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.
I mean it’s stupid, but that’s what the supporters think.
The thing they are missing is that no one commits a crime thinking they will get caught. So ever increasing the deterrence doesn’t help.
Drugs is a public health issue, no really criminal. Prohibition doesn’t work with things done at scales like drugs and alcohol. You’re just feeding the criminal gangs.
It’s not deterrence, that’s not the point. Deterrence does not work.
It’s about sending people to prison so they can do cheap labor. It’s also about racism because it’s disproportionately targeted towards minorities. It absolutely makes sense in that light.
It’s the prison-industrial complex paying the politicians to push this stuff through. Voters don’t matter to the politics being pushed, they just get told later that they wanted them.
Policy at a macro scale is very different than policy at a citizen level. While both inform the other many decisions are made on either side without understanding consequences. Banning drug use at a home or even a town level could make sense and work in the head of household’s favor but that one town or house banning the use could make things worse for another, but from the smaller level makes a ton of sense, unfortunately.
The logic is subjugation. These laws are applied largely to a specific group of people, and even if they don’t spend life in prison, their ability to build a life for themselves afterwards is neutered, and they lost the right to vote.
The logic is it also ruins other peoples lives. No one exists in society in a nut shell or as an island. If your choice to use drugs would expose, entice, or otherwise encourage a person to use drugs then it is reasonable in my opinion for the state to protect people from it.
That being said clearly our approach isn’t working. There shouldn’t be laissez-faire drug use all over but there shouldn’t be life in prison immediately consequences either.
The most succesful drug rehabilitation programs are mandatory rehab facilities that are a choice alternate to going to jail for an equal amount of time.
Also housing first models are incredibly effective. But… the entire western world uses housing as an investment vehicle and commodity so it is diametrically opposed to housing first initiatives. If the average citizen is paying 50% of their income for housing and then “junkies” get given free housing the political party that implemented it would be booted so fast.
My parents’ mortgage in the 1980’s was about 15% of our household income. Only my dad worked. It was a house large enough for a few kids, a home office, a guest bedroom, and a big basement entertainment room.
Advertising on a product I own is not conducive with me owning the product, but with me renting it. It’s not communism, but it is me not owning something I thought I own.
Never said it was. Communism is a funny thing. I’ve seen it work, and I’ve seen it fail, like all other systems, but it’s hated. Capitalism is among the most protected system, by those within it. It’s strange. I’m not advocating for either, by the way.
Assuming you’re not talking about anarchists: Liberals are incapable of averting the effects of capitalism because they support capitalism. Their ambition is limited to setting rules that ask ticks to only drink a “reasonable” amount of blood.
Just a heads up, CCP has some racist connotations to it. The party’s official abbreviation is CPC. I literally only learned this a few months ago, so just letting you know.
I didn’t know that. I used ccp, because it was in the wiki article you linked. That’s good to know!
The Land Reform Movement, also known by the Chinese abbreviation Tǔgǎi (土改), was a mass movement led by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leader Mao Zedong during the late phase of the Chinese Civil War after the Second Sino-Japanese War ended in 1945 and in the early People’s Republic of China,[1] which achieved land redistribution to the peasantry.
I know I’m late, but if you’re curious, it does seem that one of the main contributors is a guy named SocDoneLeft, who is a American reformist socialist, that famously is also a little racist, so it’s not really a surprise that he would use CCP instead of CPC. Always remember to check the sources, and the contributors for higly divisive things on Wikipedia. Especially considering that a third of Wikipedia is written by one guy, and he happens to be an anti-Communist border immigration agent with US security clearance. He is not the most unbiased guy in the world as you might imagine.
However I do get the confusion, since CCP is what the entire West calls it, but even if you disagree with them as a political organization, I still think just calling them what they’re actually called, and not a thing seeped in a lot of bad stuff, is better. I do appreciate that you are willing to use CPC when you were corrected though, that shows that you are not stuck in your ways as many are with this, so thanks for that.
Your other sources, I had no idea about either, so that’s cool (and somewhat disturbing) to learn. If I were sourcing this article for a paper or article, I would actually do due diligence on it, it’s writers, the sources and their writers, their sources and their writers, etc. But, alas, this is social media, so I slacked. I disagree with the the Nazis and their political stances, too, but call them Nazis. Why should anyone else, including the CPC, be any different? I believe Roy Trenneman said it best…
The cpc did, but not communism as a whole. Within communism, you still have landlords in a way, but instead of paying them, you pay the community with equal shares of whatever your crop is.
Neoliberalism is not what I described at all. At least, not the currently accepted understanding of the term.
Communism:
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
.
From Stanford, about neoliberalism:
Though not all scholars agree on the meaning of the term, “neoliberalism” is now generally thought to label the philosophical view that a society’s political and economic institutions should be robustly liberal and capitalist, but supplemented by a constitutionally limited democracy and a modest welfare state.
Privately owned US companies that make massive profits off the capitalist system, like Stanford, obviously might not describe these things in an entirely honest way. The first definition of communism is almost correct, but the second is a common misinterpretation of communist theory.
The people who solidified communism as a political theory made a pretty clear distinction between private and personal property, as well as what they thought of landlords. Renting requires someone to own the means of production and lend it out to someone at a profit, which goes against the very foundations of communist theory.
Communism isn’t “the government takes all your stuff and divides it equally among people” either. I suggest reading some theory. Marxists.org is a good place to start www.marxists.org/subject/students/index.htm
Stanford is a renowned university. Like all successful universities worldwide, they make money. I copied some of the definition, since it’s multifaceted and long. But, the general concept is there for both terms. The fact still remains, this is a meme and not a definition of one governing system or another. The source you linked is a good one, though. Last time I sourced it, I got banned from a subreddit haha
I dont have a problem with commies bc they are people that want good but we just disagree on how it should be achieved. Tankies on the other hand are basically nazis but they support stalin and not hitler.
Scammers evolve to find new prey. While the phone scams and the different types of phishing might still work, I am quite that’s not where most of the money is now.
We’ve seen kickstarter, bitcoin, mlm scams and what not. There’s enough out there that have not been properly identified, too.
Also, no matter who you are, there’s a way to get you. Some might be too high effort to try but if you AI impersonated my wife’s voice, spoofed her number and said the right things, you could probably scam me if you called when she was at work
Obviously the Chinese protesting continued Covid lockdowns last year were all sent to organ harvesting camps because those asians are different and probably evil not like us good heckin anglorinos that know how to do socialism properly where we vote for the same right wing party to keep the even farther right wing party from power for another four years.
Actually the Chinese government ending the lockdown after all of these large demonstrations were purely coincidence. See in my democracy I protest and my government does literally nothing to address why I protested. That’s how you know democracy is working, when the government hears my concerns and completely ignores them. Unlike that authoritarian sissypee where the people protested and the government listened to them and changed course based on their demands. Listening to your people and making policy based on their concerns is authoritarian. Ignoring your people and making policy based on corporate donors is democracy.
I mean as someone of Chinese descent who is repulsed by the Chinese government’s actions despite them looking like me, I think my existence alone disproves your argument. I don’t doubt that there are some people who do think like that, but I do doubt that they make up anywhere near a majority.
You can internalize racism you know? And even if not, you can still be convinced that a group is bad by shitty American propaganda even if you look like those people. You’re not unique in that way, but it’s just not really relevant to the situation
They are super related though. Only non-white places are called authoritarian and based on just vibes (usually supported by racism and internalized racism). There is not a definition of authoritarian that encompasses china and doesn’t encompass most of Europe and America also. If you have one, hit me up because I’ve heard a billion and the only way I’ve ever been able to understand it is either “yeah but they’re bad so when they do it it’s authoritarian” or “they are naturally more authoritarian [because of their race]”
Russia is an interesting case, and most scholars of race do not think that Russians are white in any sociological sense, because white supremacists don’t consider them white and they aren’t treated as “white people” by white people. They are “asiatic” to racists. Their skin is, on average, fairly white. But that was never what being white meant, or at least people who claimed so were never consistent about it in history (people whiter than many white people but with black ancestors weren’t white for example, and fair skinned Asian people also aren’t white despite being lighter in skin tone). Whiteness is a category of exclusion
“as someone of Chinese descent” hitting with that stretch from half court on this one. There have been people of Chinese decent in America longer than most white people.
I think this isnt a boomer meme because the boy isnt getting punished for being smart. In a boomer meme the punchline would be some shit about how the boy is a smartass.
Yeah it’s usually it’s the other way around, troll farm gets knocked of bigger sites they increase activity on smaller sites.
Though it is possible they may have been disrupted by another actor using capabilities beyond what Facebook has once it was identified. Or maybe they were active on both Facebook and Lemmy, but after Facebook shut them down, it wasn’t worth keeping it going just for smaller communities like Lemmy.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.