I like it for the art.

I fully excuse folks who are really struggling. Though given thrift shops are a dime a dozen, I don’t entirely think it’s a free pass.

Sorry, this one just bugs me. I absolutely hate that our culture has this huge blind spot to the very real exploitation that so many people engage in but we’ll simultaneously get furious about sins that are, in comparison, fairly minor.

Investing in something evil is reprehensible but I put it on about the same realm as buying an expensive slave made product. At least for the investment, maybe it’s for your kids or something rather than looking cool.

Really appreciate the reasoned response though!

You can invest money for your childrens future and still be struggling. Many people choose to forego a lot for their children but know investing for their education etc is a sacrifice they’ll make.

*yawn

But there are non slave alternatives all over. For the price conscious, there are thrift shops, facebook marketplace etc. Otherwise, there’s tons of ethical clothing available online and if you live in a city, probably in some stores near You.

Not 100% of clothes directly benefit slave labour. For the price conscious, there are thrift shops/second hand clothes almost everywhere and ethical clothes available online for a bit more (but generally less than brand name stuff that’s expensive and still made by child slaves.)

In a culture where almost everyone is wearing clothes made by children working 14 hour days who occasionally burn to death because fire exits would cost too much, this seems to me, an odd line to draw.

Might just be me but I’m not sure I see much of a difference between slave investor and wearing slave labour.

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.

Hank Hill approves of this comic.

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.

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.

Man, this comment section is a perfect microcosm of stereotypes, some chill folks, some smug as fuck vegans and people just downvoting and moving on.

I adore that your sources were: Yourself, a comic strip and a paraphrasing of a (solid) late night comedian.

Because I don’t watch many late night comedians I’m absorbing the wrong sources? Jesus fuck.

Admittedly, I did watch Stewart’s take and it was pretty silly. The essence was that because Harris said things, the Right should’ve listened. Which is as dumb as people on the Right saying that “trump said he respects and loves women so I don’t get how the libs think he’s anti woman.”

Oliver’s point is similar, Harris was quiet on trans stuff. Which okay but being quiet on an issue just means the other side gets to paint you howver they want on it. Which is EXACTLY what the trump campaign did by running this vile, but effective ad (which I believe was their most frequently run ad in the last few weeks of the campaign) to ZERO pushback from Harris (again, no way to rebut it without alienating our progressive wing, so we just take the L on this.) You might also read this PBS article where a journalist points out that, of the money they tracked, the trump campaign spent more on anti trans ads than on housing, immigration and the economy combined.

To say that trans issues weren’t a thing this election because your side didn’t talk about then is absurd.

And frankly, you are compromising the human rights of a group, it’s the poor billions who will suffer the effects of climate change. I get that neither you, nor anyone you know will be affected. And that the suffering of those who live elsewhere isn’t really a trendy cause so easily forgettable but personally, I think they should be included in our moral calculus.

then you might have been listening to other sources that make the matter unpalatable, like “biological males in female sports” and what have you.

I mean, before this thread I hadn’t thought about it much but damn, the sport thing would be such an easy bone to throw moderates with almost no real world costs (apologies to the handful of high level trans athletes.) Given that it’s an issue that some 70% of America disagrees with us on it does seem like an easy way to demonstrate we aren’t the crazy party.

I don’t often wish for stuff from the badPlace but I do wish I could sort by controversial…