Likely these are not “lose your army level” lessons. I’ve let idiots touch a hot pan if they’ve insisted to do it. I would not let someone pour gasoline on themselves and strike a match
I think you probably need to consider how many and who is affected and where their voting affiliations already lie if they even vote at all.
My guess is this doesn’t help or hurt either party at the voting booth. If you are ACA aligned or participate in that program you probably already vote Dem or not at all.
Ok, sure… but my guess is that ACA costs aren’t your only political decision maker if you are financially independent. Other things, like market performance under one party over the other probably hold a greater weight on your political considerations. A person in that circumstance generally doesn’t vote with their wallet, they are voting with their portfolio.
But if you are younger, perhaps with a chronic condition, in a job that doesn’t provide a health insurance benefit, and with minimal 401k…you are weighting ACA costs…and are in a demographic that historically votes more blue.
Why? I didn’t vote for Trump, but 4 out of the 5 years he was in office my investments grew pretty substantially in a way that they didn’t under Obama and Biden, I can’t really count 2020 since there was somewhat of an external factor that year. Even still I didn’t lose, just didn’t grow as much.
If AI and tariffs don’t result in substantial market losses for me (and they haven’t yet) why should I care?
Might be some confirmation bias at work in one or both of us. I tend to see conservative people in the FIRE space, seems you see the opposite. I’ll look more closely to get a better feel.
And we keep getting them elected. Imagine an election where candidates are liable for the veracity of every claim they make, with immediate penalties to their candidacy, and only verified facts are allowed in ads.
> Imagine an election where candidates are liable for the veracity of every claim they make, with immediate penalties to their candidacy, and only verified facts are allowed in ads
You cease to have a democracy. The real power sits with the verifier in that system.
Sometimes the last lessee is still on the hook for the remainder of the lease due to landlord improvements for the tenant. Had a friend lease a retail storefront, his business failed, but he still was coughing up rent to the landlord until the space was leased again. He was a sole proprietor and had to personally guarantee the lease. It was in his best interests to pay it rather than take the hit to his credit by defaulting on the lease.
My guess is a already wealthy landlord would probably be motivated to ride out the remainder of an existing lease and write off any unpaid amount as a loss before lowering the price to attract another business into the space.
A former NSA guy worked with me seventeen years ago. He had been retired for five years from the agency at that point we worked together.
He did not own a mobile phone or any internet connected device. Was staunchly against it. This attitude was based on what he knew were the surveillance capabilities in 2003. Ended up retiring to a mountain cabin that was off grid.
Maybe he was crazy, but he never seemed like the prepper type. Just very very sober and serious about avoiding electronic communications.
“Ease of access” and “easy access to the most depraved shit you can think of that’s out there” is what changed. That is what is wrong and why many people feel we need to find some way to control that access.
The Internet didn’t come along until I was well into adulthood. Think about what porn access looked like in the late ‘70s and ‘80s. As a teen we were “lucky” if by some rare miracle a friend stole their dad’s Playboy, Penthouse, or Hustler and stashed it in the woods (couldn’t risk your parents finding it under your mattress) for us dudes to learn the finer points of female anatomy. In a week it would be washed out from the elements with nary a nipple to be seen. Those magazines (even hustler) was soft compared to what a few clicks can find today. Basically you got degrees of nudity back then, but we appreciated it.
Hardcore video was very rare to see as a horny teen kid in the ‘80s. Most porn movies was still pretty well confined to theaters, but advent of VHS meant (again by sheer luck) you had to have a friend whose parents happened to be in to it, who had rented or bought a video, it was in the house and accessible, all the adults had to be gone from the house so you could hurry up and watch a few minutes on the family’s one TV with a VCR. You needed to build in viewing time along with rewind time to hide your tracks.
Now…parents just leave the room for a few minutes and a willing kid with a couple of clicks could be watching something far beyond the most hardcore thing I saw as a teen.
I doubt that the porn in the 70s was less bad than the porn today. Legal CSAM was being sold openly so what makes you think that it was more tame than modern stuff?
The fact is that as difficult as it was to get, you got a hold of it and watched it. Why would 'ease of access' make any difference if you didn't have easy access and got it anyway?
Are you implying that perhaps 15-25 mins worth of porn video total throughout all of someone’s teenage years due to such rare access of the material would have a similar emotional and mental impact as having the ability to see that much daily for years as is possible now?
There could have been years between the opportunities we had. I don’t think you conceptualize just how infrequent the opportunity would present itself.
For instance [1]. I am speaking out of experience, as a GenZ person who has been first introduced to the entire world of sex and porn at EIGHT years old. I myself feel it has harmed my brain in ways which I'll likely never fully understand.
A couple of comments above, you said: “Why would 'ease of access' make any difference if you didn't have easy access and got it anyway”
So exactly what is the target of the “difference” you are referring to then here? You are referencing a differential in something…if not psychological impact from the viewing of said material…what would that something be?
Person 1: "People are exposed to many more chemicals now than in the 70s, and they smell worse"
Person 2: "I don't think that they actually smell worse, and people were still exposed to chemicals in the 70s, so why would it make a difference?"
Person 1: "Are you saying that the health effects of chemical exposure are lessened because they are exposed to some chemicals as opposed to a lot of chemicals?"
Person 1 is using a claim that is not proven by their statements to make Person 2 responsible for a claim they never conceded was true.
Person 2 is disputing that Person 1's mechanisms make a difference not that their conclusion is valid.
In this case Person 2 has no duty to prove that bathing in it is fine or that getting exposed to a small drop is dangerous.
If Person 1 is claiming that there are harmful effects, they are required to prove that they exist and explain why bathing in it causes those effects while being exposed to it otherwise does not.
Person 2 has no duty to prove anything (or to enter the conversation at all), but Person 2 isn't going to convince anyone of their viewpoint by choosing not to attempt to prove their point. By choosing to say "not my problem," Person 2 is accepting liability for not attempting to change their opponent's minds if/when they get out-voted on the issue in the real world, as is currently happening.
What an interesting deflection. My initial comment mentioned the significant difference in access to porn between today and 40-50 years ago. You made a claim that it was meaningless. You brought the concept of its “effect” to the conversation.
It is interesting that you are accusing me of deflection when you are arguing with me about why it is my duty to prove you wrong instead of defending your premise. Let's start with the specific harms that porn causes.
No, I never made any claim that you have any duty to do anything at all, that is something you are inventing. Frankly, I don’t care if you explain anything or not. I provided information about the ease of access of porn among young people pre-internet. You made a claim that ease of access didn’t matter. I asked for clarity on that and you don’t want to provide it.
> would have a similar emotional and mental impact
You never stated what that impact was, and then tried to make me explain why you are wrong without you defining what your hypothesis is. What is the emotional and mental impact of porn? Why do you press for clarity from me, when you are the one that should be providing it?
I brought up that ease of access was significantly different then and now. That’s the lived experience I brought to the greater conversation. You didn’t argue that I was wrong about that ease of access, you decided to bring its effect into the conversation and said it didn’t matter. I made no reference to the effects in my original comment because it wasn’t about that. It was about ease of access being different. Only after you brought up effect did the conversation shift that way.
You left your thought and argument (whatever that was), incomplete. That’s your prerogative, but it’s a poor debate technique if your hope is to convince someone of your opinion.
reply