HelixDab2

joined 2 years ago
[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 10 points 3 months ago

I'm not sure how many men are able to realize when something they're saying, or something a friend is saying, is making women uncomfortable. I think that takes a certain level of self-awareness that a lot of men lack.

I know that I do. But I'm also autistic, so reading social cues isn't my strong suite.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

There's some --some---reason to not want women in front-line infantry positions. The combat load that infantry has to carry around works out to be over 100#, and it's a struggle to get cis-men fit and strong enough to carry that, and still ruck 20+ miles at a time without collapsing. Most women are unlikely to be able to achieve that, particularly when they may weigh only 25# more than the load that they have to carry. But, IMO, as long as they can meet fitness standards, let 'em serve in the infantry if that's what their ASVAB scores allow and it's the MOS they want.

Give that the new rifle--XM7, I think?--weighs more than the M5, and the ammunition is heavier, that load is gonna get heavier, and people that are more in-tune with the military than I am tend to believe that we need to get the combat load lighter, by a lot.

Honestly, most of it really comes down to Pete Hegseth being sexist.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

InRangeTV and A Better Way 2A.

I've met other supporters of both groups, and they've all been pretty cool people.

I'm strongly considering supporting Galen Druke's GD Politics now that FiveThirtyEight has been shuttered.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

It definitely does not. Look up Boiled Angel; I think that case was an absolute fucking travesty, but as of right now, it's still good case law.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Pretty sure that Alito, Thomas, and Barrett would be all-in on that. Not sure about Goresuch, Roberts, or Kavanaugh.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 26 points 3 months ago (3 children)

TBF, Pete Hegseth also doesn't want cis-women in the military.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 3 points 3 months ago

No. It's a basic silver PPO, and my employer would pay more per month than I do. And HDHP (bronze level) would have a higher individual deductible, and lower premiums.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 19 points 3 months ago (12 children)

There's SCOTUS precedent saying that pornography--but not obscenity--is covered by 1A. (Obscenity isn't very well defined, but it's generally understood to mean pedophilia/anything involving minors (including drawings), certain acts of violence combined with sex, bestiality, and possibly necrophilia. Other extreme sexual acts--such as crush fetishes--might also fall under obscenity.) You can't pass laws to unspool constitutional rights; your only legal recourse is either stacking the court with people that want to change precedent, or amend the constitution.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Many of the benefits of the state could be gained through minimal and temporary measures.

I don't think that's really correct. I think that a huge risk you take with an anarchist country is that other countries will take the lack of a standing military as an invitation to invade and take your land. Then instead of losing a degree of consent to a state, you lose all consent. (Could militias play a role in defense? Sure! But mobilizing and funding a military on an ad hoc basis would be very, very challenging, particularly when you're in a crisis.) Individuals certainly would not have power to e.g. negotiate on equal terms with a corporate entity that was organized in a different country, particularly if you didn't have some form of a state enforcing fair labor standards. But yeah, balancing the individual's autonomy versus the needs of all of the people is a tough thing. I don't have simple answers, because I don't think that there are any. A lot of theory is just that: theory. And taht goes for both capitalism and communism/socialism. The real world gets messy, politics interferes with economics, and people are rarely rational actors.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

The poor and middle class neeed large tax increases and the wealthy need to have their taxes lowered

Good news, that's what Trump is already doing.

Our outcomes are not always worse. It’s a mixed bag.

The only--ONLY--medical metric that we lead the world on is per capita spending on healthcare. In 2022, we spent an average of $15,222 per person in the US. The next worst country--Switzerland--spent about $8000 per capita. When you compare outcomes, Switzerland gets very nearly identical outcomes to the US, but spends far less per person. And Switzerland does NOT have single-payer healthcare. Canada spends $6000 per capita on healthcare coverage, and leads the US in most outcomes.

would require much larger taxes on the middle and low class

Yes, more in taxes, less (none) in paying premiums, co-pays, or deductibles. So as far as income in your pocket goes, and in terms of medical outcomes, you come out ahead in a single-payer system. Think about it for a second; what's your annual deductible? The insurance I can get through my workplace has an annual deductible of $7000 per person. That means that, aside from visiting my GP, I need to spend $7000 before insurance covers anything at all. That's on top of the $6500 I would have to pay in premiums. After I hit my deductible, insurance covers 80% of my costs, until I've paid a total of $11,000 out of pocket, then it covers everything. So I would have to pay at least $17,500 in a calendar year before insurance picked up everything. If I don't have insurance because I can't afford $250 every two weeks? Then I get the whole hospital bill for everything, which, in most cases, means people declaring bankruptcy. What I'm saying is that you can take that --OR-- you can take $50 out of everyone's paycheck (scaled to income level probably, and based on a risk pool of 330M people) and just be covered, period, no copays, no deductible, no worries that you're gonna be bankrupted by a hit-and-run driver that sends you to the ER.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 4 points 3 months ago (6 children)

We pay far, far more, as a proportion of our income, for medical care than any other western country, and that's when you consider the taxes that other countries pay. We also have, by far, the worst medical outcomes. Socialized healthcare costs less, and has better outcomes, than paying on your own or using private insurance, and allows for better control over ballooning healthcare costs.

Your belief that it would cost more proves that you fundamentally don't understand how medical care is priced. We're paying Bugatti prices and getting Yugos. We have hundreds of insurance companies negotiating prices with thousands of medical groups, and a handful of massive pharmaceutical companies; they simply don't have the leverage to control costs or negotiate better rates, and none of them have a risk pool large enough to make the costs truly cheap for every single person.

And, BTW, yes, I AM in favor of raising taxes. On everyone. Because we deserve more from our gov't than what we're getting. Things like a public education system that works, criminal justice that isn't for-profit and actually reforms people, infrastructure that isn't crumbling, public services that are owned by the public, and so on. Privatising everything has been a disaster; we pay more and get less.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago

It's funny, but motorcycle helmet work on exactly the same principle, but are designed to work at higher speeds (hence the greater amount of foam and the heavier shell). Very, very few people would ever suggest that a motorcycle helmet won't help prevent traumatic brain injuries and death in a crash; I guarantee that none of the top MotoGP riders would still be alive without their helmets.

So the idea that people would think that bike helmets aren't going to help seems so... Weird.

view more: ‹ prev next ›