Prelude to the Apocalypse

[Zen]

"More than two-thirds (68.8 percent) of adults are considered to be overweight or obese. More than one-third (35.7 percent) of adults are considered to be obese. More than 1 in 20 (6.3 percent) have extreme obesity. Almost 3 in 4 men (74 percent) are considered to be overweight or obese."

Okay, so if you want to make actual inroads when it comes to this problem instead of sitting back and hoping it solves itself, what course do you take? Make accurate, easy to interpret dietary information more widely available (first target for me personally would be the industry-demanded exemption for sugar to be listed as a percentage on RDA labels)? Eliminate corporate subsidies which make processed food cheaper than raw food? Improve working conditions and compensation to give people both the financial wherewithal and free time to devote to obtaining quality ingredients and cooking decent meals as opposed to swinging past the drive-thru on the way to their third minimum-wage job? Offer incentives to tackle "food deserts" where you have to drive for miles to find anything "real" to eat? Offer more infrastructure devoted to encouraging walking/biking as opposed to driving?

Or do you just say "I'm not paying for your bypass, fatass, and moreover I'll be going through your pockets for loose change once you keel over!" because our misbegotten, self-destructive culture, right down to the genetic level, is simply too far gone to even bother with?

Very well informed angle of questioning, BulletMagnet. Certainly the problem will not solve itself. As to what course of action to take? I don't think it can be solved. Certainly not in any way the current models work within.
Anyone informed in true nutrition understands the "access" problem but the fact remains, real food only holds worth to those interested in its value. Education, access, affordability, legislation has zero impact to the majority, who willingly eat themselves to diabetes, cancer and death.
"Too far gone"; in many respects the majority have been too far gone for a long, long time. Maybe they always have been. In the 21st century, they are intentionally bred in vast numbers, for consumption and profit.
While we argue identity politics and "insurance" rape, the farm carries on as normal and we all miss the forest for the trees.
Same as it ever was.

[BulletMagnet]

Education, access, affordability, legislation has zero impact to the majority, who willingly eat themselves to diabetes, cancer and death. "Too far gone"; in many respects the majority have been too far gone for a long, long time. Maybe they always have been.

If this is the case, then why has this problem, along with the opioid epidemic and others, only exploded in recent years?

More to the point, why do we tend to give our own culture the benefit of the doubt when it comes to matters like this ("even if we are in trouble, it's because relentless, malevolent forces are at work against us"), but everyone else's cultural problems are home-grown, deep-set, innate and intractable, to the point that we can all but completely dismiss them out of hand? Even from a completely self-interested point of view that can't help but strike me as counterproductive.

[Rob]

[Mischief Maker]

I think most people just like excuses.

Especially kids with Leukemia.

[quash]

Some point to the current cost of transgender service members at $8 million a year and argue that the cost is minimal.

This sounds like an argument a friend of mine made for tougher immigration, because "it costs $80,000 for a child birth procedure in the US."

Which figure seems totally fucked up in that statement. Hint: It's the price tag.

Even so, there's a lot of costs unaccounted for when it comes to these things.

One thing that they kind of cover in the study on military pregnancies is how they leave gaps in billets, which is essentially killing the military's ROI on both trained personnel as well as deployed duty stations. If you were to factor that in, I'm sure the costs would be much higher than they're letting on.

There are other underlying problems as to why this is the case and they should be fixed, but right now we are preparing for war on several fronts and can't afford to restructure the entire personnel management system. Plus, given how deep the contracting lobby has its teeth in the DoD (since most of them only have jobs because it's too expensive to have military do them instead), I wouldn't count on that changing any time soon.

[Zen]

If this is the case, then why has this problem, along with the opioid epidemic and others, only exploded in recent years?

Accessibility I guess but lets not fool ourselves here. If it were not the opiates, it would be something else. If if was not provided to them, they would make their own.

More to the point, why do we tend to give our own culture the benefit of the doubt when it comes to matters like this ("even if we are in trouble, it's because relentless, malevolent forces are at work against us"), but everyone else's cultural problems are home-grown, deep-set, innate and intractable, to the point that we can all but completely dismiss them out of hand? Even from a completely self-interested point of view that can't help but strike me as counterproductive.

I am going to have to say it again "While we argue identity politics and "insurance" rape, the farm carries on as normal and we all miss the forest for the trees.
Same as it ever was."
I have no interest in identity politics.

[Rob]

[Mischief Maker]

Especially kids with Leukemia.

The Syrian boy of universal health care. Maybe we can help these kids and forget about the 80 million overweight adults? That could be a compromise.

he caught the cancer from being a reckless 150 pound lazy* white american.

These are great anecdotes Bryan. Please take all of my money.

Sorry kid, when you fuck up my side of the argument the rules state that you don't count.

Work on a more compelling sign to put on your gas station donation jars.

[BulletMagnet]

In the end, people have to think for themselves, be adults in this world and make healthy (or not) choices.

The problem is, people can only do so much thinking for themselves when they haven't been educated on (or, worse, have been deliberately misinformed concerning) the matters they're supposed to be thinking about, and can only make so many meaningful choices when time and/or financial constraints lock them out of most of the options before them.

I have no interest in identity politics.

This isn't a matter of identity politics, it's a matter of "if I actually want to take this issue seriously, what concrete actions can be taken which would legitimately improve it"?

[Weak Boson]

This whole healthcare thing is really baffling to me. I'm not very good with figures and "facts" but I was under the impression that somehow USAians pay more for healthcare than most random people from countries with universal healthcare. But I might have got that wrong. What I find weird is the idea that people don't want their countrymen to have healthcare. No one likes paying more than they have to, but this is life or death! I get that every country has its own culture, but are really there people in the USA who are content to have a system that leaves people out in the cold by design??

My take on the recent repeal/replace efforts has been that the answer to that question is by and large "no" since, even those that were skeptical about changing up the system before are now even more hesitant to do so when the bottom line is people losing their healthcare. It just doesn't sound like an improvement.

Incidentally, I saw a TV show (sorry for not doing academic research) which made a compelling case for treating obesity as a medical issue rather than a character flaw. But I guess that's because it was the BBC in the UK where we give credit to the NHS for the flickering soul of every individual on these emerald isles. The point is that since improving the health of the general public saves the general public money there's financial inventive to improve public health. And it turns out the way to improve people's health is to help them. Nightmare scenario ??

More to the point, why do we tend to give our own culture the benefit of the doubt when it comes to matters like this ("even if we are in trouble, it's because relentless, malevolent forces are at work against us"), but everyone else's cultural problems are home-grown, deep-set, innate and intractable, to the point that we can all but completely dismiss them out of hand? Even from a completely self-interested point of view that can't help but strike me as counterproductive.

I liked this comment.

[Mischief Maker]

What I find weird is the idea that people don't want their countrymen to have healthcare. No one likes paying more than they have to, but this is life or death! I get that every country has its own culture, but are really there people in the USA who are content to have a system that leaves people out in the cold by design??

To understand, what you need to know is for the past several decades well-funded right-wing talk radio and later Fox News have been creating and relentlessly reinforcing the message that White America is under some nebulous attack by blacks/gays/muslims/trans-people/whoever isn't the corporate monopolies actually exporting their jobs. Even when the right control every single lever of power, like right now, the message shifts to a cultural attack (ie. "The War on Christmas") to perpetuate the right-wing sense of victimhood. Basic psychology, when a person feels like they're a victim under attack, their mind goes into self-defense mode and empathy is the first thing to shut down.

Speaking of right-wing radio:

If it were not the opiates, it would be something else. If if was not provided to them, they would make their own.

You mean junkies like Rush Limbaugh?

[Rob]

[BryanM]

It's easy to point out the vampires being successful at being vampires is a thing, but the more crucial point is that there is no counter-narrative to counteract lies and a penis-obsessed model of reality.

Where's the leftist propaganda? Bill Moyers got an hour a week on the crack of dawn for a few years worth of Sundays on PBS, and then you have Youtubers. Maybe a little Tavis Smiley on occasion. There is no one else. Not Jon 'politicians, especially republicans, suck' Stewert. Not $40,000 a day Comcast employee Rachel Maddow.

Back when we had newspapers, unions had their own newspapers. Kansas was known as the heart of socialism, being a central hub for a ton of these outlets. It was a less centralized medium than television. Now we have no more unions and no more newspapers.

The only hope for anything to change is to move forward into a less centralized medium once again, such as the internet.

To understand, what you need to know is for the past several decades well-funded right-wing talk radio and later Fox News have been creating and relentlessly reinforcing the message that White America is under some nebulous attack by blacks/gays/muslims/trans-people/whoever isn't the corporate monopolies actually exporting their jobs.

None of this is really new.

Universal Medicare is supported 2 to 1. Raising the minimum wage is 5 to 1. 80% of the country supports something, but we can't get it. Why? Because we don't live in a democratic republic - we live in a capitalist dictatorship.

Which was made official when Koch and friends finished purchasing the democratic party in the 90's. Compared to what we have now, selecting congresscritters by random lotto like how Juries are selected, would be a superior system than what we have.

Money in politics is therefore the #1 issue from which the policy on all other issues is derived. How long and how deep the corruption is allowed to fester is a keystone difference between 1st world countries.

[Rob]

[BulletMagnet]

I'm not very good with figures and "facts" but I was under the impression that somehow USAians pay more for healthcare than most random people from countries with universal healthcare.

One quick summary of a couple of "advanced" economies I found looks like this:

Per person health care spending, 2015
United States: $9451
Germany: $5267
Canada: $4608
Australia: $4420
France: $4407
Japan: $4150
United Kingdom: $4003
Finland: $3983
Italy: $3272
Spain: $3153
South Korea: $2488

If you really want to dig deeper into the data, head here. A few additional things to consider:

- I'd have to do a bit of additional Googling, but at least one economist has stated that if we switched to a universal system and managed to save as much on average as other countries do in comparison to what we spend now, the government's much-maligned annual deficit would completely vanish. Overnight.

- If you hoped that spending double what everyone else does got us health care twice as good as theirs, our outcomes are frequently significantly worse than the rest of the "developed" world.

- I can guarantee you that the vast, vast majority of U.S. residents have never, ever seen the figures linked here, quite likely never will, and will continue to vote accordingly. And the media which should have made these numbers common knowledge years ago will be criticized...as unfairly liberal.

Good thing we have and are continuing to import millions of third worlders who are used to total corruption. It's almost like this is by design.

Would you allow that at least some of these people come here in hopes of escaping the corruption that left their home countries in a wreck, as opposed to propagating it?

[Mischief Maker]

White America is under some nebulous attack

And the result is this guy.

I'll take him over this woman any day.

Good thing we have and are continuing to import millions of third worlders who are used to total corruption. It's almost like this is by design.

Would you allow that at least some of these people come here in hopes of escaping the corruption that left their home countries in a wreck, as opposed to propagating it?

Even if he did, they would fall under the "Syrian Boy" exception and therefore don't count.

But to end on a high note, I forgive McCain his Tuesday shennanigans, but I'm keeping a close eye on him when the Healthcare zombie inevitably rises again.

[Zen]

This isn't a matter of identity politics, it's a matter of "if I actually want to take this issue seriously, what concrete actions can be taken which would legitimately improve it"?

None that would be legally, ethically or practically correct. As I said already, education, access to and affordability of real food, legislation etc., does not work. The sugar and animal produce genie is out of the bottle and can not be put back in.
Its simply a matter of addiction. “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.” This has been turned into “Let food be thy high and high be thy food.”
Gimme some of that caffenated, isoglucose injected rocket fuel, to wash down my Casomorphin smothered, heterocyclic amine/polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon patty in a super refined, gluten exorphin/gliadorphin bun.
As American as apple pie. How do you propose to change that?

Like everything else in life, "force" is only a short term, not to mention ethically repugnant solution. The answer is, as it has always been, strength of will, self respect and personal responsibility.

[Bananamatic]

just eat less

[GaijinPunch]

just eat less

It's quite an amazing concept, no?

[Rob]

[BulletMagnet]

As I said already, education, access to and affordability of real food, legislation etc., does not work. The sugar and animal produce genie is out of the bottle and can not be put back in.

Education and legislative efforts have had and continue to have positive effects on other self-destructive behaviors within our culture - smoking comes most immediately to mind - so why not others? Heck, even on the supposedly-intractable food front we're seeing increased demand for healthier options and access to dietary information, and at least some sectors are adjusting accordingly.

The answer is, as it has always been, strength of will, self respect and personal responsibility.

The thing is, one's circumstances, not just one's innate makeup, play a large part in how much of these qualities one is free to manifest, or can draw upon in the first place; again, even if you don't personally care what happens to anyone else, if you're serious about building a stronger society you have to be willing to ask what shared responsibility exists to ensure that factors beyond one's individual control don't equal permanent exile to the margins...which, again, invariably comes back to bite the rest of us.

If we had extremely restrictive immigration (maybe a tenth or less of what we have now), this would be an excellent thing and I would love it. A page back you said something about things that are making us "dumber and weaker" - this is part of it.

Do you believe that there's no value to be had in taking in the "tired/hungry/poor/etc." and giving them the tools and knowledge to raise subsequent generations with superior values and opportunities to those with which they were themselves raised (and pass their experience along to the folks back home all the while)? Accepting the best and brightest from day one has obvious benefits of its own, but if one truly believes that one's own culture has something of value to offer to the rest of the world then methinks we should be willing, at least to some extent, to put our money where our mouth is. Where exactly the line ought to be drawn I'm not knowledgeable enough to guess, but I'm willing to submit that a general unwillingness to impress the best of ourselves onto those upon whom it would make the biggest, well, impression, is the definition of "penny wise, pound foolish".

51% on some form of welfare. This is the cultivation of a near-permanent underclass that will remain uneducated and will never be soldiers in Bryan's Wolfpac army.

The question here is, do you believe that 1) The amount that most people get on welfare is enough to live with any real measure of dignity, and thus lull them into a sense of complacency, and by extension, 2) That these people, in their heart of hearts, whatever amount of assistance they receive, by and large want to stay welfare-bound, and that if they were granted a bona fide opportunity to become self-sufficient (and no, sorry, a McDonald's job doesn't count, especially since the first thing they tell employees who call their financial distress hotline is to get on food stamps and Medicaid), they wouldn't take it with every ounce of effort they could spare? Heaven knows that, for all our hand-wringing over the undeserving picking our pockets with abandon, our culture gives the destitute very little benefit of the doubt; even poor people call other poor people "lazy" if the latter gets more assistance than the former does.

While we're at it, let me attempt to tie this whole mess back into the overarching question that got me back into this thread in the first place: do we have any real reason to conclude that one culture's problems are caused by identifiable and addressable entities, while those of others are baked in so deep that without them the culture would all but cease to exist, to the point that we can feel confident acting in an official capacity upon this conclusion?

[Bananamatic]

pass their experience along to the folks back home

I thought you were the empathetic and progressive guy here and then you come up with this hunger games shit

[BryanM]

I don't know that it takes a wall of text to protect the xenos when all you have to say is "white people are poor as shit, and unnecessary to the workforce in equal proportion, too."

It's like the internal combustion engine was never invented. Sheesh.

As for "the xenos are retards" argument, well



60% of the population supports a constitutional amendment to get money out of politics. They're already "part of the WolfPAC army." Just like 80% of the population wants a higher minimum wage.

USAians aren't special evil snowflakes. For those who care about facts.

South Dakota voters just passed a law to reduce corruption slightly. It was overturned by the republicans in office. Funny how that works.

[Zen]

Education and legislative efforts have had and continue to have positive effects on other self-destructive behaviors within our culture - smoking comes most immediately to mind - so why not others? Heck, even on the supposedly-intractable food front we're seeing increased demand for healthier options and access to dietary information, and at least some sectors are adjusting accordingly.

Well I'm not going to knock this positive outlook, so I will say no more.

Where exactly the line ought to be drawn I'm not knowledgeable enough to guess

I would suggest the line is clear. It is crossed when that which you choose to aid diminishes, or indeed consumes you.

While we're at it, let me attempt to tie this whole mess back into the overarching question that got me back into this thread in the first place: do we have any real reason to conclude that one culture's problems are caused by identifiable and addressable entities, while those of others are baked in so deep that without them the culture would all but cease to exist, to the point that we can feel confident acting in an official capacity upon this conclusion?

Difficult to answer this without knowing your definition of "culture", coupled with perhaps a specific example "acting".

[BulletMagnet]

Well I'm not going to knock this positive outlook, so I will say no more.

For whatever it's worth I'm not attempting to "think positive" for its own sake; as I said earlier, it's a matter of what works. Heaven knows there are plenty of legislative and/or educational initiatives that have gone down in flames, but in cases where at least some good has resulted why not at least attempt to build on that, as opposed to refusing to go beyond "it falls into category xyz, and thus must be a bad idea"?

I would suggest the line is clear. It is crossed when that which you choose to aid diminishes, or indeed consumes you.

I would counter-suggest (...is that a real thing?) that what counts as "diminishment", let alone "consumption", vary very widely from person to person...based on what I've seen of your previous posts methinks your definition of both is quite different from mine.

Difficult to answer this without knowing your definition of "culture", coupled with perhaps a specific example "acting".

Let's keep it simple, relegated to the specific topic that started this whole thing off: are the problems inherent to Islam so intractable and detrimental that we should restrict a vast majority of them from setting foot in the USA, and/or restrict the rights of the vast majority of the ones already here?

[Bananamatic]

Let's keep it simple, relegated to the specific topic that started this whole thing off: are the problems inherent to Islam so intractable and detrimental that we should restrict a vast majority of them from setting foot in the USA, and/or restrict the rights of the vast majority of the ones already here?

meanwhile there was another machete snackbar in germany today and we're getting shit for not letting those people in

I'm honestly curious about what the average "moderate" muslim thinks about gender equality and personal freedom and why don't they clearly differentiate themselves from the "intolerant" ones that are incompatible with western society for their own sake
when you try to educate yourself you only discover cryptic shit that there are no "good" and "bad" muslims, only "true" ones, except all of them obviously claim to be true
meanwhile you're just another kuffar who doesn't give a shit about that, only if they're going to behead you or not and half of them could just be doing that taqiyya thing anyways

[Rob]

[BulletMagnet]

I'm honestly curious about what the average "moderate" muslim thinks about gender equality and personal freedom and why don't they clearly differentiate themselves from the "intolerant" ones that are incompatible with western society for their own sake

What concrete actions would you like to see them take in this area? Whenever an act of Islamic terror occurs "mainstream" Muslim associations always publicly condemn it; what additional steps do you think they should take? I don't mean this as a rhetorical question, I'm interested in the perspective of someone closer to places where this sort of conflict is a more immediate concern.

[Bananamatic]

I'm honestly curious about what the average "moderate" muslim thinks about gender equality and personal freedom and why don't they clearly differentiate themselves from the "intolerant" ones that are incompatible with western society for their own sake

What concrete actions would you like to see them take in this area? Whenever an act of Islamic terror occurs "mainstream" Muslim associations always publicly condemn it; what additional steps do you think they should take? I don't mean this as a rhetorical question, I'm interested in the perspective of someone closer to places where this sort of conflict is a more immediate concern.

in the best case they should just make their separate form of "progressive" islam that's compatible with our culture and standards and that you can easily tell apart from the shitfest variations
if whatever that's written in the quran (I tried to read some of it and it seems like you could interpret it in a lot of ways) can be interpreted in a more acceptable way then it shouldn't be entirely impossible

[Rob]