Yes. That's all very well established. My sole point since the beginning is that suffering does not create profits and that means "that directly profits off of human misery" is inaccurate and a low-effort talking point.
Personal injury lawyer? Can't profit without the injury. They go out of business if there is no misery.
Health insurance? Can profit without the illness. They can stay in business with only the worry of potential misery.
I don't understand how people see words on a screen that say, "this canned line deliberately taints discussion" and read it as "I love everything about insurance companies, they do no wrong. They're all the best and are totally ethical!" It's possible to nitpick rhetoric without being the enemy team.
You're arguing against something no one said.
For something to be a human right, it has to be inherent in existing as a human. Something that requires intervention by another person can never be a human right. You don't have a right to a doctor. You don't have a right to a hospital. You can argue you have the right to seek care. I wouldn't disagree with that.
I don't understand why people are struggling with this. I don't know if I should go with analogies or make it more abstract or what because it's simple as anything.
If you pay them and never get sick, it maximizes their profits. If your misery causes them to profit, how can their most profitable outcome be the one where you have zero misery? Conversely, you being as sick as possible is the biggest threat to their profits.
A sick person for whom they cover nothing is exactly as profitable as a person who doesn't suffer at all. The misery does not drive profit. It is the opposite of pharma, where they need you to be sick to profit.
Insurance doesn't profit from misery. It profits from a lack of misery. They want you to be healthy, they just don't want to pay for it.
Nothing you said is wrong. They still don't "directly profit off of human misery." If they take steps to increase your misery, they don't make more money. If you don't experience any misery, it increases their profit.
I'm not even saying they don't cause misery. All I'm saying is "directly profit off human misery" is nothing but an emotional appeal for arguing at stupid people.
There is no solution
We try to bug C or someone else at scored.co to add a new type of moderator role to the backend. One that can only delete posts from handshake accounts. This isn't technically very complicated and limits the possibility for abuse.
We don't really need full-on mods. We just need a couple of jannies who can take care of the one issue.
And yes, it might need to be more specific than handshakes because you can age your sockpuppets. Min number of posts or something else works too, but you get the idea: a way to deal with spam while minimizing the chance of turning into Reddit.
that directly profits off of human misery
Sorry, but this is a retarded leftist emotional appeal that makes no sense. Insurance companies profit the most when they never need to pay out. In their ideal world, you buy health insurance and never get sick, happily going about your life in perfect health.
You getting sick and being miserable is outside of their control. The worst you can say is that they profit off a false sense of security that they will help in the case you become miserable.
The industries that actually profit off human misery are ones like lawyers and journalists. FFS, you can more convincingly argue that surgeons profit more from human misery. They need actual sick people to make money. Insurance companies don't. They just need healthy people who are afraid of becoming sick someday.
That is not to absolve them of awful practices, failure to pay claims, lousy coverage, etc. But how about we deal in facts? Wrongly denying coverage is, at worst, theft and fraud. But the condition running its course is the normal state of things. They don't profit by making you more sick than you would have been in their absence.
a no one with 76 likes
Jon del Arroz's a sci-fi author who sued (and settled) with Worldcon after they banned him for the usual lefty shit. Has written some stuff on Bounding Into Comics on the right side of the culture war. However, I'll quote Larry Correia here:
So I’m told Jon Del Arroz is claiming he’s the leader of Sad Puppies. Since he’s always been a coat tail riding grifter, cashing in with a cheap rip off of something popular is on brand for him. He’s basically lady ghostbusters.
As the guy who started the whole thing, Johnny come lately wasn’t involved, and mission accomplished, the whole thing has been retired forever. Now he’s just another lame dork trying to profit off the work of others.
Him claiming the name of an old movement is just pathetic. That’s pretty much all I have to say about it.
Not a complete nobody and makes the right people angry, but also seems to pop up whenever there is some drama brewing.
I have to admit, that's a more interesting argument than most. When the original was low-res enough that it was effectively already mosaiced. I guess the anti-censorship answer would be to re-use the original asset as it appeared in the original game with the same level of detail.
I don't think they're analogous. I opposed DACA in 2012 and I oppose what Biden did with the Haitians. But there's a practical limit on how far you can reasonably go back. Trying to unring a bell from 12 years ago is a fool's errand and there's far more pressing uses for the enforcement resources. It's basically a work-visa program. Policy should be no new ones and if they break the conditions, they're gone... but we uphold the terms that were set out. And this is a sticking point - it should not provide any benefit to the parents. No special consideration, no rewards, no incentives for crashing the border in the first place. They get deported.
Biden's shit was 6 months ago. it would be less of a problem to go back on. But the easier route is to kill the entire TPS program and make sure that on Feb 3, 2026 they all have to go back. The only risk there is how many kids they can pump out in a year. Ending birthright citizenship is a whole issue of its own.
Anyone here on DACA isn't strictly illegal anymore. They have documents and they can work legally for two years. That status is [supposed to be] revoked if they are convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors. That already was effectively the amnesty in terms of looking the other way on the illegal entry.
The reasonable legislative fix is:
- No new issuance (get rid of the 2023 Dream Act)
- You can keep renewing if you're in good standing, while you wait for your citizenship application to be processed. With no deliberate "delays" in handling their applications.
- If you don't apply for citizenship or if your application is rejected, no renewal. Leave before your two years is up or get deported.
- No eligibility for any gibs. Including state and local gibs.
"Your parents fucked you over, keep your nose clean and you can stay while the paperwork finishes." And if they feel like being activists, be quick to find three misdemeanors. Bye bye.
It was a garbage policy to start with, but trying to alter it retroactively is just going to get bogged down in lawfare. Stop the problem going forward and no free citizenship. That's a decent enough fix.
I just don't see how they're supposed to control it
It's easy. Think of it like distillation. If you control the media, you raise the temperature just enough that the volatile compounds start to go off but the stable ones don't. More of the left is composed of loons than the left. And the the right is more likely to value rule of law and order. That's why they're on the right to begin with.
Soros has been enemy #1 of the right for decades. Quite possibly had more rhetoric aimed against him than any other figure. I remember a single assassination attempt: that guy who spammed pipe bombs by mail in 2018.
Make no mistake, the media is trying to make this shooting into a "moment" and the goal is killing anyone the left sees as enemies. They might lose one or two, but the violence would be massively disproportionate.
As a side note, consider the prevalence of preppers on the far right. They're willing to take action but only once order has completely broken down, so they fantasize about that scenario.
Archeologist: "The skulls were this shape."
Filmmaker: "What color was their skin and how prominent was the soft tissue?"
Archeologist: "We really can't tell that from the bones."
Filmmaker: "Perfect. We'll credit you as a consultant."
I'll move on because it's a waste of my time arguing with people who read things I didn't say into everything I say, but there's no "L" to take here.
Thinking you've "lost" because you're outnumbered in an online discussion by people who are wrong is kind of antithetical to this whole place, you know? Nothing I've said is wrong or inaccurate, but no use arguing with people who are emotional.