It seems like several different things are getting intertwined here and people are arguing past each other based on perceived "sides" and largely imagined positions being projected onto one another.
You can have gender equality and feminism without casual sex. Many young people today, both male and female, feel like the current system they're embedded in is frustrating and unfulfilling.
Everyone's personal preferences are equally valid. We should accept that people who express unease or unhappiness with the current dominant cultural norms pressed upon them have legitimate feelings, rather than attack and insult them by suggesting their desires belong in "the 19th century".
Insults on conservative viewpoints are par for course. This one was pretty mild as things go.
I think the insults themselves have lessened the effectiveness of the message that people are attempting to convey, effectively dulling their voice to an entire generation of people who are may have a different opinion.
This whole thread really just makes me realize how severe our filter bubbles, echo chambers and distrust of "the other side" has become.
Nobody wants poor people to die and nobody has a religious adherence to "rugged individualism". If you go actually talk to people who disagree with you, instead of reading ridiculous descriptions of their motivations from people inside your bubble who hate them, you might gain an appreciation of their concerns.
I'm amazed at how 4 years of the Trump administration didn't result in Liberals becoming much more open-minded to Libertarian concerns about concentrated power in the federal government. How did we come through that experience without more people saying "OK, I get it now, maybe I don't want so much power and control over my life held by the white house".
100% correct. You hit the nail right on the head. People are dehumanizing other groups by refusing to actually speak with them. This makes it easier for them to discriminate against such groups. The end game of the dehumanizing process is not good if you follow history at all.
People in general are much more reasonable in person than the internet would lead you to believe.
Because chain restaurants are generally kinda gross.
The typical American chain restaurant is going to serve you something that starts with low-quality ingredients, then gets a bunch of sugar, corn syrup, seed oil, artificial food coloring, emulsifiers etc added to it until it roughly approximates the flavor, texture and color of higher-quality ingredients (at the cost of being unhealthy). Then it has various chemicals added to it to act as preservatives or maintain texture or appearance during shipping and storage and re-heating. Then it's packaged into cheap single-use plastic bags or containers that slowly leach endocrine disrupting chemicals into the food, or rapidly leach them during reheating in a microwave.
The end result is that you get something that is edible, but probably kinda gross tasting unless your palette gets used to packaged foods and fast foods, and which is going to make you fat, depressed, distracted and tired.
There's a reason America has an obesity epidemic, diabetes epidemic, falling fertility rates and widespread prescriptions of drugs for depression, anxiety, adhd, etc, and it's the food the average American is eating.
> The best you can do is to highlight how bad sugar is to health in general, and hope it influences people to change their habits
We've been trying that for years and it's clearly not working. Obesity, diabetes, pre-diabetes, heart disease, diseases of chronic inflammation, etc are all at epidemic levels.
Humans aren't perfect automatons that will make perfect choices if given information. We develop addictions, we prioritize the short-term over the long-term, we get tired and choose what's easy and available.
We should align incentives to better outcomes. We restrict alcohol and nicotine and opioids. Taking steps to reduce the societal harm of sugar is a good thing for society.
> Humans aren't perfect automatons that will make perfect choices if given information.
And yet, somehow, they will rationally conclude the best financial course to take is to realign to making healthier choices instead of switching to dollar-store sodas or making their own sugary drinks.
I think that most people wish to just carry on their lives without interference from nanny-state lovers who just LOVE to dictate to others how they should live their lives.
Seriously, fuck that nonsense. If I choose to lead an unhealthy lifestyle, that' should be my choice - not to be dictated to by "those who know better". Note that I personally choose to minimise the amount of sugar I take. I may also even tut-tut at those whom choose to take all the sugar they want - but what I won't do is waggle fingers at them, nor do I want to utilise taxation - a very, very overused excuse by govts. to rake in more dosh - to discourage people from what "those who know better" want them to be like.
No. real solutions lie in getting manufacturers to reduce sugar and especially HFCS as ingredients in their products. Quite possibly not much can be done about cakes and confectionary in terms of sugar, but there sure is an awful lot of sugar in a lot of other food products.
The comment I'm responding to goes against several HN guidelines, but I'm hoping I can use the opportunity to turn it away from low-effort trolling into an opportunity for education and clarity.
The 2-party system in the US causes hundreds of distinct groups and ideologies to be lumped into either a D or R, regardless of any ideological cohesion to any particular label- left, right, liberal, conservative, authoritarian, libertarian, etc.
The state-level government in Texas is controlled by the Republican party, but specifically by a neoconservative, nationalist, social conservative-Christian cohort. The fiscal conservatives and libertarian small-government conservatives are essentially powerless, minority members of either the Democrat or Republican party, and individuals whose views match those labels will likely vote split-ticket in most elections rather than a straight-party voting pattern.
In essence, while the comment I'm responding to is alluding to a hypocrisy of beliefs, a better interpretation is that the "small government" conservatives don't really hold any power in the Texas state Republican establishment. To the extent that any of them vote R, they're mostly doing so in a "choose which of 2 bad choices seems least bad" context.
This is nonsense. The people saying that government should be small and local, ie Abott himself, are the exact same people saying that they need to prevent Austin from governing itself.
Eh. Let’s say you run a small construction company. Each week you might be in a different town, chasing whatever work is available to you. I can absolutely see it being onerous/possibly impossible to follow different ordinances in each city.
Any reasonable company would already have water breaks more often than that, and presumably OSHA has rules for that too.
I’m a wedding photographer. Sometimes we hire on second photographers for a day. Should I get in trouble if I didn’t realize in was within specific city limits that mandated I give a defined water break to that second photographer after so many hours? Most weddings you just get water whenever you can, here and there.
You aren't responsible for an independent contractor's breaks. You have no obligation to tell a wedding photographer to take a lunch if they have worked 8 hours straight. That's entirely on them as their own boss.
>Each week you might be in a different town, chasing whatever work is available to you. I can absolutely see it being onerous/possibly impossible to follow different ordinances in each city.
Even our small town of 7000 people managed to employ two entire construction empires. If the amount of money in that system is not enough for you to give enough of a crap to provide required breaks and other health important things for your workers, I cry no tears when you are fined.
It's always the same people crying about "onerous" regulation because they refuse to even do a simple google search.
>Any reasonable company would already have water breaks more often than that, and presumably OSHA has rules for that too.
Then you have nothing to worry about. If you have rules that are above and beyond any existing standard, you are not violating a standard. This really isn't complicated and people are bending themselves in half to try and justify this clearly hostile act. Stop with the devil's advocate bullshit.
If wedding photography had a high risk of death from heat stroke, I'd be happy for you to have to deal with local regulations putting some boundaries on how you abuse your employees while risking their lives.
Sorry about the inconvenience, but maybe being an employer isn't for you if you don't give a damn about the people for whom you're responsible.
It's not about not giving people breaks, it's about unknowingly breaking laws.
My wife is my only second shooter so obviously she's treated well, or she wouldn't do it. In my contract is the clause that we can't be subjected to dangerous working conditions, and a few weeks ago I had a wedding where I absolutely needed to take a break to sit in the shade and drink.
You can have gender equality and feminism without casual sex. Many young people today, both male and female, feel like the current system they're embedded in is frustrating and unfulfilling.
Everyone's personal preferences are equally valid. We should accept that people who express unease or unhappiness with the current dominant cultural norms pressed upon them have legitimate feelings, rather than attack and insult them by suggesting their desires belong in "the 19th century".