hibsen

@hibsen@lemmy.world

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. For a complete list of posts, browse on the original instance.

hibsen ,

We all know you're full of shit, but just in case you're a useful idiot to conservatism instead of cynical grifter...

If you want fewer abortions, the answer has been obvious for decades — sex ed and birth control made available to everyone that wants it, which results in fewer unwanted pregnancies, which results in fewer abortions.

Your moron political group and its insistence on overturning Roe resulted in an increase in abortions. 2023 had the highest number and rate in literally decades. So if you're dumb enough to think that's "murdering babies," then congrats. The people you vote for increased the body count.

hibsen ,

*Presidential Medal of Freedom

In answer to your question, though, she's receiving it because democracy, at least for one political party, is entirely for sale.

hibsen ,

Well let's see here...

She's spent the majority of her time in the Senate championing holding financial institutions accountable, up to and including asserting that particularly shady bankers should be criminally investigated.

She made the CFPB happen.

She's one of several senators who have attempted to reintroduce a version of the Glass-Steagall act to separate FDIC banks from investment banks and hedge funds (and to shrink them so they can't use government bailouts from the FDIC when they inevitably try to screw you).

Yeah man she ain't perfect. Pretty sure she's got this shit, though.

I'd certainly trust a Senator that's actually done something consistently progressive in US politics over some random commenter on Lemmy who's likely done nothing beyond whining online to force an absurd level of purity on politicians who can't really help being fallible and human sometimes.

hibsen ,

She didn’t just attempt things. She accomplished things. You would not have a CFPB without her. I don’t know any politician, progressive or otherwise, that always wins.

You don’t trust her because she wanted to win a presidential primary, didn’t, and had a shitty response to it? Jesus man, everyone’s a fake progressive by your standard.

You know Bernie endorsed Biden too, right? He wasn’t going to win. He never had a chance at winning with the way the DNC works. Yeah, it’d be nice if that wasn’t true, but unfortunately it is.

I’d recommend you dial back the purity testing a bit or you’ll end up staying home.

hibsen ,

You have no idea what happened. No one who isn't Sanders or Warren knows what was said in that meeting, and I frankly doubt either of them remembers it either. There's a reason eye-witness testimony is some of the most inaccurate evidence out there regardless of how sure you feel about it.

There is no proof in one person saying something happened and another saying it didn't. You have no evidence that she lied about anything. Frankly it's astounding how sure you feel about things no one has any evidence for, least of all you.

The only thing you seem to have is a completely warped view of her legislative history, but I don't think I can get you to see reality. Good luck out there.

hibsen ,

Do yourself a favor and don't.

I don't know how this has become a seemingly valid method of argument for an altogether too-large segment of the internet. Make some contrarian comment and then post a stupidly long video by some random that they seem to think is valid and useful evidence.

No one is going to watch this shit. Anyone who has two hours to waste on some random dude's opinions interspersed with commercials needs to reexamine their life priorities.

hibsen ,

If the entirety of the video is summarized by the three whole sentences of context you wrote in your initial comment, it sounds even less worth a watch than I initially thought.

From what I can find in actual sources, there's two founders, and I'm guessing your claim on the eugenics is about Greaves, who certainly sounds like an asshole if not explicitly a eugenicist, but weirdly it didn't take a two-hour anything to read about it.

The rest of it seems to stem from something a former spokesperson wrote in a Medium article and a bunch of other asshole stunts by Greaves, who yes totally seems like an asshole. None of this took more than ten minutes of searching and reading, maybe thirty if you read slowly.

I get that you're not the only person in the world that does this, but if you actually care to make people think about something even once, like you claim to, maybe make the one thing you link to more accessible than a two-hour slog by some random YouTuber that I'm sure is super well-known to you and all their other followers but has no recognizable credibility outside of that tiny niche.

hibsen ,

If it helps, you can think of it as an enhancement to keep people in prison longer or paying more fines, but when the result is poor people are in prison when rich people would not be for the same offense, not having debtors' prisons is a semantic distinction without a meaningful difference.

I thought this (pretty old) Washington Post article did a pretty good job describing reporting done by NPR. A good soundbite from there:

NPR found that in the vast majority of America, defendants can be charged for a public defender, for their own parole and probation, the cost of a jury trial, and their stay in a jail cell. Some jurisdictions have even found ways to charge people “booking fees” after an arrest, even if the arrest never results in a criminal charge, a policy recently upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. My favorite example of this nonsense, though it isn’t in the NPR report, is crime labs. Believe it or not, in some jurisdictions, crime labs are paid fees only if their analysis leads to a conviction. (The fees are then assessed to defendants.) Think about the incentives at work there.

Failure to pay these fines results in — you guessed it — more fines, plus interest. If the debt is sent to a collection agency, those fees get tacked on, too. Ultimately, inability to pay the fines can land you in a jail cell. Which is why we’re now seeing what are effectively debtors’ prisons, even though the concept is technically illegal.

hibsen ,

I think you're missing the forest for a very specific tree here. Did you skip past the part where there's literally debtor's prisons, they just call them something else? Those people would not be in jail if they did not have debt.

Whether that debt was incurred as a fine they couldn't pay because of law enforcement or a civil debt, judges can and do issue warrants for their arrest, with which they imprison people.

The ACLU page on this was also linked in that article.

Like I don't want to fear-monger here, but when you think about just how many people are a paycheck away from having debts they can't pay, this is a very real possibility for a large portion of America. I assume less so in countries that aren't quite so backward.

hibsen ,

I'm okay with losing the parts of the audience who didn't read the whole page:

The criminalization of private debt happens when judges, at the request of collection agencies, issue arrest warrants for people who failed to appear in court to deal with unpaid civil debt judgments. In many cases, the debtors were unaware they were sued or had not received notice to show up in court. Tens of thousands of these warrants are issued annually.

Like I get that the ACLU could have capitalized that, bolded it, and stuck it at the top of the page, but you only have to make it to like the second paragraph to read it.

Edited to add – thanks for this. I haven't had a pointless argument on the internet with someone who already mostly agrees on the important points but can't quite get past pointless minutiae in awhile.

hibsen ,

Oh I read that too, and again you're making an additional logical leap with your idea that isn't always true.

Weird, because I feel like you're jumping past the point because it isn't technically spelled out in the USC that someone will arrest you if you don't make enough money.

If someone sues you civilly, you receive no notice of it, and then they arrest you and put you in prison, I get that there are intervening steps, but it's literally the same result.

I understand that sometimes people get notice and might have the ability to show up in court and they do, but the OP's point isn't that every poor person is in jail. The point is that they're put there when rich people aren't.

That the OP can't cite a PL that says being poor is illegal doesn't exculpate society from putting them in prison because they're poor. I'm sorry that it's insidious and underhanded, but it is literally happening.

I also don't think the OP is trying to change anyone's mind. I'm not either. I don't think the people who criminalize being poor are worth the effort. The point of these types of posts isn't to change minds. It's to overcome the apathy of the majority of people who already know it's wrong to do this and use that majority to forcibly remove power from those people whose minds you want to change.

hibsen ,

This is so much fun, thank you again.

I think its very weird you're willing to jump past the fact its not illegal to call it illegal when the OP post is putting in context with two other things which are unequivocally illegal. Putting all three together is creating a false equivalency.

Is this some new definition of unequivocal I was previously unaware of?

The OP mentioned being homeless, being a drug addict, and being poor. It's not illegal to be a drug addict, either. Oddly enough you'll find a lot of people put in prison for it, if they buy drugs illegally and if they're caught and if it's worth enough to the prosecutor and if they're convicted or if they accept a plea bargain. You're okay with those 'ifs' in your definition, but not the chain below...why?

Thats A LOT of "if" to make your statement true, but you're passing it off as it's always the case.

I mean, yeah, that's kinda how it works. Not all bank robbers go to prison either, you know? The point is that this only happens to poor people and it only happens because they're poor and it's wrong that it happens. The point is not every poor person goes to prison.

Being in debt doesn't put you in jail which is what your statement should mean happens. We have literally tens of millions of people in debt and millions of them are poor that are walking the streets without warrants against them.

Maybe this is where you're confused. No one is saying that everyone with debt is being put in prison. Or maybe someone is, but they aren't in this conversation. I'm saying that this set of circumstances should not be criminal, and it only happens to poor people. Apparently, according to the ACLU, it happens to tens of thousands of them. I'm pretty sure the OP is saying that, too.

Hmm, okay you're not interested in changing minds of others. Nothing wrong with that I suppose, but does that mean this just food for an echo chamber then?

I'd classify it more as a call to action for likeminded people. I generally read things like this and think I should do something about it, so I do what I can think of. If that's an echo chamber for you, knock yourself out, I guess.

So you want to change the mind of someone that is neutral on the subject to being supporting of different policy? How is that not changing someone's mind? Are we now arguing what the definition of "changing a mind" means now?

I mean, no; you're arguing against something no one said (again), but I guess I can address that now, too.

I don't care about changing the minds of someone neutral on the subject, either. If someone manages to read something like this, find out what's happening, and somehow not think that's wrong, I don't think any words are going to change their mind.

It's doesn't matter, though, because the majority already know it's wrong. They either know it's wrong and didn't realize it was a thing, or they know it's a thing but they think they're powerless to change it.

I (and, I assume, the OP) want those who aren't currently doing something to realize they aren't alone in thinking what they're thinking, so they'll be more inclined to do things about it. They already want to do those things; their minds don't need to be changed.

hibsen ,

Is there any ambiguity in your mind these are laws on the books? In what way is it not unequivocal that these are illegal? Do you have a different definition of the word?

I suppose in the way that neither of the things you listed are the definition of being a drug addict or homeless. I'm glad you made this point though, because it furthers mine...being poor isn't specifically in the law, just like being a drug addict and being homeless aren't.

It's circumstances that result from being a drug addict, being homeless, and being poor that they criminalize, because for some reason that seems to fool some people into thinking it's okay to do it.

Maybe I haven't articulated this well enough for you to see it yet. Maybe someone else can do it better:

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.

Sure, he was French, but he was right.

You're right that if I was an absolute stickler I could even challenge this part of the post. Technically a drug addict could exit the country, do drugs, and reenter the country and because they neither bought nor possessed drugs in the USA, they could indeed be a drug addict, and it wouldn't be illegal. The reason I'm not taking that stance is because I do allow for some logical leaps that realistically a drug addict isn't going to do that. There are limits to that allowance of thought. Your view seems to all many many more logical leaps yet still feel its not too far a departure. We clearly differ in this.

We definitely differ; I don't see why it's hard for you to see that the circumstances that arise from being a drug addict or homeless or poor shouldn't be a reason for imprisoning someone. It's really hard for me to understand why you can't see the obvious similarity just because there's a few more steps.

All bank robbers are breaking the law. Thats the difference. Being poor isn't breaking a law.

Ah that's fair, I'm overstepping into hyperbole.

Using your logic from above, all poor people would be breaking some law by being poor, yet just lucky enough to escape capture or detection. Thats why that line of thinking falls apart.

Yeah this is on me for the hyperbole with bank robbers, but I'm definitely not trying to say that all poor people have this happen to. Again, the point is that it only happens to poor people and it shouldn't.

I raised the question of why the OP (and by proxy you) were voicing the message. It was my assumption that you wanted to change minds from one point to another.

No worries, we all make mistakes (see me above with the hyperbole).

Let me clarify. I used the word "neutral" before. My mistake from your interpretation of it. Let me change that to "no opinion". Am I correct from your responses that you would like to take someone that currently has no position on this (because of lack of exposure/ignorance to it) to someone that does have an opinion supporting change?

Here I think the OP and I differ, actually. The OP probably does want that. I'm more of the mind that if you haven't figured this out and aren't on board yet, I'm not the right person to help you get there. The OP might be, though.

hibsen ,

In case you're like me and are interested in the topic but aren't interested in watching someone talk forever:

00:00:00 In this section, the narrator discusses how food conglomerates like Kraft and Kellogg's have manipulated food science and public perception to make ultra-processed foods a necessity rather than a want, leading to health issues such as heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. The food industry's goal is to keep the public confused about what to eat, and they have attempted to sabotage the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee's process of giving nutrition advice to the American public. Ultra-processed foods, which include many breakfast cereals, frozen dinners, sauces, and yogurt, are industrially produced and designed to be irresistibly delicious. Companies use large amounts of salt, sugar, and fat to mask the off-notes of the manufacturing process and extend shelf life. Kraft, for example, marketed their singles as a health food in 2015, despite the fact that they cannot legally be called cheese. The food industry's tactics are reminiscent of Big Tobacco's lies, and the evidence linking ultra-processed foods to disease is grim.

00:05:00 In this section, the speaker discusses how food companies partner with health organizations to create the illusion of endorsement for their ultra-processed foods. As research reveals the negative effects of such foods on health, food industries use various tactics to undermine the research and researchers. They cast doubt on the studies, discredit researchers, and even fund their own studies to show favorable results. The speaker also mentions the similarities between the food and tobacco industries, with food companies owned by tobacco companies until the mid-2000s and using similar misinformation playbooks. The speaker, Tera Fazzino, a psychology professor at the University of Kansas, shares her research on hyper-palatable foods, which are often produced by tobacco-owned food companies and are more likely to be addictive due to their nutrient combinations. The speaker's perspective on the addictive nature of these foods changed during her research, as she discovered that foods produced by tobacco-owned companies were 29% more likely to be classified as hyper-palatable.

00:10:00 In this section, Michael Pollan recounts a conversation with a former Philip Morris lawyer who revealed that the heads of these companies don't consume their own addictive products. Pollan explains that tobacco companies got out of the food business in the 2000s, but other non-tobacco-owned food companies took note of their successes and reformulated their products to maximize profits. The food industry now accounts for nearly 70% of the food supply, and Pollan argues that the narrative that individuals are solely responsible for overeating is a way for food companies to avoid accountability. The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee is currently considering the health effects of ultra-processed foods, and the Food and Beverage Issue Alliance, a trade group representing various food industries, has urged the committee to stop using the term "ultra-processed" until there is a consensus on a definition. Pollan emphasizes the importance of access to good scientific information and evidence-based dietary guidelines, as it took decades for the link between tobacco and cancer to be acknowledged and addressed.

hibsen ,

There's plenty of porn; I don't need it trying to sell me a video game.

hibsen ,

Also from Mencken —

…it is impossible to talk anything resembling discretion or judgment to a colored woman. They are all essentially child-like, and even hard experience does not teach them anything.

Dude is not exactly a font of wisdom. I feel like I only ever see him quoted before some libertarian pretends they're about to think for themself.

hibsen ,

See you all in six months or so when we get to do all this again.

Apple ( slrpnk.net )

I don't care if anyone has a Xiaomi, Oneplus, Samsung, etc. Each brand is using a modified version of Android, and they chose to be compatible with each other. But for example the "blue vs green bubble" drama is a thing specifically because of Apple locking their unsuspecting users into a closed ecosystem. And it sure isn't...

hibsen ,

It's really weird that this is what you imagine when someone buys something from a giant corporation that isn't your preferred giant corporation.

For like the fiftieth time, no one that matters cares what phone you bought, what OS it runs, or what color your texts are on other phones you didn't buy. As a person that keeps buying iPhones, I don't care what you buy. Please feel free to stop caring what I buy.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •