So, barring any sort of collective action, which seems impossible as you state, what other actions do you suggest? It seems the peaceful avenues of resolution have been captured by lobbyists, billionaires, arbitration forums, etc. What is left?
547 karma · joined August 9, 2017
> Everyone is going to die eventually
So why provide healthcare at all?
I would argue that it is, given the semantic shift that "to have" has undergone.
“To have” historically has had a more tangible sense of holding or owning something in a lasting, physical way. For example, in medieval and early modern English documents, “to have” frequently referred to holding physical property or goods in a manner implying true, ongoing possession. For instance, the formula “to have and to hold,” found in English property grants and other legal charters dating back to at least the 13th century, specifies that the grantee possesses the land not just in theory, but in continuing, tangible stewardship. This phrase does not simply mean ownership on paper—it affirms the right to keep and maintain the property indefinitely.
Today, "to have" is more abstract, and implies enjoying a condition or availability. In modern English we often use “to have” for intangible states, experiences, or conditions, rather than strictly physical possession. We say we “have time” or “have a headache,” meaning we experience or hold a certain condition, not that we own a concrete object. Saying “I have an idea” frames “idea” as something you possess, but it’s more about the existence of that thought rather than controlling a physical thing. We “have a meeting,” which implies an event scheduled for us to attend, not an object we keep. Over time, “to have” evolved to mark various states—emotional, temporal, conceptual—thus shedding some of its older, property-focused sense and becoming a flexible verb denoting conditions or availability.
So, because we interpret “to have” as less tied tangible possession, the original logic—that once you eat the cake, you cannot still "have it"— doesn’t strike the ear as sharply when we switch the word order.
I would suggest adding a time marker like “then” (e.g., “You cannot eat your cake and then have it, too.”) emphasizes the sequence and delineates that the action of eating precedes the attempt at possession.
This is problematic. Who, but the members of a living culture, can determine any of these questions? My understanding is that most cultures are self-preserving, until they aren't, usually through conquest or other external forms of eradication.
AI could provide more human-oriented direction that focus on key landmarks and decisions rather than every minor turn. For example:
"Hop on 80 West, cross the bridge, take Sir Francis Drake onto 101 South, take the Alexander Avenue exit, don't go through the tunnel, and your destination will be on the right."
I imagine it's similar in the public sector, where funding is determined by the needs of the public, political considerations, long-term planning, and so on.
Citation needed.
Current polls indicate that "[t]wo-thirds of the public, including majorities of Democrats (86%) and independents (67%), support a law guaranteeing a federal right to abortion."
Source: https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/poll-finding/kff-he...
> Even if there's an opinion poll [...] that's effectively moot if they don't vote that way.
Weirdly, your own argument is rendered moot with that assertion. But I agree, it's important for people to vote.
From personal experience, while the constant messaging can be irritating, I've learned to reply STOP and move on with my life. it won't deter me from voting. I mean, this tactic is part of broader campaign strategies rather than a reflection of any candidate's merits.
This is totally a market-driven perspective, expecting quantity and quality linked to full-time work.
Not everyone aims to monetize or dedicate themselves full-time to their online interests. Pursuits can be purely for enjoyment. It's okay if they suck sometimes. Not everything must cater to consumer or market demands, though that approach is valid too.
Therapy can be a deep healing process or a superficial fix, just as psychedelics like shrooms, LSD, or MDMA can be used daily by some (suggesting a shamanic lifestyle, in my opinion) or lead to profound insights in a single ayahuasca trip for others.
It's true we shouldn't judge what works for someone without knowing them well, and even then, we can only offer suggestions. But when comparing, we should ensure we're not misrepresenting the situation, whether intentionally or not.
The fact that people from various political backgrounds find resonance in Carlin's words isn't a point against their current applicability. Rather, it underscores the universality of the issues he tackled- whether "PC culture" or "post-truth" narratives, we're still talking about the manipulation and policing of language and thought.
Moreover, the idea that we can't know what Carlin would have said about today's issues is beside the point. The value in revisiting his observations isn't in speculating about what Carlin would have said about XYZ today, but in applying his insights as a lens through which to examine our own time.
There are UAP interfering with military training exercises and in American airspace, and there doesn't exist a reliable mechanism to report these or to address them given the stigma around UAP, and there should be one for safety reasons. At the very least, I felt the pilots made a compelling case here.
Now, if somehow there were indeed crashed alien crafts, I wouldn't be surprised that private contractors and defense agencies would want to reverse-engineer these technologies to obtain a military advantage over other nations.
But there's no proof of this, so it's just an interesting thought exercise at the moment, in the realm of fiction.
Imagine seeing vehicles automatically moving to the side of the road to let an emergency vehicle through. Or the subtle nudges and lane shifts to ensure traffic doesn't reach a standstill.
It's a great use case for a hive mind ML/AI.
Also the argument that descendants of slaves in America are better off than their counterparts in Africa is problematic because it assumes that the progress of African nations would have been the same without the devastating effects of the Atlantic slave trade, which significantly hindered their development. Furthermore, it risks minimizing the experience of ongoing racial discrimination faced by Black Americans.
The idea of reparations isn't necessarily about compensating individuals for specific harm done to them, but about a society taking responsibility for historic wrongs and making a concerted effort to rectify those systemic inequalities. Reparations could take many forms, including investment in education, healthcare, housing, and economic opportunities for communities disproportionately affected by racial discrimination.
IIRC, this is how some tech is exempt from FOIA requests (because the tech is "private" even though the end user is the DoD).
After all, European history, culture, and heritage is still being celebrated even as its foibles criticized, so I fail to see how one culture's sharing of the limelight with another's constitutes racism.
The only thing I can think of is the chemical castration that is done to sex offenders or to treat cancer, but for the most part, this is done to adults, and not children.
Or are you referring to something else that would affect children of both sexes?
The proposed solution to the TikTok problem is the RESTRICT Act, with language so broad and vague that it would make VPN usage a felony. It may just be incompetence on Sen. Warner's behalf, but otherwise, it's also about an opportunistic power grab by the US federal government.