By this logic fat shaming is acceptable?

I mean, yeah, in many contexts. For example, when a professional athlete shows up to training camp after putting on a bunch of fat in the off-season, that’s fair game. It’s literally their job to maintain their bodies and if we’re allowed to criticize their job performance then we’re certainly allowed to criticize their maintenance of their physical fitness. There’s obviously a clear parallel here between that and other public figures where their intelligence may be fair game for criticism.

More broadly, when people are engaged in unhealthy habits of any kind (from smoking to sleep deprivation to overwork/stress to terrible relationship decisions to unhealthy eating/exercise habits), I think it’s fair game for loved ones to point that out and encourage steering their lives back towards healthier choices. I’m not advocating that we go and make fun of strangers, the range of acceptable conversation in our day to day relationships is going to be different.

No, that’s not OK to mock people’s medical conditions, and it’s always a good idea to exercise some empathy and humility to know that things might not always be as easy for others as for yourself. But I’ve never been on board with the idea that fatness is somehow off limits, in large part that I don’t believe that most people’s fatness is inherently innate. Correlations between moving to or away from high obesity areas (most notably between countries or between significant changes of altitude, but also apparent in moves between city centers and suburban car-based communities) make that obvious that fatness is often environmental.

TLDR: I make fun of Trump’s fat ass all the time.

But because intelligence is an inherited trait

I don’t think this is true, practically speaking. Intelligence is like endurance running speed in that there are heritable components to it, but at the end of the day environmental factors dominate on who is or isn’t faster than another.

I can make fun of someone for being dumb in the same way that I can make fun of someone for being a slow runner. It’s only problematic when their slowness is actually caused by something out of their control, like some kind of health issue.

I don’t like the methodology of the study (done by Oxfam if you want to look it up). It attributes emissions to a person when it is done by a company they’re invested in. From the press release:

Billionaires’ lifestyle emissions dwarf those of ordinary people, but the emissions from their investments are dramatically higher still —the average investment emissions of 50 of the world’s richest billionaires are around 340 times their emissions from private jets and superyachts combined. Through these investments, billionaires have huge influence over some of the world’s biggest corporations and are driving us over the edge of climate disaster.

Nearly 40 percent of billionaire investments analyzed in Oxfam’s research are in highly polluting industries: oil, mining, shipping and cement. On average, a billionaire’s investment portfolio is almost twice as polluting as an investment in the S&P 500. However, if their investments were in a low-carbon-intensity investment fund, their investment emissions would be 13 times lower.

I’m of the opinion that we should look at people’s consumption behavior rather than their production behavior. When Exxon Mobil or Delta Airlines pollute, they’re doing it for their customers. Reducing the consumption from the customer point of view does reduce the overall emissions, so I’m gonna continue to reduce my own contributions to this crisis.

When a team loses a basketball game by 1 point, literally every missed shot or turnover (or blown defensive coverage leading to an easy basket for the other side or foul leading to made free throws) could be pointed to as the “cause” of that loss.

So yeah, if she were an actual better politician she probably would’ve won with the cards she was dealt. But there were also dozens of other causes that would’ve made her (or an alternative candidate) win, all else being equal.

And it’s hard to see how a better politician would’ve ended up in that position to begin with. The circumstances of how Harris ended up as VP probably wouldn’t have happened if not for the specific way that her 2020 campaign flamed out.

Budgets are approved every two years, so it just means people will lose their coverage in one year.

The budget process is an annual process. Not sure where you’re getting the idea that it’s a 2-year budget.

There are 2-year appropriations, but that’s less common than the default 1-year. There are also other multi year appropriations and no-year appropriations that don’t expire at all (agencies can spend the money until it’s gone, however long it takes). You can read about those here.

Either way, though, Congress needs to pass a budget every year (or at least continuing resolutions).

It’s a couple of different factors at play:

• Sales of this particular product are up and Fox News, the largest and most influential conservative media source, ran a story about it as if it’s a sign of the nostalgic return of something today’s old people remember from their youth.
• Most younger people correctly recognize that this trash is actually a bad sign for the economy, because it reflects a shift down market where people are opting to make this stuff instead of the more expensive option of restaurants or takeout.
• Consistent with worsening economic conditions, the price of beef in the United States is skyrocketing, so that the product itself is changing the label to recommend replacing the beef (which customers would ordinarily buy separately) with something else, like cheaper hot dogs.

The political and economic discussion is happening in the United States, and that generally means that it spills out onto the internet where national borders are less significant for where conversations might end up.

How long before we see that in the States?

We’re about 5 days away from federal food assistance being canceled for the month of November, so less than a week, maybe?

People like to use the example of Crassus’ fire brigade as an analogy for how corporate interests extract value from regular people in society. Crassus and his fire brigade would go around buying burning houses on the cheap, and then put out the fire for the benefit of Crassus, the new owner. There were some who believed that Crassus was setting the fires himself, but the extractive playbook here works whether he was setting them himself or not.

Are agricultural megacorps buying up farms with depressed values and then fixing them so that the values increase? Probably not. They’re in basically the same boat with the price of commodities, in terms of the inputs (water, fertilizer, labor, equipment and machinery, fuel, energy) and the outputs (wheat, corn, soybeans, etc.). It’s a problem for them, too.

Maybe they have deep enough pockets to ride out the current crisis and will have more to show for it in the end, but for now, they’re in the same boat.

Yup. That’s the playbook. DDoS this service by:

• Generating fake tweets and reporting them.
• Volunteering to fact check and do a bad job, actively sabotaging their data.
• Gathering information to doxx the people who run the site.

Bonus points for turning the wrath of this mob against MAGA types themselves.

There are basically 3 main systems for universal healthcare in the world:

Beveridge model: the government runs the hospitals and employs the doctors, and any resident may use the services. This is known as socialized healthcare, and it’s what UK uses.

Bismarck model: the government mandates everyone get insurance from highly regulated competing insurance companies (some of which might be government operated and run, and some of which might be private). Everyone is put into the risk pools so that the insurers will collect enough from the entire population, including the low risk demographics. Those who cannot reasonably afford insurance are given government subsidies so that they can be covered, too. This is what Germany and Switzerland use, and is sometimes referred to as an “all payer” or “Swiss” model.

National Health Insurance Model: This is where the government gives everyone insurance and positions itself as basically the monopoly/monopsony health insurer to cover everyone and negotiate compensation rates for health care services provided by private providers. This is what Canada uses. It’s also known as “single payer.”

The fourth model of health care economics should be mentioned, as well. It does not promise, or even try to provide, universal health care. It’s the fee for service model, where private providers set their own prices and consumers decide whether to purchase those services. Sometimes insurance can be involved, but the providers are free to negotiate their own prices with insurers, but might opt not to take insurance at all and make the patients deal with that paperwork.

Many countries use hybrid models that combine elements of the Beveridge Model and the Bismarck Model, with government providers competing with private providers, and maybe government insurers providing a backstop for what private insurers won’t cover.

The U.S. doesn’t follow any one model. It follows all 4 models in different settings:

• It follows the socialized model for the military and veterans affairs, as well as the Indian Health Service for Native American tribes (the government owns the hospitals and employs the staff directly).
• It follows elements of the all payer model for most employer-provided health insurance (employers of a certain size are required to provide optional health insurance) and there are the ACA exchanges, where private insurance is highly regulated and is generally required to provide coverage to anyone who a>!!<pplies, and pays providers based on negotiated prices (and since 2021 providers can’t go after the patient for the difference if they don’t like how much the insurer pays).
• It follows elements of the single payer model for the elderly, through universal Medicare coverage for those over 65. Medicare is the elephant in the room for negotiating prices and procedures, and providers generally don’t want to refuse to take Medicare because it’s just such a dominant insurer among the elderly population. For example, federal law requires any hospital with an emergency room to provide life saving services to anyone who needs it, regardless of ability to pay. The actual mechanism for making that policy is by tying Medicare eligibility to that policy. In theory hospitals could refuse to provide emergency medicine to those who can’t afford it, but then they’d lose millions in Medicare funding.
• But the fundamental default in the U.S. is the fee for service model. Providers doing patient intake will ask “and how are you going to pay for this,” ready to accept either direct payment or an insurance policy.

Turning back to waitlists for medical appointments, the specific type of payment arrangement in the U.S. is a big determinant for the waits. Providers who take the most popular insurance plans might get their calendars filled weeks or months in advance. Especially in lower population areas that are underserved by healthcare providers. (Side note, expect things to get much, much worse for rural healthcare with the DOGE cuts to HHS and USDA.) But in the big cities, those with higher paying insurance can generally get seen pretty quickly.

There is no universal system in the U.S., so there is no standard experience in the U.S. It’s fragmented all to hell, and not only does it suck, it sucks for everyone in a different way.

You might enjoy dunking on them (which is fine) just as long as you’re not actively pushing them away.

The easiest way is to enlist their involvement in dunking on the actual politicians, officials, and policymakers. A fascist movement relies heavily on a reluctant populace complying in advance, which is why little pieces of resistance can be effective against fascists. Humor, sarcasm, and outright mockery of the people giving the flimsy orders diminishes their power by persuading the public that there won’t be consequences for those who ignore those orders.

It’s not going to be enough by itself, but having the apolitical comedians turn against fascism is still a useful thing to have on our side.

That’s a misleading picture. Yes, the population of veterans did support Trump over Harris, but the population of veterans skews overwhelmingly male, white, and old.

Look at Pew’s 2023 survey. Among veterans:

• 28% are under 50, 36% are between 50-69, and 37% are over 70.
• 74% are white non-Hispanic.
• 89% are men.

Meanwhile, Biden probably won among active duty in 2020.

I suspect that if you surveyed veterans under the age of 50, you’d get a very different result. Or, if you surveyed the general non population but weighted it to be as old, white, or male as the veteran population, would the results be very different from veterans generally?

These narcissists would never agree to endure insults as part of a scheme. They’re also too incompetent to plan this kind of stuff.

There’s no plan here. It’s just always been an inherently unstable situation, with schemers who aren’t as smart as they think they are, all trying to achieve their own ends using ideas they don’t understand.

Old people, even those who rely on care workers directly, also rely on a lot of other types of workers. They need to eat, so some portion of the farmers, agricultural processors, logistics workers, cooks, dishwashers, etc. will need to continue to support the industries that feed people. Then the industries that feed people also rely on their own supply chains: equipment manufacturers and maintainers, electricity and energy, etc.

Simply being alive relies on the work of others. Broadly speaking, we expect there to be a ratio of workers to the broader population, including those who are not working: children, students, disabled, elderly retirees, etc. If the workers stop working, the non-workers won’t be able to live.

If there’s a one-person society, they basically will always need to work at least some to stay alive. If they’re incapacitated from age or injury, that might mean death, no matter how much they’ve accumulated up to that point.

So no, I don’t think this is a uniquely capitalist problem. Non-capitalist societies have dealt with population collapse before, but those tend to impose real danger to the non-working elderly, and not all of them survive the turmoil.

school gun team

This fucking country, man.

The marijuana smile cross skull is actually symbolism for 👊🇺🇸🔥which means “prayers up for our troops” and “we are currently clean on OPSEC.”

Seriously. It’s like looking at a map of a battle and assuming the arrows are actual terrain features.

The topic of the original posted screenshot is about inter-generational financial advice. I’m pointing out the need for intellectual humility when talking to a younger generation, by identifying a specific cognitive bias that tends to trip people up. And because this particular bias forms through experience, it tends to apply more to people with longer experience (that is, people who are older).

I thought my original comment wasn’t judgmental, and didn’t even purport to claim that all (or most) old people actually fall victim to the bias, to where they’re acting upon that bias. I’m just pointing out that it’s something to look out for, and to keep in mind, if you’re ever in the position to be giving younger generations financial advice.

Coming in here and trying to defend old people against an imagined attack is, frankly, off topic and not particularly helpful.

“Blame” means to attribute for some negative result. There’s no assigning fault here, just an observation, and an explanation behind that observation.

If I said “Bob is a fucking idiot,” that’s not blaming Bob for anything.

So yeah, I stand by my explanation behind the observation in OP’s screenshot: that people tend to draw on past experiences even when those experiences are no longer as relevant, or are even actively misleading. And that the phenomenon I describe (that not all prices inflate at the same rate or preserve the same ratios to each other) exacerbates the problem.

Please stop blaming “old people”.

I’m not “blaming” anyone. I’m pointing out the mechanism that causes a portion of old people to be out of touch on these things. They rely on their own experiences to draw inferences that don’t actually apply to others.