jhymesba

joined 2 years ago
[–] jhymesba@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago

I've got some thoughts on this.

When I was learning about the world, some time in the early to mid 1980s, I learned something that was interesting to me. There was roughly 1 person for every year Earth existed. I also learned that that number was likely too high, and our life was about to get more complicated because too many of us were too hungry for the resources Earth had to offer.

But now, 40 years later, there is now almost TWO people for every year the Earth has existed. Now, every rare resource has two pops chasing after it. What's worse is everyone wants what they had in the 80s (a house, a car, a large yard, etc) without being willing to give up on any aspect of the dream. People who have houses fight against higher density housing. Cars get bigger, not smaller. And thus every individual consumes more than they did in the 80s.

What happens when supply goes down (because NIMBYism and rampant consumerism), while demand goes up (because there are now twice as many people chasing resources)? Look around you. Everything is expensive. Housing. Fuel. Food. Education. Healthcare. What could be done with a single income in the 80s now can't be done with two incomes today. World-wide, even. Japan, China, South Korea, Germany, Italy, Poland, Ukraine, and even China are suffering population growth rates falling below replacement rate because it's too fucking expensive to have a kid in this world. House ownership is a forgotten dream for young people these days, and even for me. I'm earning 6 figures these days, but even that's not enough to afford the down-payment on a house, especially with rents as crazy expensive as they are. Car ownership? In 2005, we looked at the costs of a car (not just the cost to own it, but the cost to maintain it, the cost to keep it fueled, the cost to drive it responsibly -- insurance, and the cost to store it) and decided it was too expensive to own a car or even lease a car. When we need a car these days, we rent one, and give it up gladly at the end. We don't run the AC in the heat of the day because electricity is too fucking expensive. And I don't know if the 15kg I've lost over the past 2 years was due to being disgusted with how expensive everything is, but...well, I am disgusted with how expensive food is. That's the one thing I can't escape.

I hear ya on the whole 'why did I bring kids into this world?!' A fun (?) thought exercise I like to do is consider what life would have been like had the wife and I had kids. Back in 2005, we were in a good place for having kids. She was working for CompUSA and I was working for Qwest, and our total income was 5x our rent, easily. We were finally settled down, and things were looking up for us. Then Hurricane Katrina hit.

Let me be clear. We were thousands of miles away from where Hurricane Katrina hit. New Orleans flooding did affect my wife as she has family down there, but even had Katrina made it to where we were, it'd just be a moderate rain event for us. But that didn't stop the massive corpo I worked for cashing in and cutting its workforce. We went from "you guys are doing a great job, we're going to hire you as regular IT guys" to "pack up your desks, you're done here" in less than a week. We went from on top of the world to filing for bankruptcy in 3 months. Had we had a kid in that time period, we'd likely have had to move back to Louisiana so the Grandparents could help with the kids while we went and worked minimum wage jobs just to try to keep a roof over our heads. I'm so glad we didn't, but that's a shame to poor 'Victoria', our hypothetical daughter who I would have liked to me. On the other hand, she'd likely have a touch of AuDHD like her mom and dad, meaning the next 4 years would have been hell on Earth thanks to Junior and his merry band of miscreants over at Dept. of Health. :|

None of this is to excuse the shitheads in the world. It's just...when you have twice the pops chasing half the resources, even the most well meaning of governments will be fighting rampant instability, which makes Authoritarianism look appealing.

[–] jhymesba@lemmy.world 17 points 3 days ago (1 children)

My comment to her is that we need to enforce anti-harassment laws in all spaces. I don't care if you're a man harassing a man, a man harassing a woman, a woman harassing a man, or a woman harassing a woman, the cops should come take you away and ... educate you why we don't do that shit in a civilised society. And you don't need to make a person presenting as a woman use the men's washroom, or a person presenting as a man use a woman's washroom, to make that happen! In short, you don't need to be a dick to people.

Fun fact. I saw a recent news article where a trans-man (i.e., born female, presents as male) went into the woman's washroom because the only free stalls were urinals, which he couldn't use. So he went to the woman's washroom to use a stall there, and got harassed by the police because...well, he was a man in the women's room. Except he wasn't. He was born a she, and in North Carolina, you USED to be demanded to go to the washroom of your birth gender, and they're trying to force that back in again, after it was partially repealed and allowed to expire back in 2020.

It's not about protecting women. If it was, they'd just enforce the laws on the books about harassment, sexual or otherwise, and be blind to the genders of the perpetrator and victim. But we can obviously see that this is about legally harassing transgender people, and it just uses women's rights as cover for the hatred. Your only answer as a transgender person to peeing is hold it...or pee yourself. Or move to a state, city, or country that doesn't treat you like shit because you would prefer to be the other gender...or not be restricted to the binary structure in general!

[–] jhymesba@lemmy.world 20 points 3 days ago

This in particular pissed me off. Soon as the news broke, here's me:

"Are you fucking kidding me?! You make the rich celebrities pay YOU, not the other way around. If they have to be paid to endorse you, then they aren't fucking endorsing you. They're making their down payment on bribery!"

[–] jhymesba@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

Obligatory 🤮 emoji.

Thanks for that mental image. I hate it. 🤣

[–] jhymesba@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I'd answer this with 'we rebase the dollar when a coin can't buy a thing.' It should have happened decades ago. Here's my worked example.

A penny used to be a lot of money. You could buy actual things with a penny. I'm sure our oldest contributors can point to the day that a penny would get you a piece of candy. In my earliest days, I could get that same piece of candy with a nickel, but by my teens, that piece of candy would be a dime or even quarter. I remember when a bag of M&Ms cost $0.50, That became $1.00 around the 2000s, and is now $2.00.

A penny sitting on the ground was 'good luck' back in the day. I think that's because you could bend down, pick up that penny, head to the store, and plink that penny down and get something in exchange for it. Today, you can't plink down a single penny for anything. You can't even plink down 10 of these pennies or a dime and expect to get something today, with the cheapest things requiring 25 of these coins (or a single quarter). Not much luck if you need 25 of them to get a burst of sweetness.

If we did away with the penny, would anyone lose anything? That's 5 seconds at Federal Minimum Wage, and about 2 seconds at my city's minimum wage. It takes more time to reach down and pick up the penny than you'd earn working a minimum wage job, so arguments about 'Oh, prices will go higher if we eliminate the penny' ring hollow to me. There is functionally no difference between $7.99 and $8.00 pricewise. Even a hike of a $7.9 priced item to $8 isn't a bunch of money. We're almost to the point where you can't buy something with a single dollar bill. The time for the hundredth of that dollar bill passed a LONG time ago.

[–] jhymesba@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Kooky answer to a real question.

[–] jhymesba@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

It's much the same problem you guys had in the 1920s. Hate is easy. Cruelty is the norm. Humanity, like the chimpanzee we're closest related to, is a very 'in-group/out-group' species. You're either one of us, or you're a threat to be beaten down and killed. Hate is easy to stoke, especially when things are tough. And don't forget -- Hitler studied hate-filled regimes world-wide before he put together his authoritarian empire, and one he studied hard was the US Southeast. Abuse of 'inferior' people was a way of life for them!

Standing up could get you killed in these not-so-United States, so a lot of us try to keep our heads down and be 'Good Americans'...

[–] jhymesba@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I suspect reactionality would prefer that servers be paid like they're paid in Europe and New Zealand and other places -- a living wage without having to rely on the generosity of the customer. And that pay, of course, will be taxed, because taxes are the payment for your government services, and Europeans in particular tend to prefer to have good government services, unlike Americans.

[–] jhymesba@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

...showing your prejudice...

Yeah. You got me. I'm prejudiced against the idea that people can do what they want, without consequence. How heartless of me, eh? Make it difficult for me to remain civil to you, why don't you?

Here's the difference between you, AnalogNotDigital, and me: You both have staked out opposite but equally extremist ends. Let me reduce your position to its core principles.

People should be allowed to do what they want, when they want, without any consequence for their actions.

No. No, a thousand times no. I am not going to sit by and let people walk over me, because I've already dealt enough with people walking over me. I have to get up and do my 9 to 5 every weekday, and moderate my drug and alcohol use to a level that I can function in my job, to keep a roof over my head and food on the table. In no world will "in my opinion we should do literally nothing about them being there" be a valid option to tent cities with rampant drug and alcohol use.

To make this more stark, you engage in the same duplicitous and dishonest debate tactics the Right uses. Because of course if I want accountability for people, I must want homeless people starving in the streets. Let me make this clear for you. I want housing to be available to everyone. Said so multiple times, in fact, in this thread alone. But that housing needs to be contingent on people getting clean and becoming productive members of society to the extent their clean selves can be. I do not support any demand that unhoused people be swept in order to partake of Proposition 1 funding. That's what I expressed in my second paragraph. I guess you skipped that in your rush to attack me for my first paragraph.

News flash, pal. I stand by what I said in that first paragraph. You do not have a right to society subsidising your drug and alcohol habit. You DO have a right to housing, but that right has a responsibility of putting your labour in for society. Your access to transitional housing should be contingent on you getting clean if you have a drug or alcohol problem. It should be clear that the alternative you are proposing, living a drugged, drunk life in a vermin-filled tent on public space, is not an option. If you put the effort in, we give you the carrot of subsidised housing to allow you to get back on your feet and make your way into the workforce. If you decide that's too much effort, then the stick comes out until you rethink your bad decision and go after the carrot. That's been my position all along, and I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth and bald-faced lying (no homelessness in the 19th century?! History lessons for you). No solution is complete without both the carrot and the stick, because people are jerks and will take advantage of you the first chance they get. There are jerks who are looking to take advantage of homeless people with the Stick Only approach. Then there are gullible fools who will be taken advantage of by some homeless people because they want the Carrot Only approach. I'm advocating for both because I want to minimise being taken advantage here, and you're accusing me of being ... prejudiced and making bald-faced lies that only need a tiny bit of research.

So, in the spirit of launching personal attacks, I see your prejudiced accusation and call you both naive and an asshole. Good day, sir.

[–] jhymesba@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (3 children)

There will be people who will, despite having the option to be moved into housing, refuse to move there because they prefer the freedom of panhandling for money, getting drunk and stoned, and being nuisances to people around them. If you think they should not be dealt with, then yes, we don't agree, and you're just as bad as the people that say no help for the homeless and just want them swept away. There is a reasonable position, and it's not either your position or Newsom's position.

[–] jhymesba@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Except that's not what WoodScientist said. He didn't say that wanting to end dangerous homeless encampments is fascist. He said that doing something just for the sake of doing something without careful thought is a key aspect of fascist thinking. "Act first and fuck the thinking" is how Fascists work, attacking rationality and denying thought in order to suppress their followers ability to see through the lies Fascism clinks to. Fascist thinking doesn't mean you're a fascist, though. It just means that you're prone to accept Fascism if you continue to think like a fascist, and at a minimum, you're going to make a bad decision.

Again. I don't disagree with the notion of "no, we're not going to let you live on the streets and harass your neighbours." I do think that it should be paired with things like expanding housing in all forms and making it easier for people to get on their feet, however. And I don't think a strong-arm tactic of denying the funding for those positive things to compel communities to adopt your hard ball tactics is something I want to see somebody on my side doing. Those are Trump tactics. Leave them to Trump.

[–] jhymesba@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I definitely get what you're saying here, but I think you've overblown what you see as the issue.

Housing is DEFINITELY the issue itself. Many homeless people get started on the path to mental and drug abuse issues when that paycheque doesn't go far enough to pay the bills. Student Loans. Car Notes. Rent. Food. All get more and more expensive, making it harder to be a productive member of society, and meanwhile, pay stays criminally low. Until you watch as your landlord kicks you out, with a few dollars to your name and hundreds or even thousands of dollars of bills screaming for those few bills, and watch as everything you ever owned gets thrown out on the lawn and then stolen because you can't protect any of it, and then some shadowy figure offers you a hit of the good stuff to make you just forget the fact that society considers you a failure, you can't know how hard it is to deal with this situation unless you have a tiny bit of empathy.

I'm not saying we should tolerate this. I'm saying that we need to address the real root causes: costs are so high while pay is so low, and get people into housing again, with the understanding that drugging up and being a 'free spirit' on the back of somebody else's labour isn't an option. But saying housing isn't an issue shows you don't actually understand the problem. Please rethink that.

 

A few snippets from the article:

“They gave her some medication, but they didn’t do any tests, didn’t do any CT scans. If they did, they would have caught it,” Newkirk said.

Who said that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? How much would the CT scan have cost?

Smith ended up being taken to the hospital where she worked. A CT scan revealed multiple blood clots in her brain. Unfortunately, there was nothing doctors could do, and Smith was declared brain dead.

A mother and wife lost because the hospital wanted to skimp out on the diagnostic that might have saved her.

More than 90 days later, Smith’s family, including her young son, is still by her side as she remains on life support, but they say they weren’t given any say in her case because of Georgia’s heartbeat law. The law bans abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, typically around 6 weeks into pregnancy.

90 days out of a possible 220 or so days. How much has it cost to keep her alive since her brain death, and how much is it going to cost to keep her alive for 130 more days? And remember, it's not just $, but emotional health for her boyfriend, mother, son, and anyone else not mentioned/interviewed.

“She’s pregnant with my grandson, but my grandson may be blind, may not be able to walk, wheelchair bound. We don’t know if he’ll live once she has him,” Newkirk said. “It should have been left up to the family.”

And all of this for a baby that is likely to suffer major medical issues due to gestating in a brain-dead, possibly otherwise compromised body, hooped up on medication and other medical intervention to preserve the body's life long enough for the baby to be born, possibly severely compromised itself.

Newkirk says she wants people to understand the human toll of Georgia’s law and the emotional weight of being stripped of medical decision-making during a crisis.

But of course Cons don't give a shit about this. Woman dies, leaving behind a son, mother, boyfriend, and countless friends? Nah, that's not important. BABY MUST BE BORN, no matter how injured gestating in a body like that will make it, making the baby a burden on other people, because GAWD'S WILL and bullshit like that. :|

 

Wealthy business leaders are turning on US President Donald Trump over his plan to impose a colossal set of tariffs on America’s trading partners, as losses mount on stock markets around the world.

Yeah, because of course they are. I mean, it's not like they could have POSSIBLY known how bad the shitgibbon would shit the bed, right? RIGHT?!

 

Bradley Bartell's wife, Camila Muñoz, is a Peruvian citizen who overstayed her initial visa but was working toward obtaining permanent residency in the United States.

Despite the couple's ordeal, Bartell still supports Trump, who has vowed to conduct the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history. "I don't regret the vote," Bartell told Newsweek in an exclusive statement.

We like to think that the Trumpers just need to experience the consequences of their actions to be reachable, and indeed some do. But there are lots more who will be like this guy. "Sucks that my wife's face got ate by leopards, but I wanna see all the illegals get their faces eaten." Unaware that his face may be next, but if it does happen, he'll insist the leopards were all Democrats.

 

"I'm trying to figure out what leverage we actually have," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said at a press briefing this month. "What leverage do we have? Republicans have repeatedly lectured America — they control the House, the Senate and the presidency. It's their government."

I'm going to go a bit out on a limb here and say that you should be out there, constantly emphasising that 'it's their government', day in, and day out, on every news channel that will have you, including left-wing stalwarts like TYT and more centrist rags like MSNBC, and pair that with "this is what you voted for when you voted third party or stayed home, to say nothing of directly voting for this mess," and "Vote Democrat between now and 2026 and we'll hold this administration accountable, " and "We will use every tool in our toolbox to slow this down, including every parliamentary trick we can find to gum up the works in both the House and Senate, as well as the simplest act of voting NO on everything that comes out of this administration. The GQP has enough votes to do this on their own, so we're not helping them, one bit. We don't help people that think of us as baby-eating, baby-fucking Satan worshippers, and we especially don't help the dismantling of the US system of government!"

But that's just me. And yes, I'd totally be calling them the 'GQP' and calling out their bullshit opinions of people on my side of the political aisle. Enough going high. It's time to call them out for what they are. Idiots with a hefty dose of asshattery on the side.

 

The “Uncommitted” movement seeking a change in the Democratic Party’s approach to the war in Gaza on Thursday announced it is not ready to support Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris — while urging voters not to back Republican nominee Donald Trump or third-party candidates who could help Trump win the November election.

The “Uncommitted” group “opposes a Donald Trump presidency, whose agenda includes plans to accelerate the killing in Gaza while intensifying the suppression of anti-war organizing,” the statement continues. Additionally, the group is “not recommending a third-party vote in the Presidential election, especially as third party votes in key swing states could help inadvertently deliver a Trump presidency given our country’s broken electoral college system.”

 

This time around, the US has seized a network of Russian-run internet domains, and sanctioned ten people including Margarita Simonyan, editor-in-chief of RT (formerly Russia Today), for “activities that aim to deteriorate public trust in our institutions”. Sanctions include freezing any property or assets in the US, and potentially restrictions on any US citizen or company that works with them.

Here are five key features of Russian information manipulation we identified, and which can help understand the latest election-meddling scandal.

  1. Using local influencers
  1. Fake news outlets
  1. Adding fuel to the fire
  1. Flipping the script
  1. Humour
 

Americans are deeply frustrated with politics. They see the country heading in the wrong direction. They are regularly forced to choose between two candidates they don’t particularly like. Between 40 and 50 percent of the country identifies not as Democrat or Republican but as independent.

Here is what it takes to get on the ballot in Pennsylvania. Read through that, noting the difference between candidates for “political parties” and “minor political parties.” Imagine you are thinking about putting forth a challenge to an incumbent state officeholder but don’t want to run as a Democrat or a Republican. What are the odds that you get tripped up by the rules?

The problem, of course, is that Americans have strong views about specific things on which they are often not going to be willing to compromise. The Forward essay criticizes the far left for wanting to get rid of guns and the far right for wanting to get rid of gun laws. But that’s not where the parties are, because the parties are responsive to the coalitions they’ve built. If you simply take some independents and sit them down — much less partisans! — you’re going to very quickly find a lot of important issues on which there is not a reachable consensus. Then what?

 

While rebutting another post here on Lemmy, I ran into this. This says exactly what I want to say.

I am not a friend of Biden's Administration. I think they drug their feet over a variety of things ranging from holding Trump and his goons accountable for January 6th through rulemaking on issues like OTC Birth Control and abortion rights, and yes, I think he's too quick to please big business. But then I remember what the alternative is, and ... well, disappointed in Biden or not, I'm voting for him. Because my wife is a Black bisexual goth woman, four strikes under Team Pepe's tent. And I have my own strikes for marrying her as a White dude, and respecting her right to not have kids since she doesn't want them is another strike against me. And I care about my Non-Christian, Gay, Transgender, and Minority friends, and will never willingly subject them to Team Pepe.

 

Saw this today, and ... well, I'm not going to be so forgiving to people suggesting to vote Third Party rather than vote for Biden. If Trump wants me to do something, and you want me to do that same something, that tells me you're aligned with Trump.

 

So, my thought here is that I really feel like this should be leading the effort to get Joe Biden returned to office in 2025. This shit really does scare me -- how efficiently the GOP has planned to do this shit, and how abjectly bad the Democrats are at bringing this up. Maybe it's because I'm not a political campaign runner and there's something I'm missing, but man, it feels like this would be IMPORTANT to get in front of the voters? What are your guyses' thoughts on this topic?

view more: next ›