They need the spot. They need it. RIGHT NOW! CAN’T YOU SEE THEIR BLINKER ON AS THEY BLOCK THE ISLE?! BEEP… BEEP BEEP BEEP THEY NEED IT NOOOOOOOWWWWWWWE WHY AREN’T YOU MOVIIIIIIINNNNNNGGGGGG BEEEEEEEEP
Weed/drugs. You do you, but shut the fuck up about it. I don’t need to know why you think it needs to be legalized and all of the “health” benefits it offers. Just smoke your weed and be happy about it.
yeah i think any problem anyone has with the law should just be ignored
shit i thought when only white heterosexual men could vote was a good thing. turns out non white heterosexual people disagreed. god thats annoying that they talk about wanting rights and stuff.
just live under threat of prosecution and be happy dumbass.
God, this thread is a breath of fresh air. Every time the topic came up on reddit, you had the same core of bitter whiny losers reciting the same archetype of the rejected and resentful guy stuck at home while his GF was out ‘cheating’ on him, and insisting that this was the reality in every single case.
I’m mono myself, but it’s nice to read various experiences here of poly relationships.
I personally think i’m too selfish to survive in a poly environment though, and also I’m not really that interesting of a person in general - preferring time alone mostly.
Poly requires a ton of trust and communication, so for me it would fall down quickly with the wrong kind of partner(s)… especially as it takes me a while to trust others
I actually consider myself a selfish person. But I experience huge amounts of compersion. It makes me so happy when good things happen to the people I care about. It’s selfish of me to want more than one partner and to revel in my wife’s other relationship. But I’ll be damned if senseless or traditional moralizing is going to stop me from being or making people happy.
B is also dating J, who lives in a big complicated house with lots of people, including their partner K.
Separately, C is dating X.
X is married to Y; X is also dating Z.
I don’t know Y or K well enough to know if they have other partners, but I suspect so.
No, I am not dating anyone on this list.
As far as I’m aware, there’s no current polycule link between AB and C; nor between any of them and me.
Everyone in this list is in their 30s or 40s, and almost all are some flavor of queer; at least two are also trans. There are no kids in the picture, although we know other poly people in the neighborhood who do have kids.
It’s all quite cheerful and civilized. Compersion is totally a thing. Also, fortunately people’s food preferences aren’t complicated when everyone’s over for dinner. If anybody starts dating someone who doesn’t like mushrooms, that’s gonna be a problem.
I’m not at the moment, but if I were dating, it would be within a poly-friendly social context. I’m not in this space by accident; it’s actually what makes sense to me.
I should really think more about compersion. It’s an idea that I think and talk about frequently, but it’s a term my brain hasn’t yet held for the long term. But I have huge amounts of compersion. I get so excited when good things happen to the people I care about. Our polyamory thrives on how happy it makes me to see my wife in that happy, lovey way with someone. I am just as delighted that my best friend was recently promoted to AM as I am that I was promoted to key lead with her. Compersion is a big part of my life that I should give more space and respect to express itself.
I’ll tell you what. When I was young, the idea of (ethically) dating more than one person seemed interesting and exciting.
I’m 40, and just reading about X’s part in this had me recoiling in horror at the amount of work it would be to be married and dating two other people. I hope they’re unemployed or part time, because those relationships sound like a full-time job.
As that’s assuming every partner gets the same amount of attention as in a mono relationship, but your partner(s) has other partners, they can hang out with someone else when you are busy or need some time for yourself. How much time you spend with your partner(s) is very flexible.
In fact, in my polycule, people tend to actually get more alone time, because you are not the sole person fulfilling your partner’s romantic needs. It’s remarkably flexible, and, while it may need some planning and/or making sure you tend to your relationships, in my case it feels remarkably straightforward and freeing.
It’s a thing I like a lot, actually. Not feeling like I am the sole person responsible for someone’s romantic needs. It lifts a fair amount of stress off of me.
This flexibility means you can tune a lot of things, into what works for everyone.
Honestly – and I before I say this, Free Palestine – if you want to be a person who tears down a poster looking for a missing person, I think you should be prepared to live your life as a someone who everyone knows tears down posters of missing persons.
I think people have a right to privacy in the ways that don’t affect other people, but when you do things that affect others – whether that’s not cleaning up after your dog or anonymously harassing whoever hung a poster of a loved one by tearing it down – I don’t feel you’re exercising a right that I have some obligation to defend. Live with the reputation of who you are.
Again, I say this as a critic of the genocide in Gaza. Bibi Netanyahu deserves to be dragged into the Hague to face the International Criminal Court. At the same time, I still hope as many of the Israeli hostages are returned safely as possible, and I have no sympathy for people who are inclined to tear down a missing person poster and want anonymity. That’s not liberating Palestine, that’s just anonymously terrorizing whatever grieving person hung the poster when they discover it’s been torn down.
Right, the point of a missing person sign is to get help finding a person. You put them up in places where the victim is likely to be so the people who see the sign can identify them.
Honestly – and I before I say this, Free Palestine – if you want to be a person who tears down a poster looking for a missing person, I think you should be prepared to live your life as a someone who everyone knows tears down posters of missing persons.
I find it interesting that you felt the need to explicitly say you support Palestine, even though your opinion isn’t really controversial IMO.
This is not the first time I noticed this about a comment, it almost feels like people are afraid of being ostracized by “their side” for having a slightly “wrong” opinion about this conflict.
his business don’t depend on number of customer available
Clarify this with them. If the business does not depend on customers and selling a product/service to them, then it’s most likely a pyramid scheme/MLM. If he continues to be vague about what exactly the business is, that’s another red flag. A legit business shouldn’t be hard to explain, especially to people they want to ask for investment from.
Trying to be active in communities and filtering out communities and domains I don’t want. That way it’s sort of a reverse curated list. Not communities I selected to view, but everything except the ones I don’t want to view.
Reddit used to be good, we just reliving the good old day of Reddit.
Serious answer: why not? There’s no expiring date on meme. If it convey the funny then there’s nothing wrong with using old meme. Renewing meme for renewing sake is boring.
If I happen to be the doctor and it’s someone else going under I’d say “Okay, let’s get this leg amputated!” when that is NOT the actual operation happening.
This is single payer healthcare. Instead of the drama and cost of a million little co-ops of a few hundred people making doctor patterns Patreons there’s just one tax collection arm and one payer arm.
I want universal healthcare. I was thinking about this since maybe a town or community could actually get something in place while nationwide universal healthcare seems decades away in the U.S.
That’s where it gets complicated. Your employer pays a lot more than $100. Your taxes would go up and your employer could be mandated to pass the healthcare savings on to you to largely offset your tax increase. The Wyden-Bennet plan predated the Affordable Care Act and would have mandated that. Obama’s healthcare people were concerned that would be very complex and would go back on his promise to allow people to keep their current doctors and insurance. So we ended up with a huge expansion in Medicaid instead (which was great but didn’t give us the systemic change we really needed).
Or the employer would have to pay more to balance the system.
All the plans show a large tax increase which I am fine with if we keep a stable system. Doctors have to be paid, along with nurses and that isn’t cheap.
I think employer insurance is an odd system but I get why it happened. I just think it is time for it to die.
I think we have to accept everyone will pay more in taxes but there will be surprise bills if there is an emergency, no delayed care while you switch jobs or the plethora of stupid issues that come up when it’s tied to an employer. People need to stop thinking it will cost less. It won’t and that’s Ok.
You are wrong. Costs will go down compared to health insurance costs in United States right now. Might end up taxing currently uninsured more but for most will be less and folks in poverty will gain more than they lose anyway
All of them actually. The talking point from the right (in the US) is that is will increase debt on the federal level. While this is true, they always leave out the fact that no one will be paying for regular health insurance anymore, which actually costs American tax payers more than what single payer would cost.
It would be more difficult to find one that disagrees with what I am saying
I doubt you get much of anything for 100$ a month; I have a free plan at work but my employer pays way more than 100 a month for that one… which is a high deductible plan
Maybe if you’re on Medicare or you are ina blue state and you are one welfare and completely broke… but that doesn’t add up. You may be forgetting your employer contributions
If you are arguing that we have a lot of folks living in poverty and their taxes might increase a bit I believe that is a bad faith argument.
If you get health insurance through your employer like most Americans then the employer paid parts will also disappear… but folks are so uninformed that they can’t see it
Facts are not bad faith. Pretending it will not cause taxes to increase is just silly, and why we have never been able to get it passed.
People like the idea until they find out their taxes will go up considerably. I am fine with that but stop trying to be dishonest. The money has to come from some place to fund the system. That means taxes will increase.
It’s bad faith to lie about total costs. Period. Our current system leaves tens of millions uninsured (most especially children, and many more millions underinsured.
United States is a third world country when it comes to health care for the poor.
Total cost will go down unless you pay basically nothing for health insurance.
Here is a cite using the Democrat Medicare for all numbers. gasp! It shows 20% like all the other cites I have seen.
You are the only one lying about cost. Your claim is that it will cost be less and it won’t. It won’t cost anyone less unless they don’t pay taxes. Otherwise, it will cost them more.
I don’t pay anything. I could have the one hundred per month plan and have the 250$ deductible as well or similar etc, but then my employer would be paying like 600-800 per month I believe so yours is actually more expensive as far as the whole system is concerned.
It isn’t. You keep saying that but nobody agrees with you. I gave a cite that showed the democrats plans and all cost more. None show it being cheaper.
Taxes go up, but money paid to health insurance goes down.
And you’re already paying most of the operating costs of universal healthcare in the form of Medicare/Medicaid administration taxes, you’re just not eligible to benefit.
So your taxes will increase, but not as much as you expect, and your total deductions will decrease unless you opt to keep private insurance. Every analysis of the topic inevitably concludes that we’re currently using the most expensive method of providing healthcare.
You mention farmers. They already have co-ops. If you’ve lived around those communities you know people can get apeshit about a semi of corn that might be a little wet.
I wouldn’t want to be on the local board that has to settle the account for aunt murtle’s 5th round of lung cancer while she’s on O2 and still on a pack a day. It’s easier to set guide rails - actually moral and responsible ones like not giving liver transplants to people with bac - when you didn’t grow up with aunt murtle’s kids.
Reading into your intention, this is actually more like health insurance than single payer healthcare. Not quite a million little coops, more like a few dozen. And it would end up having most of the same problems of modern US health insurance.
You’ll need someone to administer the program, so you have to give them some power over your money. That means they’d need the power to say “no” to people who are seeking healthcare resources for invalid reasons–things like Munchausen’s syndrome at first, but eventually they’d have to make calls about things that people actually need but can’t prove they need, just like health insurance does now.
If you don’t want do these things, I guarantee your neighbors will insist they be done (ever hung out on nextdoor? those are the people you’ll be pooling your money with). And you’ll go along, because it’s a hassle not to, and hey at least you’re getting your needs taken care of most of the time. If you manage to keep your program free of capitalist influences, you’re going to have to fight corruption instead: “Slip me some dough and I’ll make sure you get seen next.”
So in time you just end up with health insurance, and most of its flaws, if you don’t very carefully watch the people administering your program, if you don’t very carefully fight against the perverse incentives.
The biggest problem, of course, is that existing health insurance would fight it like penicillin fights bacteria. They have had decades to do regulatory capture in their benefit, and if another group comes along that’s almost-but-not-quite health insurance, they’re going to make sure that the regulations they captured keep it from going anywhere, up to the point of trying to make it explicitly illegal.
I think we’re in agreement about single payer, but this ^ is how it benefits us. The government has actual power to fight corruption and isn’t beholden to capital. Now if we only had a way to create a just government.
Not saying it would work, but what I’m describing is more bite size than a full health system. So if a group only committed to “everyone gets to see a general practitioner” then people are on their own for MRIs and chemo. Figure out how many patients a type of practitioner can handle in a year, then pool that many people to hire one. Same idea for any other role, like how many cars can one mechanic fix a year?
I’m not married to the idea, but more thinking about how could we take concrete steps towards universal health care, other common services, democratic workplaces. If people see a micro version working then it may inspire more ideas, attract more effort.
asklemmy
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.