Twitter C/D

why was pisspiggranddad suspended?

aggressive bullying of that shortass nazi idiot in berkeley iirc

the pepes flagged him

#freepisspig

Based stickman or whatever? Sheesh
The alt right continues to win Twitter

the short dude who punched an anti-fascist woman in the face. think that's different than the one you mentioned

A guy who hits women sounds exactly like Twitter's preferred customer so that makes sense

tbf I think he thought there was going to be a melee and the only antifascist who was around his size to pair up against just happened to be a woman

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/berkeley-protest-video-of-woman-getting-punched-sparks-outrage/

So how many times does an unprofitable shit show of a company have to side with violent, misogynistic, racist bigots before the dirtbag left finds a better place to talk shit?

we all moved over to mastodon last week

pfft no one knows how to use mastodon

just lean into the bass

Down?

hacked?

i should have been suspicious when i had nothing new in my feed for a whole 20 minutes.

deleted twitter off my phone last week, recommended. now i check facebook, ig, and my lol emails every 5 min to compensate, but they're so much more boring that i don't get sucked in for as long. also I'm pretty sure it's mostly residual muscle memory/nervous tic as I can already feel the reflex slowing down

Down, looks like.

No problems here

Is better again.

the most recognizable progressive publication in the country doesn't give a shit if you die. love our robust american left pic.twitter.com/IY6zPO8b1m

— matt ◉ lubchansky (@Lubchansky) May 24, 2017

^ a good example of what i hate about twitter

they're not wrong, though, mother jones has shit editorial direction now

one of the editors is among maybe five people I have muted because I get pissed off when I see people retweet her

the actual post: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/05/health-care-expensive-deal-it

that is tbf a deeply awful post

why?

he's not saying 'deal with it' to individuals unable to pay their health care bills, as the tweet implies. he's saying, in the context of the california single payer plan's cost, that it shouldn't be a surprise that health care is expensive. that's just a mean, shitty misreading that takes advantage of the fact that people won't read past the headline. he even adds "If we're lucky, a good single-payer system would slow the growth of health care costs over the long term, but it's vanishingly unlikely to actually cut current costs."

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/002/686/Deal_with_it_dog_gif.gif

the framing is bad, and it ignores the fact that everything in the US, not paid by medicare, is paid in *terms* of medicare

the main negative articles coming out are talking about implementation plans, he went with a different tactic and tried to claim total costs won't be hot either. it's the same doomsaying talking point

also from a leftist standpoint emphasizing costs might be the same and just eliding the fact *people would be fucking covered for health care* is ridiculous

like for the same amount of money we could have everyone covered? fucking go for it

if only the misleading and sensationalized headline hadn't been forced upon poor mother jones

idk it's one to be broken down on the healthcare thread. I hate potshots on twitter usually, but taking potshots at one of the few left publications in the US for being fucking defeatist, even in headlines, is bullshit

lol thank you Mr. Spirals

like for the same amount of money we could have everyone covered? fucking go for it

― mh, Wednesday, May 24, 2017 4:49 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

that's what he's saying

maybe "deal with it" means something different in Canada

why?

― flopson, Wednesday, May 24, 2017 4:38 PM (two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

- arguing against an unnamed foe that no ones ever seen before the "healthcare is cheap" guy
- it ignores the fact that healthcare is in fact much cheaper in countries where its nationalized
- pretends like cost reform isnt part of proposed plans like were just gonna take our current system and nationalize it
- throwing around "additional government spending" like its not money thats already spent on healthcare
- "nobody serious is going to buy it" awful serious people pundit evocation
- faux-naive fake economist being provocative tone
- fake pointless math
- terrible "deal with it" headline when all were dealing with is this bad blog post!

its actually an accomplishment to have a piece that short be so terrible, there shd be an award

like I feel he's doing the "we do this not because it is cheap, but because it is essential" argument but either you're preaching to the choir who agrees it's necessary, or you're trying to convince people it's essential, and he's doing neither. if you're going to make a factual post that seems to make an argument, you need to... make the argument

there are so many things wrong with the us health care system

pick any part of it

but one of the main problems is how much doctors get paid compared to other developed countries

this isn't even about public vs private (though this has its own set of problems)

everything in the us is an excuse to receive more money, keep your own money and pay as little as you can for a service (i guess a lot of americans don't realize how contradictory all these things are)

seriously, my US family doctor is a fucking moron and i know quite a few people that also think their doctor's job involves straightforward procedures (a mix of psychobabble + exams that can be measured usually done by their helpers). he should be getting paid a lot less for the job he does

2012 article https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2012-12-12/to-cut-health-care-costs-pay-doctors-less

but you can find a lot more on the web

it's a post for economists and stats wonks to nod along to, and shake their heads about people who express shock at numbers

like I feel he's doing the "we do this not because it is cheap, but because it is essential" argument but either you're preaching to the choir who agrees it's necessary, or you're trying to convince people it's essential, and he's doing neither. if you're going to make a factual post that seems to make an argument, you need to... make the argument

― mh, Wednesday, May 24, 2017 4:56 PM (two seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah its very much from the "what who me i was just making an obvious simple point" school of pundit fuckery

california calculated the cost of their health care system and its a lot! im a very serious person you can tell by how i have taken a number from column a and put it in column b

this is to be expected, don't you understand how things work, plebes?

like for the same amount of money we could have everyone covered? fucking go for it

― mh, Wednesday, May 24, 2017 4:49 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

that's what he's saying

― flopson, Wednesday, May 24, 2017 4:51 PM (eleven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

he doesnt say that you inferred it, what he does say is "additional required spending"

if you take all the weird passive aggression out theres actually nothing there except california calculating how much they spend on healthcare lol

which is "a lot"... deal with it

"If we're lucky, a good single-payer system would slow the growth of health care costs over the long term, but it's vanishingly unlikely to actually cut current costs."

based on...what? and slowing the growth of costs wld be good, also obamacare a very bad national healthcare plan has slowed the growth of costs

the war cry of the status quo "Short of some kind of legislative miracle, there's really no way around this. "

"Nothing to be done unless we win elections, garner popular support, and pass laws"

when I was younger I used to be a huge fan of just hanging out at the newsstand part of bookstores, living somewhere where real newsstands aren't a thing, and whiling away some time browsing magazines and maybe buying a couple. there were more then (late 90s to very early 00s) and Mother Jones was one of the few that was institutional but still very much defiant. like The New Republic existed and had some left-leaning stuff but was pretty much in line with what could be attempted, legislatively, and was center-left

Mother Jones had the dual pipeline of research pieces into fucked-up government infrastructure like prisons, exposes on local govs and courts siding with corporations over local interest when it came to the environment or imminent domain, and the regular articles that made blog-like points but did a decent job of doing so from a further-left, common man perspective. This "don't you understand numbers!" crap is a departure from what I appreciated.

So when people are saying "this is what passes as our mainstream left pub" it's out of an exasperation for the diminishing of an institution and I cosign

mh i'm sorry your favourite mag is now a neoliberal content farm, i just think it's mean to intentionally misread someone in the way that was done in the tweet i c/p'd, and that the example felt emblematic of the over-zealous angry mob aspect of twitter, a main thing i dislike about it

it was never my fave, just something that was nice to see there on the newsstand

also I think we dissected why the blog post was bad but ydy

the mob mentality can def be over the top and harmful and dumb, but sometimes its good to have vigilantes going after intellectually bankrupt pundits imo, as to whether that example represents a misreading of the piece idk, its def hyperbolic, but when youre being that glib and sloppy abt such a morally vital issue you kinda deserve to have yr values questioned

fwiw glib and sloppy is being pretty charitable for what he did there imo

the fact that the magazine is called mother jones is the perfect symbol for our current situation lol