ObjectivityIncarnate

  • 0 Posts
  • 105 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: March 22nd, 2024

help-circle

  • What did you think about Mike Tyson’s face tattoo? Would you judge someone with 5 lip rings, 2 eyebrow rings, and their nose stretched on both sides?

    I judge people based on how they act, and nothing more. You should try it sometime.

    Personal choices like elective surgery make you vulnerable to ridicule.

    Only deeply flawed/insecure people go out of their way to ridicule anyone (especially going so far out of your way to collect photos of them to post on the Internet for the explicit purpose of mockery) based on personal choices they make about their own appearance.

    Don’t try to rationalize this infantile behavior, who do you think you’re kidding, pretending you’re justified in the least for this?




  • of course they wrote the article about the 25% that showed men were worse off.

    What do you mean “of course”? In the vast, vast majority of cases, female suffering is given more attention and sympathy than male suffering in the media.

    Remember when 11% of killed journalists being women led to a social media campaign from the UN about ‘stop targeting women journalists’?

    Or when 25% of homeless being women was the focus of articles talking about homelessness?

    Or when Boko Haram kidnapping girls generated massive media outrage, while them murdering boys didn’t? Even the headlines would make no effort to even mention the sex of it wasn’t female: you’d see “schoolgirls” or “girls” for the former, but just “children” or “students” for the latter.

    There was widespread outrage about sexism in colleges when women were in the minority of graduates. Today, it’s men that are a significant minority, and no one gives a shit.

    Suicide rates increasing faster among girls than boys is given more attention than the fact that boys are still four times more likely to do it than girls.

    “Of course”, indeed.





  • it’s such a serious threat to the country’s financial stability that we should chicken out and stop taxing the rich.

    No one’s saying this, this is a straw man.

    It’s just a simple fact that there is a ‘sweet spot’ when it comes to maximizing tax revenue. It’s the same as if you’re selling a product for $10, then 100 people buy it, and you assume that you’ll double your $1000 profit if you sell it for $20 instead, but then the number of buyers went down to 10, and now your bottom line is $800 less, instead.

    “Just tax them more” is not the simple/obvious solution it appears to be on the surface. Also, people don’t just not react when stuff like this changes, to protect themselves; just compare tax revenue presently to what it was when it capped out at (iirc) 91%.

    And even IF ‘turning that dial’ simply increased tax revenue, it needs to be combined with that revenue being spent productively, for it to make any difference at all. Hell, I think the US already brings in more than enough tax revenue to do everything we want it to do, if it was doing it as efficiently as it could be.








  • Yeah, this level of pedantry does no one any good, and just makes one come off as snotty and condescending.

    The ‘dialogue’ in the OP is the same way. 99% of the people who’d say “I’m a capitalist” define it no more specifically as ‘I like capitalism’, which in turn is typically defined no more specifically than ‘supplying what the market wants = profit’ by the vast majority of people.

    Talking down to people does the opposite of fostering solidarity.