That’s not the context though and misrepresents the situation.
The Speaker of the House invited this guy because he knew of him from his riding. Without doing research or looking further into the circumstances of this individual’s service, the speaker made the decision to recognize this individual.
This has nothing to do with the PM. It’s the speaker and he resigned.
It’s pretty disgusting that people try to twist this into a partisan issue so they can dig at the PM. It’s disingenuous and kind of shitty to misrepresent this situation tbh.
Oh man I didn't realize he resigned over this. I guess it's the kind of egg on your face mistake a political career can't really recover from though...
It’s a brutal mistake. As far as speakers go, they’re supposed to be apolitical - putting the decorum and honour of the house above all else - though they’re elected officials. They really shouldn’t be anything of interest ever, it’s literally a protocol role. So this guy… Even IF he was really good at his job as a member of parliament, and well liked among all parties, his career is over
I’m wondering if somebody influenced that speaker. Russian propaganda is now using this that Zelensky (who was present at the time) was clapping when that Nazi was honored.
Could just be an honest mistake, but it doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be held accountable and I’m glad he has been. If I read the headline correctly I think the PM has also made a formal apology on behalf of the Canadian government as well but someone feel free to correct me on that because I didn’t quite get to reading the article.
I think the Speaker’s riding is North Bay? The way a lot of small towns / northern cities work is someone tells you “oh I know him he’s a good guy” and you just kind of take it at face value until you find out otherwise.
Now that’s not the way international protocol should work, obviously, and of course the Russians are going to use it.
I don’t necessarily believe he was “put up to it” because the simplest explanation is just Northern Ontario word of mouth gone awry and applied to an international diplomatic event where it absolutely should have been fact checked. If I recall correctly, the Speaker said it was a last minute decision.
I have a contact in the house so I can update if I hear any whisperings. My question is: is the Chief of Protocol responsible for reviewing the Speaker’s remarks. The answer could quite conceivably be no, and if so I think that process should be reviewed.
“We have here in the chamber today [a] Ukrainian Canadian world [war] veteran from the second world war who fought [for] the Ukrainian Independence against the Russians and continues to support the troops today even at his age of 98.” The Canadian Prime Minister heard this man was a Nazi and then started clapping. I don’t understand how much more black and white this could be.
Yes let everyone, despite everything else going on at the time, pause in the moment to recall the finer points of WW2 geopolitics because everyone obviously has all those facts at the forefront of their mind at all times.
List of people who clapped: literally everyone.
I watched at home and didn’t clue in and I didn’t have cameras pointing at me documenting an internationally significant diplomatic event.
Yes let everyone, despite everything else going on at the time, pause in the moment to recall the finer points of WW2 geopolitics because everyone obviously has all those facts at the forefront of their mind at all times.
Bruv, bruv, this is the bare minimum, I swear. If you cannot recall that WWII was Nazi Germany vs the Soviet Union, you aren’t prepared enough to have opinions on the modern conflict or any aspect of geopolitics. This isn’t the finer points.
I don’t think you’re arguing in good faith. There were more countries involved in WW2 than Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union but, as I said, I’m not an expert and I don’t expect people to be.
It was a mistake on the part of the speaker, he owned it, and then the government apologized. Case closed. Don’t be a partisan hack.
If the ‘Mhm’ didn’t make it clear, I’m not excusing people from any party. Every single person who clapped should be stripped of power and be given the choice of exile or execution. They’re either a Nazi sympathiser or conman. There is no third option. Either they are profoundly uninformed and therefore scamming the Canadian public and should be treated as traitors, or they are willing to clap for Nazis and should be treated as traitors. I appreciate that not everyone is an expert on WWII, but this doesn’t require expertise or subject knowledge. This is the most basic and important bit of information for modern geopolitics. It’s such a simple thing that I’m baffled to be talking to someone trying to imply there is any possibility that someone would not know and be able to recall at a moment’s notice.
Every single person who clapped should be stripped of power and be given the choice of exile or execution. They’re either a Nazi sympathiser or conman. There is no third option.
You are completely unhinged and need a better therapist.
Alright great, so you’ll have no problem with getting rid of all the people who clapped, and the guy they clapped for. Then we’re in complete agreement.
The speaker of the house is the defacto boss of the parliament and that’s who invited the nazi. Even if they knew the history of everyone who enters the building, the PM couldn’t have prevented the speaker from inviting this guy. Had ANYONE known this guy’s history, this wouldn’t have happened.
This is true, the speaker is by all accounts a professional and well respected man with an impeccable, non partisan service history who made one of the most gigantic individual fuck ups in our patliaments history. If anyone had known beforehand the speaker would not have let him speak.
Someone in the govt got a old Ukranian dude to speak to the parlement, and they all applauded him for fighting Russia in WW2, forgetting that the people who faught Russia in WW2 were the Nazis.
They had accidentally invited a literal Nazi to speak, and applauded him for it.
Canadian here. Minor correction: he didn’t speak, but he was invited as a Ukrainian “hero” by the speaker of the house (a member of the sitting elected party). He was applauded - twice - for his “service”. Including by Ukrainian president zelensky.
The only ‘defense’ I can offer is that our prime minister had no input on the matter, and Hunka’s Nazi service came out after the fact. Canada does not support fascism or Nazism…
I can’t tell if this is tongue in cheek, but the opposition is staying that this is exactly what should have happened before allowing the Nazi entry.
My read on this situation is that it all seems obvious after the fact, but that’s cuz now we know. I believe the vetting process is being reviewed because of this event. Definitely a gaffe on the part of the speaker, if this info is truly so readily accessible
I agree that silence is complicity, but that only applies if you know there’s something worth being silent about, no?
In this case, the PM had no input because the speaker doesn’t have to ask permission to invite people from his constituency. So it falls to the speaker to validate his invitees. As such, PM has no input, but also no more fault than anyone else told to clap for the “Ukrainian hero” in this scenario… Is my understanding
That’s not how our parliament works. The amount of people calling for an end to the speaker’s independence is concerning.
The speaker’s job is to uphold decorum of parliament. This one spectacularly failed to do that, and resigned as he should. That doesn’t mean we should make it a partisan position.
I never talked about parisan positions or whatever. I expect both the house and the presidents office to have staff looking into some more details about things and raising the issue with the respective position, if it could be in violation of values of the respective institution or the country in general.
That does not involve any change of authority and i struggle to imagine that there weren’t staff people raising these issues beforehand. So i think it to be more plausible that their voice was ignored by the speaker and president, or the information was deliberately not passed on to them.
Either reason, lack of background check, ignorance by the political leaders or holes in the communications chain, speak of general problems in the organization that need to be adressed. These issues are specific to organizations and it doesnt matter whether it is a political party, a governmental institution, private business or NGO.
Canada doesn’t have a president. The Speaker of the House is the top official when it comes to running Parliament. He definitely fucked up, but it was his fuck-up and he resigned because of it. I don’t think it means we have to re-write the rules for how Canada’s Parliament operates. I mean, it’s not like we actually elected a Nazi, unlike some countries.
You certainly did unknowingly imply that changes need to be made when you said that the “president’s” staff should be vetting the Speaker’s decisions. However, I understand that you aren’t familiar with how Canada’s Parliament is structured. To be clear, it is not currently the Prime Minister’s prerogative or job to vet those whom the Speaker invites to speak in Parliament.
No, that’s not it, in Canadian Parliament it is the speaker of the house who has ths sole responsibility for both inviting guests to the gallery and for recognizing them in the official remarks. Other members of the house and government weren’t even given notice the guy would be there. The speakers office arranges guest vetting, but it is only a security vetting not a political one. That is the PPS and RCMP decide if the 98 year old, legal Canadian immigrant is likely to put the house and guesses physical danger, they don’t consider at all if the guest will cause a political headache.
So the fallout is that the speaker (who in fact was solely responsible for what happened) has resigned, and the PM has offerd an official apology on behalf of all Canadians. There could be more political fallout domestically, as the opposition parties are misleading Canadians and stoking ignorance of our procedures to paint the government as responsible , which I emphasize again, they were not.
I can’t explain why governments around the world, including Canada, made a decision 60-80 years ago to allow former Nazi soldiers to relocate. I’m not an expert in that area, if you are asking a serious question may I reccomend you try books instead of random internet strangers.
The Russians weren’t exactly the food guys. They helped with the invasion of Poland and split it with the Nazis. After Hitler marched into Russia they turned into “the good guys” but weren’t from the beginning.
They didn’t turn into any kind of “good guy”. They took all of eastern Europe from the Nazis and kept it for themselves, ruling it just as brutally until the dissolution of the USSR. They were entirely out for themselves and didn’t do anything for justice or the good of the conquered nations.
It wasn’t acidental btw. His own granddaughter posted that he met with Zelensky and Trudeau before. Also he lived in Canada for long, all of them were one short inquiry of getting to know who he is, and that’s why they have assistants etc. Sure, the western politicians have mostly shit for brains, but not one of 300 people even said “wait a minute”.
Oh yea, like if you are religious you are a threat to the state and therefore you are unfit for basically any leading role, or your property might be confiscated and you might be sent of to Siberia ?
Lines for food namely bread and if the stars aligned meat.
Big amount of corruption ?
Mandatory conscription to the military (and the corruption there too) ?
Iron curtain ?
Free speech and freedom of expression ?
And much more. That my parents had to live trough/knew that happened to others, information on a graph can only tell you so much. I am my self Atheist, although I do believe there might be higher being, so I do not blame others for believing in them, but as a normal human being I hate when religion is pushed to my face. I also believe there needs to be government regulation to big businesses and love some of the things that are in socialism.
massive life expectancy
I don’t know much about life expectancy in the USSR, can you maybe link some sources, articles I would love to read up on it.
qol collapse under capitalism
Not familiar with “qol” can you explain a bit further ? If you mean quality of life, then I feel, at least for my parents it has improved massively.
Oh yea, like if you are religious you are a threat to the state and therefore you are unfit for basically any leading role, or your property might be confiscated and you might be sent of to Siberia ?
Western countries have more sophisticated censorship and media apparatuses I give you that. Speak out in a real way though and look what happens to people like Fred Hampton.
I looked at some of the figures in the article most of them see slight improvement and the conclusion pretty much backs up my point of it not being worse but slightly better.
Life expectancy gains have been large and rapid, and life expectancy for both men and women reached its highest level in Russia’s history in 2019.
To the rest of your responses/points, it is somewhat tiering to respond to all of them with a formulated response, so I will ask do you know someone that lived in a former USSR state ? If your answer is no then as I said, statistics and Graphs can get you only so far, what my parents know and my grandparents know but won’t admit out of pride is that USSR sucked, our current system sucks somewhat too but at least I’m not forced to worship the state, can speak freely like you are doing right now, attend a pride parade or KSČM (Communist party in Czechia) parade, and cast my vote in an election.
And so you know, who is voting for politicians that steal from the people ? The same old people who wish USSR was back, my grandparents vote for a party that promises Socialist democracy (SMER-SD) and only thing they have done is steal from the people. Like with the faults of communism/socialism/USSR they ignore scandals and the stealing from SMER.
yeah i stood in one of these a few days ago, the fucky thing is that i had to pay for the food after i reached the end of the line kitty-cri-screm
concerning life expectancy and quality of life and corruption, funnily enough
But behind the self destructive behaviour, the authors say, are economic factors, including rising poverty rates, unemployment, financial insecurity, and corruption. Whereas only 4%of the population of the region had incomes equivalent to $4 (£2.50) a day or less in 1988, that figure had climbed to 32%by 1994. In addition, the transition to a market economy has been accompanied by lower living standards (including poorer diets), a deterioration in social services, and major cutbacks in health spending.
“What we are arguing,” said Omar Noman, an economist for the development fund and one of the report’s contributors, “is that the transition to market economies [in the region] is the biggest … killer we have seen in the 20th century, if you take out famines and wars. The sudden shock and what it did to the system … has effectively meant that five million [Russian men’s] lives have been lost in the 1990s.” Using Britain and Japan with their ratio of 96 men to every 100 women as the base population, the report’s authors have calculated that there are now some 9.6 million “missing men” in the former communist bloc. “The typical patterns are that a man loses his job and develops a drinking problem,” said Mr Noman. “The women then leave and the men die, first emotionally and then physically.”
Overall, the Russian death rate from accidents most of them involving alcohol has risen 83% since 1991. source
In order to have been a worker for at least 5 years in both systems and therefore have an informed opinion of the difference, you’d need to have been at least 25 by the collapse.
Tack 30 years into that and yeah, at youngest the people with the most informed opinion on which system they preferred are going to be old.
And if you think you had a better system that in the past and it got destroyed, feeling nostalgic isn’t weird it’s the most normal emotion possible.
Yeah, that doesn’t really work right anymore either. It’s great for videos that’re like an hour long to find the right minute, but it’s nowhere near as useful on anything shorter.
Game decisions are limited, the strategy is clear. Generally, things within a game don’t suddenly change in a way that totally rearranges the entire economy.
Out in the real world, we face changing rules, different definitions of success, and most people trying to give advice don’t know what the people they’re talking to are facing.
Companies know best what is good for us and people crave stuff with a micro- prefix, like microplastics (yummy), microtransactions (funny), microbial infections (it’s like a pet), microwaves in your brain (tickles), etc.
In the USA there is a “minimum” wage, and a tip wage. The tip wage means your employer pays you $2.17/hr and you make nearly all of your income from the kindness of strangers. It’s mindnumbinly aweful.
Some places do pool a percentage of tips and pay them out to the kitchen and/or bar. Usually kitchen is paid more than waitstaff, and waitstaff is also likely to be cut if it’s slow, so may get less hours. Some states allow employers to pay tip based workers below minimum wage.
When I was in Seattle the servers got min. state wage (15? at the time) & you could not split your tip unless the other person had interaction with the guest (no cooks got tips unless they did tableside cooking). Our best server for one restaurant group rolled in last, got 300+ tips, and was cut first- usually a 3.5/4.5hr shift. Kenny was a fucking legend.
Also to clarify, the rationale for tip based workers having a lower default minimum wage is that if they do not come up to the regular minimum wage with their tips+salary, then employer has to make up the difference. But usually they end up making more than minimum wage with the tips.
If you’re reporting your income on your taxes then your employer literally cannot be doing that. Sure it gets averaged over your pay period, but you should still be making at least minimum wage.
Thank you for poating more examples of capitalism being an absolutely miserable and abject failure at everything it claimed to do.
The entire concept of “projected growth” and “company valuations” is the opposite of a market. Extraction of value is the opposite of creation of value… And stocks have repeatedly shown themselves to be entirely unrelated to the health if the company or value of it’s products…if there even is an actual product.
I think the moon monkeys and GameStop showed, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that modern stock markets have absolutely nothing to do with raising capital to support entrepreneurship.
It’s just a big casino, rigged so the house wins, and the only way to win is cheat the house using it’s own rules.
Well, shares are company value, not product value. And companies are valued by their ability to create value. A terrible decision usually doesn’t mean much, and share price fluctuation is mainly speculative in nature. A large company may survive a bad CEO, and create value down the road. Even a crashing company has value, as it may be split and sold with a profit, turning shares into cash.
All in all, as much as I hate, EA for example, they have a strong position and can easily eat up failed releases for years to come. Many of their releases are payed off with only pre-orders.
And a good example of how communes work in a small community. On a national scale however, they will always fail as long as they are controlled by fallible humans. Once the AI overlords are in charge, I’m sure it will work out fine.
Yeah it doesn’t work because resources are scarce. Then on a national scale only a few people have control over these scarce national resources. Which gives these people too much power. And often the people in control are sociopaths especially if they came in to power via a revolution aka a violent coup.
I understand that. Let’s say everyone has access. Suddenly someone decides they want it all. Someone polices the amount people can take. Then they have the access and the process repeats
This was there same system imposed in communes. At scale, the threat of public shame is no longer enough
Okay, so people will always take more than they should. We see this time and again with quite literally every single power system. What do you propose we do to make sure everyone gets their share?
Why are you asking me to repeat myself? And also, why do you have so little faith in democracy? Bourgeois democracy, sure, but actual democracy of the people, with no bureaucracy?
So everyone decides who gets what and when. What if you’re not really liked in your community? Personally I don’t really have faith in humanity in general
That makes it sound far more direct and personal. No, the community democratically decides how resources are distributed. And rules like “Dave can’t have bananas” are too stupid to even consider in this.
What if you’re not really liked in your community
Why should that matter?
Personally I don’t really have faith in humanity in general
That’s your own bias, and your own problem to deal with.
I think it could be done with some good structure in the democratic process and something like Cybersyn did in Chile. It’s still very tricky to get right. Cuba is weirdly democratic for example but it took 16k proposed amendments to get started.
That's the part that too many people don't get. Communes and co-ops can work great in small communities, but they have NEVER worked, and WILL never work for a large country. There are some things that are scalable and some things that aren't. Communism is a perfect example of a system that isn't scalable.
I love how you completely ignore why they didn't work, namely existing as islands in a capitalism ocean, and capitalism doesn't like competition.
Can you really not see how if everywhere was organised in small communities that then cooperated as needed on bigger issues at different scales could absolutely work (and was literally how humanity worked for like 99% of its existence), as long as there isn't a massive greedy monster looming over trying to destroy it?
It’s less about the fallibility of humans, and more mathematical than that. A person ability to acquire wealth is proportional to the current wealth they have. (And I’m not just talking about money, I’m taking about resources and power) As a result, those with a tendency to act nastier have an advantage in gaining wealth. This same issue is present in a communist economy, because while communism eschues the concept of money, it does not reject the idea of unequal power. Even some super intelligent AI wouldn’t be able to fix this, as long as it was forced to give humanity basic freedoms and follow communist ideals.
Honestly, this whole communism vs capitalism debate is beneficial to the powers that be, since neither system actually tries to prevent the acquisition of power or the abuse of it.
I mean… Communism does. It acknowledges that unequal means leads to unequal outcomes. A thing that Capitalism can’t admit or it would breakdown the whole system, since it requires a quietly aspirational, weak lower class to function.
If we’re talking Marxist-Leninism, that’s a different subject.
Sorry, I should’ve been more thorough. I meant it functionally ignores the concept of unequal power. Any sufficiently large group effort will eventually build a power structure, regardless of whether it’s capitalist or communist.
That’s a fucking weird way to put it. This isn’t exactly falling at the first hurdle here.
Society isn’t a game of Civilization. If “your system can’t handle a military invasion while it’s in the process of being built” is a major fail to you, realise that reality isn’t about min maxing, and why the fuck are you taking outside invasion as a given? Why are you not condemning the US for invading them at their weakest point, the military equivalent of dropkicking an infant, and are instead deriding the invaded for not being able to put up a better fight?
Easy, the USA got invaded early by a superpower and recovered well enough. I could argue that it was a benefit in the way that it forged a national identity
Was the US “invaded” in the midst of an ongoing revolution, by an overwhelming force intended to warp its very society? No. It threw off its already existing, but sorely outnumbered colonial authority. It wasn’t an invasion. It was a revolution in itself. And the US had all the advantage in its war for independence, especially considering France helped them out.
Chile didn’t have that. Argentina didn’t.
And even with this caveat, Vietnam and Cuba still stand as examples of socialism not “falling apart the fiest time something goes wrong”. They had overwhelming force against them and still succeeded. So that point doesn’t even work.
I can’t wait for Lemmy to get big enough that I can unsub from all the big Lemmies. On Reddit I had a bunch of niche communities that were pretty nice and not political. Now all those spammers I avoided have come here too and the Lemmies aren’t big enough to avoid them yet.
Well, when you realize that most of the radical communists on here truly believe that there must be an eternal struggle working towards communism but never actually achieving the goal, it makes sense why they are the way they are.
Literally had one of them tell me that is beyond unrealistic to expect any state to be able to even implement Socialism to any real degree. Of course, in Marxism a Socialist state must exist before withering away as Communism is fully realized, so they will literally admit that their philosophy is impossible to achieve.
They fetishize the struggle; they don’t actually want progress, they want to complain.
Why do you find it shocking that someone wants their political goals to be achieved but is also realistic with themselves that they may never see them accomplished?
If you accept that your goals cannot be accomplished, why maintain them as goals? If you know it is futile, why bother? It is literally a waste of time at that point.
That said, I personally dont think it is futile. I think it mostly is an attainable goal, minus the withering of the state; I don’t think we could reach a point where the state is completely unnecessary, so I advocate Socialism. I just also think it is ridiculous that someone would try and claim something is futile while simultaneously advocating that everyone adhere to that thing. Their philosophy states clearly attainable, objective goals. If they think it is unrealistic for anyone to ever achieve those goals, then they don’t believe in their own philosophy. That is textbook cognitive dissonance.
That’s not cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is the feeling of discomfort one may feel when holding contradictory beliefs and forced to reconcile the two.
cog·ni·tive dis·so·nance /ˈkäɡnədiv ˈdisənəns/ noun PSYCHOLOGY the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change
Nothing to do with a feeling of discomfort or reconciling the beliefs. Not sure where you got that idea from.
Go back to grade school and learn reading comprehension again, please. Just because I said that colloquialisms are descriptive, does not mean that I said that all dictionary definitions are prescriptive. Get your red herring straw man bullshit out of here. You clearly lost the argument if you are at this point.
What argument? I’m informing you that it refers to the feeling of discomfort from having contradictory beliefs and not the state of having two contradictory beliefs. Read this, doofus. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
The argument against your claims? I’m informing you that cognitive dissonance refers to the simple state of holding incongruous beliefs. Read these, doofus:
And I’m saying YOUR usage is the colloquial usage. Just look at the very source of the term, Leon Festinger’s “A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance” from 1957. here is a link
Chapter 1, page 3.
In short, I am proposing that dissonance, that is, the existence of nonfitting relations among cognitions, is a motivating factor in it’s own right. By the term cognition, here and in the remainder of the book, I mean any knowledge, opinion, or belief about the environment, about oneself, or about one’s behavior. Cognitive dissonance can be seen as an antecedent condition which leads to activity oriented toward dissonance reduction just as hunger leads to activity oriented toward hunger reduction.
He makes it clear that cognitive dissonance is the status of holding incongruous beliefs, NOT the status of discomfort. He states that cognitive dissonance CAUSES discomfort, and that people tend to seek to resolve that discomfort, but cognitive dissonance is not the discomfort itself. It is “the existence of nonfitting relations among cognitions”.
I cannot upvote your comments with insults but thank you (both) for this thread, especially for adding links and the meta layer that comes with the emotions.
Oh, I see, you’re fucking brain dead. Now this whole conversation makes sense. You literally cannot admit you are clearly wrong. Please go touch grass, you are pathetic.
In short, I am proposing that dissonance, that is, the existence of nonfitting relations among cognitions, is a motivating factor in it’s own right.
Need that one more time? Here ya go
In short, I am proposing that dissonance, that is, the existence of nonfitting relations among cognitions, is a motivating factor in it’s own right.
Maybe if you read it ONE MORE TIME it will click for you
In short, I am proposing that dissonance, that is, the existence of nonfitting relations among cognitions, is a motivating factor in it’s own right.
Cognitive dissonance is the existence of nonfitting relations among cognition, not the feeling of discomfort arising from that. It is what you are suffering from right now. You have the evidence laid clearly in front of you, but you cherry pick one TINY tidbit and interpret it incorrectly so as to suit your needs. You KNOW you are wrong, and you are arguing in bad faith.
Yeah, because you clearly need it. You dont even know what bad faith is. Bad faith arguing is when you aren’t actually working towards the resolution of the argument, but instead just making frivolous contradictions that you yourself probably dont even believe in, just to try and keep the other side from making a point. Insulting you is not bad faith. So, yeah, go back to school and actually pay attention this time.
Yeah, it literally isn’t. An insult is not mutually exclusive to a good faith argument, but you wouldn’t know that because you clearly dont understand the concept. Go look up what bad faith argumentation is.
Communism is very utopian and it is not well defined about how it would work in a practical or thoeretical sense (AFAIK). It is something to aspire to. Something to guide your path. One day, something like it may be achieved, but will take a long time to get there. Like, say, carbon neutrality, the “pursuit of happiness,” the elimination of world hunger, to be like Jesus and to not sin, to have pyramids built, etc. It’s a fairly common concept.
You should go back to your quotes, its pretty obvious that we are discussing the idea of holding a belief while simultaneously categorizing that belief as impossible.
I’d say that fixes the problem, but, uh, pretty sure it’ll just strangle the platform. Really the only thing I can think of is a few people bouying smaller subs with content. Some of the art Lemmies in the ‘imaginaryXYZ’ realm are a good example, with like one person posting content on basically all of them. It’s enough to make it worth subbing though.
Also I love how a post about how I’m tired of all the politics turned into a political discussion. Like, I do agree with one of the sides, but that’s literally what we’re complaining about.
Unhealthy food choices in general can help cause obesity which increases one’s risk, as does age; still largely hereditary. How do I know? My maternal grandmother was type 1 diabetic, my mother was T2, myself and all three of my siblings are T2. It’s part of the counseling after your diagnosis. It’s probably better to listen to health care professionals instead of folks on the internet.
Obesity and poor diet together do increase the risk of T2. There is a hereditary aspect to it but T2 is 100% a result of lifestyle or other diseases. People don’t spontaneously develop T2 diabetes without eating too much… and sugar is the primary cause of the metabolic imbalance that results in T2 diabetes. It’s not fucking magic that the A1C level is tied directly to your sugar and simple carbohydrate intake… it is literally the result of using carbohydrates as fuel for your body.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.