frostbiker @ frostbiker @lemmy.ca

Posts

0

Comments

207

Joined

2 yr. ago

Most people also have trouble empathizing with people who lash out and get hostile anytime they receive feedback that can be even slightly perceived as criticism.

This is how you started, and it didn't get any better as the conversation continued:

Nice knee jerk response to valid criticism. It is objectively difficult to support a cause when [...] knee jerking shit heads like yourself

Does that sound like something that "can be even slightly perceived as criticism"? Perhaps there's some room for improvement. You could try not insulting people if you don't like people being offended by what you say.

Or maybe some people have trouble empathizing with marginalized minorities who want representation because they've never been in their shoes.

A) LGBT is/was fine

It is. Some people prefer using a different term, and that is also fine.

B) Yes, at a pride parade most recently of all things. Had to be defended by my two gay room mates.

Please do elaborate. Did the problem arise because you used your preferred term and somebody corrected you, or the other way around? Because at least in this post it's been you who has been demanding other people to use your preferred term, not the other way around.

Don’t deflect. Homey (forget if it was you)

It wasn't me, and you could have checked very easily.

So if you can’t accept that opinion, even if you disagree, it’s short sighted of you

So, people can either agree with your opinion or be shortsighted? Is there no room for anything else?

Whether your various queer acquaintances agree with you or not, other queer people like me can disagree, because we are not the Borg. Speaking of consensus, if we have one thing in common it is probably being tired of straight people telling us how to be queer.

Trying to find the most inclusive name possible that’s apparently ever changing and impossible to remember doesn’t seem super useful

It's useful to the people who are trying to understand themselves and to be seen.

You can use whatever term you like, and let other people use theirs.

It is objectively difficult to support a cause when a) you can’t remember the current “correct” name

Feel free to use whatever term you like the most.

b) you get non-inclusive shamed for not using the (current) right name

Has that actually happened to you, or is it something you fear? I understand how that would be upsetting. Being demonized when you have acted in good faith hurts.

c) you get called a bigot for pointing out either of these things

Gender and sexual minorities have been demonized for centuries and are now finally trying to both understand themselves and to be understood. This process of (self) discovery is slow and in the meantime we will have this alphabet soup until things settle down to simple convenient umbrella terms.

For now, let's try to be friendly and welcoming to everyone.

I'm bisexual and I get why people keep adding letters, inconvenient as it may be to some.

It's easy to say "this is enough" when you already feel represented. You don't need to use a longer acronym than you are comfortable with, but likewise you should not expect others to shorten their acronym for your convenience.

Some gender and sexual minorities are neither lesbian, gay, bisexual nor trans, yet they want to feel seen: they have been hidden, ignored or ostracized for too long. They don't want an umbrella like + or 'queer' to hide under. They are their own thing, so they want to have their own label to recognize themselves and to be recognized.

Once gender and sexual minorities have been understood and accepted more broadly, people within them will organically become more accepting of umbrella terms. But today is not the day. Not yet. Today let's continue to welcome more people until we are all here.

Thanks for sharing your story. As distant as our background is, I have the same problem of not really having anybody with whom to practice my native language on a regular basis.

On the other hand I'm grateful to all the people who have put the effort to learn English, giving people like me a chance to learn something from them, which wouldn't happen otherwise.

About 40 per cent of the people in shelters are refugee claimants

I agree with Chow: since the federal government is in control of the influx of refugees, it should foot the bill for supporting them adequately. If they don't want to pay, they should not have invited them in the first place.

How about you, are you bilingual? How bilingual?

Very, it's just that French isn't my other language. As with so many other immigrants, English isn't my first language. In my case, it is the third one.

And given the amount of work I know it takes to master foreign language, I'm not in a hurry to add a fifth such as French.

Nicholls said about a quarter of the people they serve in Mississauga receive the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP), which she said isn’t sufficient despite it being increased in line with inflation.

That is damning. We need social housing for these people, for starts.

People biking at scramble intersections do not ride at 30Kph. Acting in good faith helps maintaining a friendly discussion.

Changing zoning laws to facilitate the construction of more than single family homes is great, but I hope they also allow for mixed-use buildings by default. A development that doesn't have e.g. a place to buy milk and eggs within walking distance is still car dependent.

External incentives, like paycheques, are probably the least effective incentives there are

How many times have you seen people hop to a higher paying job? And how many switched to a lower paying job?

Most people are motivated by passion, desire, contribution, and satisfying results

And yet most people quit working as soon as they have the financial means to do so. How many of them spend 40hrs/week volunteering afterwards? People pursuing some hobbies part time is not going to sustain the financial necessities of a developed nation.

What are we going to do about the fact that Technology continues to kill more jobs than it creates, and is starting to do so at a faster rate.

Yeah, that is a big deal.

There isnt enough livable wage paying jobs left to allow everyone access to proper food and housing.

For starters I think that minimum wages are too low in North America. Anybody working full time should be able to afford a place to live without roommates. Housing cannot be an investment vehicle if we want it to be affordable.

If people are freed from being forced to work to pay their bills, more people would ve free to volunteer

Some pensioners do some volunteering, but on average the amount they contribute to society is a small fraction of what they did when they were working full time. Society needs enough full time workers to fund the ongoing cost of a first-world nation.

Arguably, under a UBI system people will not be pressured into jobs they aren’t good at or hate just because those jobs offer the wage they need to live

Yep, I've been in that situation. It seems reasonable to imagine that with a UBI some of those people would quit their job. Now, with fewer people working, how do you pay for UBI and everything else? We already have a deficit and inflation.

I have followed the UBI subject for the past ten or fifteen years. I used to be an advocate for it. It was precisely through reading and thinking about it that I started to question whether it really was a better alternative to our current welfare programs.

It stands to reason that if extending OAS to people over 60yo would lead to more people retiring early and stop contributing significantly to our tax base, then a UBI which essentially means extending OAS to every adult would have a similar effect, only multiplied. And with fewer workers, how do we pay for UBI and everything else?

I'm sure there's plenty of room for improvement to our existing welfare programs, but that doesn't automatically mean extending them to every healthy person is the only solution or the best one.

Are you opposed to giving everyone an equal opportunity in life?

Giving everybody a good opportunity in life doesn't mean a UBI, and a UBI doesn't mean giving everybody a good opportunity either. It's a false dichotomy.

Note that you’re using the term “retiree” in this example, but were talking about pensioners previously.

You are right, I've been sloppy.

A lot of pensioners do keep working

Do you have any data on what percentage of them do, particularly full time? Based on the people I know, they spend most of their time with hobbies, chores and socializing. Not that there is anything wong with that, but as a larger percentage of our population becomes unproductive it will become harder to fund social services such as healthcare or the UBI.

You are asking me to disregard heaps of peer reviewed research because you ran into a lazy retiree once.

So a retiree that doesn't work is now lazy? Does that mean by extension that a UBI recipient that doesn't work is also lazy?

Re. the pilot studies, I don't believe that the behavior elicited by a short term study automatically extends to a lifetime UBI.

As a counterexample I have suggested looking at pensioners, particularly healthy early retirees. If our working-age population experienced a fraction of the productivity loss that we see in healthy early retirees, we would not be able to fund our current expenses, such as healthcare, let alone a UBI on top of that.