VelvetPinkOtter123

@VelvetPinkOtter123@lemmy.world

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Forever relics⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  I might need it

  I don’t remember where I put it if I do need it

  But I can’t get rid of it because I might need it

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Left Wing Rage # Right Wing Rage⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago⁩:

  The Weekend is OK I guess, but Blinding Lights isn’t that great. Better than the KKK sure but I’m more of a Slayer type of guy

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Assmold fans being moldy.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  most of these of clearly jokes

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Rich people don't understand us at all.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I get that, and while that’s super out of touch with pretty much everything, to me, that’s the least weird thing about this

  Lets go with his logic and pretend we do need roommates for chores.

  Out of all of the chores he thinks I need help with he thinks it’s making my bed? Not dishes, or cleaning, or shopping… making my bed? And not even my own bed, he thinks I have a roommate who comes into my room and makes my bed for me?

  He thinks we all have strangers living in our houses to make our beds for us?

  Yeah it’s stupid as hell that this man thinks we have roommates as maids instead of people to help pay bills, but it’s even more stupid that he thinks the #1 chore that we would need these people for is bed making. And now that there’s a robot that can make your bed for you, that’s it? That’s the end of roommates?

  I don’t need a robot to cook for me or clean for me or anything else? Bed making is the end game?

  WTF is wrong with this man. This is all so fucking weird

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Let’s start protecting people instead of profits⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I literally had a bunch of my posts removed for saying this same thing

  Your problem isn’t capitalism per-say, it’s a government that supports corporations over you

  Doesn’t matter what system you technically have, if the government cares more about businesses than they do you, you’re fucked

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Rich people don't understand us at all.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  This is just weird

  I looked it up thinking there had to be more to this that just isn’t pictured here. We’re missing context or something

  I can find nothing.

  This guy literally thinks people have roommates to make their bed for them?

  Even thinking people have roommates to help with chores, instead of bills, why the fuck would he think the main chore we need help with is “making my bed”?

  Like I’m going to bring somebody else into my house so they can make my bed for me? My bed? That’s weird as fuck

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Anon has seen it all before⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  You know Uncle Tom was basically the perfect human right?

  That’s the point of the book. Pro-Slavery people use to argue that slavery wasn’t that bad so long as your slave master treated you well; so Uncle Toms cabin is a book about a flawless human who is also a slave named Uncle Tom that literally every single person who ever meets him deeply loves and respects but is powerless to stop anything bad from happening to him because he’s not legally a person

  If Uncle Tom sucked in any way the reader could always justify the bad shit that happened to Tom not as a result of his legal status, but as a consequence to his shitty actions or personality.

  It destroys in every way the argument that slavery can be fine if your slave masters treat you well and for this reason it’s rumored to be the book that broke the proverbial straw and kicked off the civil war.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Brilliant‼️⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I found articles from 6 years ago that says that uber drives have the choice to turn you down if they think you’re too drunk or obnoxious

  I would have thought that was always the case, but maybe not.

  So it reads to me that it’s not that Uber will be like, “he’s legally drunk, he can’t use our service”, it’s, “I went to pick this guy up and he was vomiting and his pants were falling down so I decided to turn him down”

  It should be noted I did not actually click these links and read the articles or anything, that’s just how it appeared. So, take it with a grain of salt. I might have read the articles except I don’t drink so I don’t really care

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨"No precedent in American history!" NYT would have defended child labor.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  BERNIE FUCKING SANDERS

  nbcnews.com/…/does-medicare-all-end-private-insur…

  Harris made a decision early in the race to run on single-payer Medicare for All, specifically a bill by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., that would effectively replace existing private health insurance plans with a souped-up version of Medicare that covers more than the current program and requires no premiums or deductibles.

  Asked by CNN’s Jake Tapper at a town hall in January whether she really intended to ban people’s existing private coverage in favor of this new Medicare plan, Harris didn’t flinch.

  READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE OR SHUT THE FUCK UP

  This is almost 7 years old now and you still don’t know this was a big part of the election? How the fuck did you make an educated vote? Oh I know, you didn’t

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨"No precedent in American history!" NYT would have defended child labor.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  No, that was literally one of the options the Democrats were proposing. It was a bill drafted by Bernie Sanders. There were other options, but one such bill that could be backed was one that literally abolished private insurance entirely

  Holy shit, how do you have such strong opinions if you don’t even know what was going on?

  Oh I know, because you never actually read the fucking articles

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨"No precedent in American history!" NYT would have defended child labor.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  You think you know more about Economics than literal Economic Professors and yet you can’t even figure out how an analogy works

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨"No precedent in American history!" NYT would have defended child labor.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  That’s exactly what flat earth supporters say about NASA

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨"No precedent in American history!" NYT would have defended child labor.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  They didn’t. The tweet says that Medicare for all would abolish Private insurance. At the time, this was correct. The Medicare for all legislation that was being discussed was going to do literally that. Abolish private insurance

  Then there’s a quote that says, “There’s no precedent in American History”. This is also true. Private Health Care, for better or worse, is a trillion dollar industry that employs over half a million people nation wide and makes up a decently sized portion of peoples retirement portfolios, never in this history of America has such a thing existed one day and been destroyed the next

  The tweet didn’t say anything about private insurance being good or bad. The tweet didn’t say anything about the abolishing of private insurance being good or bad. It just stated two facts.

  They’re talking about doing something that has never been done before

  Somebody who didn’t read the article decided, for no real reason at all, that it was a hit piece and replied. Then somebody else who didn’t read the article thought the reply was this epic sick burn (even though it’s stupid as fuck because it has literally nothing to do with the article) and then shared it on sites like reddit to a bunch of other people who didn’t read the article and left a bunch of other stupid as fuck comments.

  Here we are almost 7 fucking years later, and you’re all still idiots still not reading the article, still sharing the image because you think it’s relevant, and still commenting like you know something

  Worse, is that when I point out that it’s stupid as fuck to comment on something you haven’t read, you guys think I’m the idiot. That’s how fucked we are. You’re own comment proves you know clickbait exists and you still don’t think you should read the article before forming an opinion about it. That’s beyond fucking stupid. You’re stupid. You are all stupid.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨"No precedent in American history!" NYT would have defended child labor.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  It’s not an opinion piece on health care. Nobody said anything about if universal health care is complicated or not. It’s an article about the economic impacts of a potential sweeping resolution that abolishes private health insurance. It’s also almost 7 years old and no longer relevant.

  Are you an economist?

  Then why do you think you know more about this subject than the actual economists in the article? Are you a journalists who specializes in writing about the business of health care; particularly in how financial incentives affect the way medicine is delivered? Then why do you think you know more that then Journalist? Especially when we consider that the journalist in question has been doing this for the 90s and specializes in, “scrutinizing the financial interests of insurance companies and hospitals”.

  And the NYT in general is rated, “Leans Left”

  allsides.com/…/new-york-times-news-media-bias

  Funny how you know it’s absurd to think you know more than the experts when it comes to things like medicine or science but when it comes to economics you and everybody else in this sub has it all figured out right?

  Or do you also think vaccines cause autism and the world is flat?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Capitalism is an unrealistic death cult.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I don’t think Capitalism is the problem at all, the problem is a government that supports big corporations over small business

  You want to go to the store and see a variety of TVs made by a variety of companies all competing with each other for sales by producing higher quality products for less money

  The problem is that this is not what happens. Not because of Capitalism, but because of the government

  I like to use the example of NYC Hot Dog carts

  In theory I could pull out my grill, cook up a hot dog, and sell it to you for a buck. Why would you buy a $6 hot dog from the Nathan’s Hot Dog cart when you could by mine for $1? Now Nathan’s Hot Dogs have to compete with me, so they lower their prices or lose all their sales to me; capitalism

  But, the government won’t let me do that

  Now on one hand, that’s good. You want to know that the hot dog you buy is cooked well and cooked on a clean grill. If anybody could sell hot dogs anywhere at anytime the streets would be lines with hot dog carts and walking down the sidewalk would be near impossible. So you want the government to force business licenses on people, require inspections, and issue permits on who can sell where

  However, you need the government to care more about you than they do Nathan’s Hot Dogs. Let’s pretend there are four spots available on the corners at Times Square. If the government gives all four spots to Nathan’s Hot Dogs they now have a small monopoly on that block and can sell worse hot dogs at higher prices because people will still buy them due to a lack of options. It’s not technically a Monopoly because there are other hot dog sellers in NYC, but locally, they control Times Square

  So you need the government to not do that. You need them to make sure that all four corners go to different hot dog sellers

  But, you need the government to do their homework. Giving the four corners to Nathan’s, Ball Park, Oscar Myer, and Bores doesn’t really do you, as a consumer, a lot of good. These are four huge corporations and while it’s not technically legal we all understand that they could easily just agree to sell hot dogs for $7. Not that they have to sell them at this price, they just all kind of agreed to do so because they’re all greedy corporations

  Maybe they met up at a high-roller casino or charity event. Or maybe it’s just a simple nod and a wink or a friendly email informing the other corporations that “unfortunately” Ball Park has to raise prices on hot dogs and the other CEO’s understanding that this is a request asking if they want to do the same. “We at Oscar Myer are also in the unfortunate position of possibly having to raise prices to $7. We hope Ball Park understands”

  How it happens, I don’t know, that’s not my point. My point is, the government handed the corners out to major corporations who continue to price gouge and offer worse and worse products. It looks like there is competition at Times Square, but there’s not.

  Or worse, the government doesn’t do their homework (or they do and just don’t care) and they hand the four corners of Times Square to Nathans, Sheinhardt, and Williams. Now it looks like there are two small companies competing with a corporation. But upon further inspection we find that Sheinhardg and Williams are owned by Nathans and Nathans Hot Dog corporation owns Times Square. You have the illusion of choice, but there is no actual choice. The name on the cart is meaningless as all of them belong to Nathan’s

  So you need the government to make sure shit like that doesn’t happen. That Nathan’s and Ball Park get two spots, but the other two go to small companies that will actually force real competition

  The problem we have today is that the government does not want to help you, they want to help Nathan’s and Pepsi and Google. So the laws and regulations in place aren’t designed to hold them back and give you the upper hand, it’s designed to keep you from being able to even begin to compete while handing them what is essentially a Monopoly on markets

  So yeah, you can go to Best Buy and find rows of TVs all from different companies but every single one of them is essentially the same over priced piece of shit trash filled with spy ware and advertisements

  And yeah, maybe you do have the skills to make a TV without that shit and sell it, but good luck actually doing so. You need licences, permits, inspections, etc… you have to strike deals with Best Buy to get your TV on the shelf, you have to purchase licences from Netflix or Disney to run their apps, you have to buy licences from Microsoft or Apple or Roku or whatever for their OS, etc…

  By the time you do all of this, you have to cut corners to lower the cost of production and jack up the price

  But if the government cared about you, they’d make it so that those companies can’t do that shit to you. They’d work with you to encourage you to make a better TV

  But you don’t have enough money to grease the right palms in congress

  So Capitalism isn’t your problem, a government that doesn’t care about small business is

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨"No precedent in American history!" NYT would have defended child labor.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  The article doesn’t say any of that

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨"No precedent in American history!" NYT would have defended child labor.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Aw man, if only you had actually read the article…

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨"No precedent in American history!" NYT would have defended child labor.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Oh shit, you figured it out. They also get paid by NASA to lie about the shape of the earth. And vaccines cause autism. The news is all lies and literally every single person on the planet is in on it. Journalists, publishers, professors at universities, EVERYBODY!!!

  Thank God for random people on the internet that know to never trust the experts or read any articles because they already have all of the answers. Live in a world full of those people is awesome!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨"No precedent in American history!" NYT would have defended child labor.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  They do, and the article talks about that

  You did read the article before forming an opinion about it right? Right???

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨"No precedent in American history!" NYT would have defended child labor.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  It’s not. The people in this sub didn’t read the article, they’re just reacting to the headline

  It’s a 7 year old news article about the potential economic impacts of proposed sweeping reforms to health care in the United States.

  It’s literally just an article for economists and investors about potential changes to the market

  The quote isn’t even the focus of the article, it’s just one guy pointing out that there’s really nothing to base our predictions on because nothing like these proposed changes has happened before. Health Care is a trillion dollar industry that employs over half a million people nation wide and these companies stocks are popular among retirement accounts.

  Nobody is saying single-payer health care is bad, in fact the article even points out the positives, it’s questioning what happens to peoples retirements funds and jobs and what impact would that have on the market as a whole and the economy in both the long and short term

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨"No precedent in American history!" NYT would have defended child labor.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  It’s not on the same topic of the article as all

  The article is about the potential impact on the economy, not if private health care is good or bad

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨"No precedent in American history!" NYT would have defended child labor.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  No, it’s not. I actually read the article so I know what’s it’s actually about

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨"No precedent in American history!" NYT would have defended child labor.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Which is why you don’t react to headlines

  You hunt down the article, read it, understand the context, and then comment

  You are stupid if you react to headlines and doubly so if you know headlines are designed to drawn an emotional response but still fall for it

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨"No precedent in American history!" NYT would have defended child labor.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m just telling you what the article said. You still didn’t try to look it up and read it through, and yet you responded anyway.

  Incredible

  had you looked it up you would have seen that they did indeed talk about other countries and tried to imagine how this all might play out depending on which model the US adapts or if we take some kind of hybrid approach

  But I mean, who needs to listen to an expert in the field of economics when you can just pretend like you already know everything? Stay stupid

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨"No precedent in American history!" NYT would have defended child labor.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  It makes her response idiotic because it has nothing to do with the article

  The article isn’t pro, or anti, anything. It’s 8 years old, probably around the time of the presidential election, and so, in context, it was a question of, “what if Biden wins and actually does get rid of privatized health care, what would that look like to everyday people and the economy?”

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨"No precedent in American history!" NYT would have defended child labor.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Oh cool, so where did you get your degree in economics from?

  You act like this is something I said when in reality it’s what the economists in the article said.

  Considering you didn’t understand that I am leaning towards the idea that you’re an idiot.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨"No precedent in American history!" NYT would have defended child labor.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  This is like 7 or 8 years old now but more importantly, it’s just a statement of fact, not an argument

  Wtf is wrong with you guys where you just assume every statement is some kind of personal dig?

  The article asks Economists about their predicted impact of switching to universal healthcare to every day people beyond the treatment they get. For example, what happens to all of the people who work for these private insurance companies? What about retirement plans? Lots of people have retirement plans based on stocks. How much of their retirement stock money is tied up in private insurance companies?

  It’s not an argument for, or against, anything. Just literally someone asking an Economist, lets pretend we made this change tomorrow, what would the impact be?

  And the answer is, “we don’t know because nothing like this has ever happened in the United States before”

  Typically Economists can look at past events to predict what an upcoming event would look like. But there’s literally nothing close to this that’s ever taken place so while they can all guess it’s literally just that, a guess. There’s nothing in the past to compare it to

  And this question gets more complicated when we ask what exactly the change would be. Should it be a slow, incremental change, or a sweeping set of legislation that makes massive changes seemingly overnight? Is the government ready to provide this coverage or would it find itself overwhelmed and unable to provide service fast enough and so needs time to build internal infrastructure?

  It’s just information.

  The person who commented is a fucking idiot who clearly didn’t read the article and you’re all idiots for going along with her shit before reading the article yourselves too

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨business is business⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  It can

  I don’t run a nature magazine, AI will do just fine for my Azure profile picture

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨business is business⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  She’s probably mad AI can take a shitty photo I took myself with my phone and make it look professional and I no longer need her

  I wouldn’t mind paying someone like her if it was reasonable. It’s not reasonable, so I don’t hire her. I still need photos though. AI can do it for free? OK.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Flat earthers⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  According to flat earth supporters, if the earth were moving in any way at all you would feel it. Since we don’t feel any motion obviously the earth is stationary