WalrusDragonOnABike [they/them]

  • 1 Post
  • 395 Comments
Joined 7 个月前
cake
Cake day: 2024年5月6日

help-circle

  • It’s not choosing inflation. As pointed out, it could actually be deflationary depending how how the money is printed. Funding services and taxing the wealthy are two separate issues. Taxes have nothing to do with funding services and are only used as an excuse to not have universal health care or to much on climate change, both of which could be deflationary if funded by just printing money and doing nothing is inflationary.

    Of course I also don’t think billionaires should exist because they are separately harmful and only are possibly with exploitation. So I don’t particularly have a problem with using taxes as a weapon to combat that symptom of the exploitive system, but it’s like using paracetamol to treat an infection - its just treating the symptoms, which might be important to not die immediately and to be able to recover, but ideally you also treat the infection directly and then form antibodies to prevent future infections or have other external chances to reduce infectivity. So I’m not opposing taxes, but generally they are a distraction from other issues and meant to bore people by forcing advocates of such policies to waste time talking about boring specific tax policies rather than building a narrative about a better tomorrow.


  • If you just print money to fund a program that has a greater return on investment (ie: schools -> increased productivity, housing the homeless increasing their productivity, reducing waste to “crime” and paying police to harass people, etc), then the money per real asset can actually decrease from “just print money” and have the opposite effect in the long-term (and if these types of things are constantly being funded, then now is the “long term” from earlier investments anyways).











  • I’ve seen others say comparing one person’s score over time can be useful. So like if you were a 3, but now you are a 5 something has gotten worse.

    Also, it can be one aspect of determining if someone needs pain killers apparently.

    But it was only after more visual inspection in the ambulance they immediately gave me morphine.

    Can relate. When I broke my left wrist, I probably would have described the pain as a 1 at the ER if they had even bothered to ask; instead they just brought painkillers to me (just something like codeine) after seeing it (the x-ray tech was a bit surprised they didn’t go with an injection). When I broke my collar bone, I said 2-3 because I was afraid I wouldn’t be taken seriously if I said 1-2 at the ER (if I had seen a mirror with my shirt off beforehand, I might have been a less worried about that).





  • I wasn’t disagreeing with that part of the argument or suggesting that were limiting the discussion to trans women for nefarious reasons. I was only disagreeing with the quoted part. Biological sex is also a social construct, so the whole topic of physically being a man or woman biologically is still in the same realm of thought as race science, so I think the topic is sort of questionable to bring up at all. But even if we want to follow that logical, some trans women have far more in common with their body with a cis women who have had a hysterectomy that they do with cis men.

    I’m also not suggesting that trans women need medical interventions to be women. Just that if you tried to assume some logic to actions of transphobes (your biggest mistake), then even if you excluded neurological biological reasons, then biological sex should still allow those that meet the transmeds/truscums BS ideas at least, yet transphobes still take issue. Biological here is just a dog whistle.

    Also not suggesting that said person would necessary disagree - my goal was just to add to the topic.