hfuyf65

It is hard to argue against this comment, because it is not even factually accurate if we accept framing as valid ( it isn't ).

Can defend why Obamacare marked government interference and , for example, not medicare?

Hmm? The mere fact that there is a space exclusive to women ( key word 'safe space') should give a clear indicator, who has super powers in the relationship between the genders. Men can't even create one without weird focus on exclusionary practices, but the same is done by women is that is hailed as some weird glass ceiling.

If there is an absurdity, it is in this type of framing. Imagine, men entering women spaces! Don't they know their place? Wait..

Some of what I am about to say is state specific ( in my case IL ), so take this into consideration. Income is a consideration for any help. Married couple will have higher documented income, while unmarried cohabiting couple won't. In other words, single parent ( on paper ) will claim a child and with lower income have a better chance of being in the low enough income bracket.

I have zero idea how common that situation is though, but I know someone who structures their life around snap benefits ( or whatever they are called now ) and its kinda ridiculous, because her monthly benedit is on par with our family's grocery budget. I struggled not to report it as fraud ( the person in question is not poor; they are using - abusing?- the system ).

It is kinda fascinating. I just returned from US roadtrip ( UT region ) and there is a lot of unused space. Remote could help with a lot of it were it not for 'old school management'( quotation marks, because that is the current PC terms for luddites ).

Its effects may be more visible, because in previous iterations society condemned children out of wedlock so data on it was not as reliable. Naturally, potential solutions would result in rather unwelcome dystopias that could be encapsulates in a phrase 'oi you got loicense for those kids?'

Or.. remove benefits.

Anecdote incoming. Usual disclaimers apply. I genuinely am not sure what true numbers are.

Couple#1

They are married for a good while with three kids. He is a cop in Chicago; she has semi-random kid watching gigs. While it did not happen, they did openly discuss strategic divorce to ease their financial situation.

Couple#2

She works corpo job. He works a cash only contracting job. They are married in every sense, but legally. Two kids. She would not marry for fear of losing existing benefits.

###

There are some benefits to being married, but the 'benefits of kids while not married' outweigh those. And you can't argue against those cuz then you are taking food away from the hungry.

Hmm. My point is that Carlin did not start with 7 words. That is what he is famous for, but he didn't magically show up that day to recors that line out of the blue.

I am too lazy to dig it up now, but youtube has multiple interviews that go over that stage of his life.

It is not that unpopular. I suppose I appreciate his contributions a lot, but I agree about the kernel of truth approach rather than holy gospel.

I just happen to think he forced a lot of people to think. This one of those things some of his contemporaries tried and failed to do ( not for the lack of trying, it is hard to care after certain point ).

Thank you. This is why I keep coming back here. I would not have stumbled on it on my own. It hits quite hard for me.

Disagree, but can you substantiate hypocrite claim? Also cancellation chance seems to depend on how 'big' you are. Chapelle wasn't cancelled despite attempts. I suspect Carlin would get in trouble, but since he had a strong following, it is hardly a given.

Sure. We are not threading new ground here; this has been covered better by people much smarter than me. I am simplifying for the sake of brevity.

It may help to think of it as a range.

Not yet, but if you watch early Carlin it is the same pattern:

1. initially safe,sanitized corporate friendly jokes 2. some commercial success 3. ? 4. jokes increasingly become a social commentary and are less and less 'friendly'

If they resonate well, it either means the population as whole thinks it is accurate or that the population as a wholr is wrong.

Either is possible, but I think you are wrong about Carlin being wrong. Language defines the quality of our conversations. If we can't be honest with it, some nuance will be lost.

He would have had a field day if he was alive. It is a loss for all of us that he is gone.

Still, we now have Chapelle, who is building similiar legacy and potentially Bill Burr one day.

Absolute agreement on the philosopher/jester vibes.

This censorship is in a capital of a western power. We can condemn Hamas AND condemn failing democratic society by not upholding basic freedoms that built it.

Another cat and mouse game. I got the same message the other day. I noted it, but also ignored it.

It is possible adblockers officially became mainstream. Part of me ia happy about it. Part of me is concerned companies will respond in the worst possible way.

Could you elaborate? I disagree just because of the basic human nature, but I am curious about your rationale for the statement above.

Anger is a valid emotion, but it does not advance the conversation or gain you adherents to your cause. Here, it will almost certainly do the opposite.

Just to give you an idea, you could have easily undermined the argument that reaction to Snowden's revelation was a societal shrug.

You are right about the argument in itself. It is poor. But the argument is not in meat of the argument, but in optics. The perception of things as 'rules for me but not for thee' almost immediately overrules even basic logic. In other words, make pain even across the board and people might listen.

That is ok though. He offset ( current magic word indicating its all good ).

And this is where the resentment came from as well. It was always well understood that HR is not exactly there to help you, but I know I personally snapped at one drone ( and eventually quit ) over those inflexible policies dictated from clouds above.

At the end of the day, you can always choose not to play.

edit: I dont want to name the policy as it may identify the company. It was a particularly idiotic one though.

<<What's so precious about "data"?

No one knows except the deciding party since someone else decided that you do not get to evaluate whether it is precious. There is a deep distrust in me for anyone who: 1) engages in that 2) argues that it is kosher.

< People wouldn't waste time, energy, and soundness of opinion from taking inputs and arguing with unknowns on the internet.

Right. Them proles should be working instead of entertaining ideas different feom what politburo in US is trying to ram through.

< Kids wouldn't be able to download abitrary apps that have overall negative impacts on their health

I want to be with you, but I worry that you wouldn't really solve apps issue. Would you be willing to elaborate on what exactly you have in mind? Absolute ban? Online id check?

It is pretty clear that we are diametrically opposed on the subject. I am continuing this conversation, because I think it is an important one to have.

In practical sense, how would one differentiate one from the other? The end result is the same: data is missing.

I understand your point, but I can't help wondering if you considered what could happen if that approach was adopted.

<<defining "misinformation" gets very tricky when you start breaking it down to local specifics

Would you not agree it is a strong argument against government wielding that kind of enormous power?

It is kinda fascinating is it not? A person genuinely clamoring for the state to carefully control what they they can say/do/think.

He almost died as well. It fits well in the quote op listed. Oddly, it even addresses your critical response: that it is easy to be a Tuesday morning quarterback.

Sure. But that is an easy snide remark that does not consider the simple truth that humans are fallible and, well, human.

For an example, I do not subscribe to any particular denomination, but on average I can see long tail benefit to society as a whole from people trying to be better humans than they were yesterday.

<< By "the people" you mean the leaving aside the ~600,000 enslaved along with all the women and native people who could not vote.

On cell so I don't really want to write a whole essay.

The poster focused exclusively on the excluded without considering that the exclusions that were made with defaults that do not align with today's values. It is almost like complaining about Romans severely puniahing their slaves for disobedience. It completely ignores the reality of the world the person lives in and judges them based on today's expectations.

The 600k op mentioned were not relevant to his 'constituency' or one he seemed to speak for, and, arguably, Jeffeson himself.

From his perspective, they were not more capable set of men.

It is possible to believe in something and still fail to live up to it.