influenced political systems being aligned against them.
That said we've seen this movement flare and fizzle before more than once (occupy wall street for example). Propaganda is ridiculously effective at controlling public perception.
-
Comment on 40% of new Netherlands housing construction halted by two-thirds affordable requirement in ~society
post_below (edited )LinkA bit of context, CBRE stands for Coldwell Banker Richard Ellis and is the world's largest commercial real estate group. They are part of the problem rather than the solution. I don't know...A bit of context, CBRE stands for Coldwell Banker Richard Ellis and is the world's largest commercial real estate group. They are part of the problem rather than the solution.
I don't know anything about housing in the Netherlands so I can't comment on whether their affordability program is good or bad, but an article where the source is CBRE probably involves both an agenda and inaccurate or misleading numbers.
Added: After noticing that the article website has no 'about' page, or anything talking about who they are, I googled them. There's not much to be found. At trust pilot there are a couple dutch people saying it's inaccurate and 'fake news'.
I think it's more of a content farm type operation than a journalistic one.
-
Comment on Are DEI programs at work pointless or actually accomplishing the opposite of what they are meant to? in ~life
post_below LinkI think it's better to make the attempt, even if a lot of implementations are bad, than not to do it at all. I doubt many DEI programs are having the opposite effect. They're either increasing...I think it's better to make the attempt, even if a lot of implementations are bad, than not to do it at all. I doubt many DEI programs are having the opposite effect. They're either increasing awareness or doing nothing.
I look at it as a way of saying "this matters to us as a culture". It doesn't have to dramatically change people's minds to help change norms and impact the larger conversations.
However, you make a great point with your example of the white woman who grew up poor. Poor people are definitely systemically marginalized. You won't get anywhere if you disregard the struggles of your audience, which is something the left keeps making the mistake of doing with poor and under-educated white people.
Still though, better to try even if we get it wrong some of the time.
-
Comment on Legacy is a delusion in ~talk
post_below Link ParentI didn't claim it was canonI didn't claim it was canon
-
Comment on Legacy is a delusion in ~talk
post_below Link ParentBuzz may have started out as a toy but I think he identifies as a person!Buzz may have started out as a toy but I think he identifies as a person!
-
Comment on Legacy is a delusion in ~talk
post_below Link ParentHint: Lance Armstrong was a bike racerHint: Lance Armstrong was a bike racer
-
Comment on Legacy is a delusion in ~talk
post_below Link ParentLance Armstrong, Buzz Lightyear... you're right I can't name three. I wouldn't have guessed there were 12 either, all in a 3 year period and all of them American. Crazy.Lance Armstrong, Buzz Lightyear... you're right I can't name three.
I wouldn't have guessed there were 12 either, all in a 3 year period and all of them American. Crazy.
-
Comment on Legacy is a delusion in ~talk
post_below (edited )Link ParentI've never read about TMT but as you frame it I agree. We underestimate the driving force that is the fear of mortality and because of that it informs our actions in sometimes not great ways. By...I've never read about TMT but as you frame it I agree. We underestimate the driving force that is the fear of mortality and because of that it informs our actions in sometimes not great ways.
By avoiding it we can end up with neuroses that often come out in subtle, dark ways. Things that help us ignore it (legacy, spirituality, etc.) are a problem, even if they aren't inherently bad.
Adding: I don't want to give the impression that I'm saying that avoiding thinking about death is wrong. People aren't always in a place where they can handle grappling with mortality. Coping mechanisms like comparmentalization and spiritual bypass are a great short term solution for those times.
-
Comment on Legacy is a delusion in ~talk
post_below Link ParentI don't mean to imply that legacy, in and of itself, is a bad thing. Only that it can lead to contorted values and actions. Sure, all else being equal I feel the same way. We'll still be dead...I don't mean to imply that legacy, in and of itself, is a bad thing. Only that it can lead to contorted values and actions.
Personally, I'd much rather be positively remembered for my contributions and positive attributes for two hundred years after I'm dead versus immediately forgotten upon my death, all other things equal.
Sure, all else being equal I feel the same way. We'll still be dead though. Yes it will matter in some sense to others, but we won't be able to feel it, or share it. The identity that cared about legacy won't exist anymore.
Whereas while you're alive you can both feel and share the results of your impact. Which I think is more meaningful. We tend be better motivated when we can experience the results of our efforts. Also, living a constructive life for its own sake is likely to result in being fondly remembered as a side benefit.
-
Comment on Legacy is a delusion in ~talk
post_below Link ParentWe are all fated to succumb to the void. Each of us has to make peace with that, or not. Personally I think the finite nature of existence is a fantastic reason to get out of bed. I wouldn't lump...Why should any of us bother to get out of bed at all if we're simply fated to succumb to the void?
We are all fated to succumb to the void. Each of us has to make peace with that, or not. Personally I think the finite nature of existence is a fantastic reason to get out of bed.
Actions and legacy
I wouldn't lump these two together. My point definitely isn't that actions don't matter.
-
Comment on Legacy is a delusion in ~talk
post_below Link ParentThat's how I look at it. The fundamental meaninglessness that follows from impermanence is often talked about as a reason why nothing matters, which is valid. But it's just as much a reason why...a reason to appreciate what we have for as long as we're here
That's how I look at it. The fundamental meaninglessness that follows from impermanence is often talked about as a reason why nothing matters, which is valid. But it's just as much a reason why the moments we get matter more than anything.
-
Legacy is a delusion
Good things come from the pursuit of legacy, by calling it a delusion I don't mean to paint it as a fundamentally bad thing. To establish some context, I'm putting aside supernatural rewards and...
Good things come from the pursuit of legacy, by calling it a delusion I don't mean to paint it as a fundamentally bad thing.
To establish some context, I'm putting aside supernatural rewards and punishments like valhalla and hell.
Legacy for the purposes of this post is having an impact that outlives you. People remembering your name. A lot of people claim it as a significant motivation and, I suspect, a lot more people are motivated by it without openly admitting it.
The obvious reason being that it's an antidote to mortality or, at the core, impermanence. Chaos. It's a fear that motivates us all more than we probably admit because most people avoid thinking and talking about more often than they don't. It's the unnamed void that's always there at the edges, creeping in and reminding us every once in a while that it could all end any time. That nothing lasts.
Legacy, or the eternal rewards I'm leaving out of the conversation, is a big shiny counterpoint to impermanence. You might even call it a psychological coping mechanism. We all need them sometimes and a key part of their operation is that they're not entirely rational.
And legacy is pretty irrational. No matter what we do we'll die, and then everyone who knew us will die. Not long after, in the scope of time, everyone who remembers us will die. If we're Einstein then maybe people love and remember us for a few extra centuries before we become a rarely visited piece of ancient history. At some point even Einstein will be forgotten.
So legacy isn't actually an antidote to impermanence, it just feels like it if you don't think about it too much. You can't make a mark on history big enough to last forever in any meaningful sense. Which leaves its impact on the lives we're living. Does it make them better? When people wear t-shirts with Einstein and hearts on them does it echo back through time and give the still living Einstein a tingle? Does he get better orgasms, smoother skin, deeper relationships? I don't think he does.
He probably gets a sense of satisfaction and fulfillment from knowing that he's moved the needle. That he's leaving the world better than he found it. That's worth a lot, but it's not really about legacy, it's about impact. Something which is available to everyone all the time.
I bring this up because periodically I see legacy contextualized as almost a virtue. Something noble to strive for. To me it's a false idol, like fame, celebrity or wealth worship. It comes with a partially broken set of values.
Whereas values that arise from prioritizing the lives we're living and the people we're living them with seem to me to be a lot healthier and more fulfilling. And I think, in a bigger sense, more conducive to a healthy society. If more people are investing their identities and energy in values that give them a meaningful return without needing to achieve a particular level of historical impact, they'll suck less. If legacy is the goal, and you need to step on people, or neglect relationships, or put off mental health in order to get there, it's very easy to rationalize doing it. And if we hold the people who do those things up as ideals, we're tacitly telling society that it's something they should be pursuing too.
To put it one way, and digress a little, we'd probably have a lot less self involved billionaires if we didn't put them on pedastals and talk about them all the time. As things stand it's no wonder that so many children grow up believing that achieving wealth or fame is the best way to get attention. It absolutely is. Whether we love or hate it, we can't shut up about it.
Of course talking about wealth and fame brings in a bunch of factors that aren't necessarily about legacy, and I don't want to turn this into an essay about everything that's wrong with culture. But I do think that all of the above are part of a sort of package of self defeating values that we all (mostly unintentionally) play a part in perpetuating.
I don't expect we're going to stop doing that any time soon but I think at some point, between here and a future where we're not constantly flirting with annihilating ourselves, we're going to need to.
26 votes
I know you're asking for women's perspectives, but since the situation is about both people in the couple (the guy saw the texts) maybe a male perspective won't hurt.
The bit where you said you wanted to create a 1v1 friendship in the coffee shop would raise most people's eyebrows. Not enough to mean anything by itself but the radar goes on. Why just her? Do you not like the boyfriend? Why her in particular? I'm not asking you these questions, they're examples of what someone might wonder.
So because the radar is on, the private home invite is going to be seen in a different light. When she says she'd like her bf to be there the only appropriate answer is ok great. She's telling you the invite feels uncomfortable. "There isn't room in my living room" is going to feel weird to anyone without context.
When she said she wanted her bf there and you said no, that crossed a line even if it wasn't your intent. The situation, as far as I can tell, isn't about whether straight women in relationships can have male friends, it's about the way it happened.