𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠

  • 2 Posts
  • 472 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 16th, 2023

help-circle




  • also giving infants 70 shots is insane

    Yoi’re right, letting them get infected with life-threatening diseases with as little protection as possible is much more responsible.

    Only thing this is benefiting is big pharma, they don’t make money off of healthy people.

    This has always been a stupid argument. Imagine two pharmaceutical companies, A and B. A develops a treatment that treats but doesn’t cure a patient. B develops a more expensive treatment, but it completely cures a patient.

    Which company would you want to be a customer of? Obviously B, they can cure you. Pharmaceutical companies are financially incentivised to cure rather than treat.

    Now imagine A also tries to develop a cure. The only was they can compete is by making the cure cheaper, safer or more effective.

    Being the only one with a cure means you can also ask higher prices, as you’ve essentially monopolised a disease.

    This is also self-evident from all the diseases that we’ve found cures for in the last few decades. Even cancer is becoming less and less of a death sentence.

    RFK is right

    He’s wrong.



  • Unlikely. In the age of globalism, it’s much more likely that manufacturing will leave the US to dodge counter-tariffs. The combined markets of Europe and Asia is for most products larger than the US market, and that trend is only likely to increase in the future as Asia develops. Manufacturers know making stuff in Asia is just cheaper, and that American consumers are more likely to go into debt to buy stuff than other consumers. They also know that these tariffs are unlikely to last for long, because if the US takes the expected economic hit here then it becomes less likely that Trump/the GOP remains in control (eg midterms flip control back to the democrats).

    Not much reason to move factories to the US, which is wildly expensive, when taking the hit and waiting it out is ultimately most likely cheaper.





  • the direction I take to “steer it away” is to look at it as something universal, which is simply more helpful to understand why it happens, not to tie attention to men’s issues specifically.

    I understand your intentions, but it doesn’t have the intended effect. By doing this you are making the assumption that the way women experience these issues is (close to) the same as the way men experience it. But you can’t really assume that, and often people disagree.

    When women want to talk about problems they face, it’s important to hear them out and address their issue, instead of what amounts to ‘deflecting’ to a “grander” issue. At its core it’s a whataboutism that derails the conversation, and that’s not what you intended.

    So my genuine advice is: don’t. Address these problems one by one. The solutions can often be different.

    You have to assume that

    I believe we’ve come at the point where women and men issues are so intertwined, so much permeating each other that it’s no longer helpful to see them as separate issues to begin with.

    may well not be correct, and it can feel incredibly invalidating to people by assuming that this is the case.


  • As much as you may be right that both men and women are experiencing this, the post was talking about how women experience it. And when women speak out about it, it’s apparently hard to talk about just that and instead the male experience has to be discussed as well.

    Again, I really don’t think you intended anything bad here. But as you said:

    If all sides have an opportunity to say things without being interrupted, there is no point in chiming in and saying the other side has it worse.

    Women try to talk about it (e.g. via this topic), but you interrupted by chiming in how men are also affected. That might well be true, but it’s also the kind of interruption that can be frustrating because, and I say this as a man, the experience women have is probably different (on average) from the experience men have.

    You’re not one of the voices in the comic shouting “misandrist” or anything, but it is a kind of “and what about the men?” type of statement. And I don’t think you’re trying to be dismissive here at all and I do believe your intentions are good, but the result here is that what women want to talk about is once again not talked about, which is what the comic is about.

    Your well-intentioned statement I think perhaps unbeknownst to you is steering the discussion away from the intended topic. And it’s exactly that problem that this comic addresses.