I’m really lucky, there’s an independent theatre near my place. If I don’t have plans, I’ll see what’s on as I trust them to choose good stuff. Seen a lot of really awesome movies I never would’ve caught otherwise and best of all, absolutely spoiler free.

Sure, some that were not my jam at all but overall, walking into a movie and knowing next to nothing about it can be exhilarating, the story can go anywhere and you have no idea what’s up.

Just copying this from another response but:

From VA.gov:

Note: If you have a condition listed in Title 38, Code of Federal Regulation, 3.309(a), you won’t need to show the problem started during—or got worse because of—your military service. This is because we automatically assume (or “presume”) that certain conditions that appear within 1 year after discharge are caused by your service. We call these presumptive conditions.

Read Title 38, Code of Federal Regulation, 3.309(a) for a complete list of covered illnesses

I’d also note that here’s some of the suggestions google noted while I was looking for the one year diagnosis:

Like, absolutely , there is a huge obligation to veterans and too many have been screwed over the years. But can we also admit that there is definitely some room for abuse or at the very least, for the system to not function quite as intended?

From VA.gov:

Note: If you have a condition listed in Title 38, Code of Federal Regulation, 3.309(a), you won’t need to show the problem started during—or got worse because of—your military service. This is because we automatically assume (or “presume”) that certain conditions that appear within 1 year after discharge are caused by your service. We call these presumptive conditions.

Read Title 38, Code of Federal Regulation, 3.309(a) for a complete list of covered illnesses

I’d also note that here’s some of the suggestions google noted while I was looking for the one year diagnosis:

Like, absolutely , there is a huge obligation to veterans and too many have been screwed over the years. But can we also admit that there is definitely some room for abuse or at the very least, for the system to not function quite as intended?

Edit: missed the quote symbol.

Taking care of veterans is one thing. But I’m not sure the obligation extends to someone who develops diabetes, or is one of the 1/5ish Americans who will develop sleep apnea etc.

Sorry, I assumed folks would read the article which was clearly a bad assumption. From the Economist, fairly early on, emphasis mine, just in case folks don’t want to read the full paragrapb:

Why has this happened? From 2001 the department began to broaden its list of presumptive conditions—where officials automatically assume the problem is service-related—to include ailments such as type-2 diabetes, allowing any veteran with the disease to qualify for compensation.

You are missing the service connected requirement. Not all diabetes or sleep apnea is covered.

A service-connected condition is an injury or disease that was caused by or worsened by a veteran’s active military service.

That’s literally exactly not the case and kind of the problem. Sorry, I assumed othets read the article. From the Economist article, emphasis mine:

Why has this happened? From 2001 the department began to broaden its list of presumptive conditions—where officials automatically assume the problem is service-related—to include ailments such as type-2 diabetes, allowing any veteran with the disease to qualify for compensation.

I have no idea but I’ve saved this thread and hope to find out!

Thanks for sharing!

I mean, i don’t know much beyond the article so please correct me but it seems like there’s got to be something between “suffer in deprivation” and getting almost 50k a year for life because at some point you developed type two diabetes, or sleep apnea, neither being particularly rare.

Online videos with tips about how to boost your disability rating are widespread. It is common for veterans to start on the programme at a 50% disability rating for, say, sleep apnea linked to service stress, only to then add more disabilities and have the rating increase to 100% within a few years.

Edit: Clearly folks didn’t read the article. I’ll note another relevant section here, emphasis mine:

Why has this happened? From 2001 the department began to broaden its list of presumptive conditions—where officials automatically assume the problem is service-related—to include ailments such as type-2 diabetes, allowing any veteran with the disease to qualify for compensation.

That’s wild, I had no idea the office of Veterans Affairs got that much (336 billion a year or 5% of the entire federal budget.)

Or that per eligible adult it absolutely dwarfs social security disability insurance and workers comp combined.

The costs of Conservative adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan just keep on coming.

This is pretty much exactly the mindset I’m trying to avoid.

I’d note you could just as easily flip the 2016 classified documents business. A Conservative could plausibly argue that Liberals were willing to vote for someone being investigated for mishandling classified documents when it was their person, but once it was trump it became a serious voting issue. (I tend to disagree, I think trump’s were a lot worse but I can absolutely see the logic of their case.)

Ha, very fair. I think a good number of friends would say the same about me. I think they’re wrong ;)

RSS is a great idea, not sure why I haven’t done that. Maybe I’ll set one up this weekend!

Thanks!

Oh no, I wouldn’t recommend Fox or Newsmax or the ilk on anyone.

But I do like to understand what the best version of things I disagree with are. Wider perspectives are important but if I agree with all of them? I dunno, it feels intellectually lazy to me. That’s why I’m asking! I’d like to find something akin to what the National Review used to be.

Otherwise, to me at least, there’s a very real danger of becoming the kind of person who writes off everyone who disagrees with me as ignorant, bigoted or evil. Which, in my opinion, isn’t a great way to live. Though, admittedly, I’ve always found those “everything is black or white” folks to be insufferably boring so maybe I’m just trying to not be that person instead of any high minded ideal.

Sorry I’m tired and rambling while pooping.

Edit: Holy shit, was curious about why Alred was getting singled out. Because he said he didn’t support trans women playing sports with the other women? If that’s the most anti trans Democrat candidate ever and your next move is “What else could she do, outlaw trans people?!?” you need to give your head a shake. No wonder we lose to a man who has more orange makeup than brains.

are you going to engage with these responses or what?

I mean, your comic made the same basic point that Oliver did. Which I already responded to. In depth.

Above all, I don’t think that trans issues are edgy and unpopular at all. Until a couple years ago it was a strictly medical thing

You could, uhhh, look back at the Pew research I already shared.

At this point people who take anti-trans propaganda seriously are lost causes to me

I love your argument is simultaneously “we can win them over with enough messaging! The DNC didn’t put enough into trans messaging to overcome propaganda! Also, those people we can win over are lost causes!” Pick a lane!

and I don’t care about Democrats ratings. I rather see that the extreme left everywhere dials up the pro-trans issues and organize defense and survival programs.

I guess that’s the difference. I’ve met some of the people who will be affected by climate change and seen the communities that will be destroyed. They aren’t abstract. It’s very easy to figure winning these elections doesn’t matter when you know damn well it really doesn’t affect you. I just find that view reprehensible as I think it’s throwing the most vulnerable people under the bus so you can feel good about being on the right side.

Life in large, pluralistic society is full of uncomfortable compromises. Most moral progress is made because enough people with old Conservative views have died and the median voter is ready to move forward, not because we screamed at people. (Though, frustratingly, the Left seems to have either lost the messaging game or taken such silly positions that we are no longer dominating the youth vote so we may have, through our evangelizing, set progress back much farther than needs be. How fucking annoying are we such that people would prefer trump to us?)

borders too closely to sealioning and concern trolling

Are you sure you know what those terms mean? This seems like when you had no idea what Utilitarianism was.

Sea lioning doesn’t just refer to disagreeing with someone, here’s the original sea lion comic:

https://wondermark.com/c/1062/

I’m hard pressed to see how, relatively politely, responding to the comments you keep leaving on my original response to someone else’s question fits that at all.

As I hope you’re true to your word and done with this, have a good weekend.

Are you misunderstanding how a hypothetical sistuation works? Or how analogies work?

The basic idea is that it is difficult to picture an important movement, like the abolition movement, succeeding if they had expanded their mandate to include all groups, even if it would have been the right thing to do.

Similarly, while the Left has the moral highground, not all of society is with the Left yet. And so, we’re being painted as wacky folks trying to do some crazy shit and we keep losing elections.

Why do you think almost every Far Right leader rallies against Woke? From Bolsanaro, Orban, La Pen, Meloni to trump, it’s been a winning issue with a majority of voters. I’m old enough to understand that elections have serious consequences and that winning them matters. If a common thread that seems to win majority support across the world keeps coming up, heck, maybe it’s time to look at it.

Glad you liked it, It’s one of my favourites.

Sorry about the barrage of unfun comments. The internet is so wonderful and so goddamn annoying at the same time eh?

because it stresses me out pointing out how everything they think is wrong…

Honestly, that sounds fairly healthy. I have a weird obsession with being well informed and being able to articulate arguments from all sides (which has occasionally made me very unpopular both in real life and online) and while it’s a fine intellectual exercise, it’s probably not the most conducive to feeling great.

Ahaha, I glanced at this earlier before diving into work stuff and thought you’d have a lot more angry replies to you!

Among a lot of folks, I’m the crazy liberal hippy do gooder but I gotta say, a good amount of Lemmy kind of worries me. Though, I suppose I attract the crazy by having the temerity to explain or defend Conservative positions, even when I disagree with them.

Oh interesting. I always thought the Daily Mail was more of a tabloid with like topless girls on page three or whatever. Am I confusing it with something else? Or is it both?

And fully agree with you on the Guardian.

Ha, fair. I generally go about 60/40 on the agree disagree ratio with them but I really respect the way they articulate their views.

Interesting question and thoughtful distinction!

My initial thought is that while you might not be engaging with why trump supporters are for it, I think it still counts because the people making the policy are probably doing it for reasons that are disconnected to the beliefs of the rank and file.

I put it akin to religion and whatnot. If the only argument for or against something is religion, I don’t give it much credence other than the basic “I generally think it’s good to be respectful of religion until it interferes with others.” But even if their reason is religion, if there’s actually a good reason, that good reason may be worth engaging with.

Not sure if I’m making sense, it’s been a looooooooooong day after a longer week.