top 98 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 283 points 4 months ago (29 children)

Better put their own wall up before the Americans start pouring in.

  • source
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 48 points 4 months ago (23 children)

    I was literally just thinking retiring to Mexico doesn't sound terrible in the future.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 4 months ago (19 children)

    Climate change is not boding well for Mexico unfortunately. You can expect severe water shortages in the coming decades.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (18 children)
  • [–] 24 points 4 months ago (17 children)

    But in Mexico the remaining water is less likely to be hoarded by billionaires, so you might still have better access to water after all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (16 children)

    Can we make communities that are underground? Like fallout or silo

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 4 months ago (15 children)
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (13 children)

    You can manufacture fish-eye glass domes that sit on the surface and lead to mirror-walled tubes that parascopically carry the sunlight to the deeper into the catacombs and distribute it to each chamber.

    The outlets could basically just be slightly convex glass discs to fill the whole space with light, with simple aperture adjustments to control the amount of light in the room.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 4 months ago (11 children)
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (10 children)

    Similar concept, except using mirror-walled empty tubes instead of strands of clear fiber. It's not for transmitting data, just distributing natural light.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (7 children)

    I have seen at least plans, and I think it's actually been done, for using fiber optic cables connected to a skylight to transfer sunlight to rooms that otherwise wouldn't be able to have any.

    Nothing about fiber optic cables are about data specifically. It's just a cable that transmits light in a very similar way a tunnel with mirrors would (but better). It happens to be very useful for data, but it's just sending light through it that's interpreted as data at the other end.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (6 children)

    Right, because fiberoptic cables are made up of little tiny strands of clear fiber, so that each one can have an "on" and an "off" status, creating the potential for high-speed data transfer.

    What I'm saying is that these ducts don't need that, because they don't need to send billions of 1s and 0s per second. Just plain, natural light, which can be achieved without the fiber.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (5 children)

    Well, the reason it's good for data transfer is the same reason it'd be good here. The properties of the cable means it's flexible and transmits light down the cable with little loss, and it's also pretty cheap. Light exiting the cable if reflected, because of the material properties, so it bounces down the path easily. A duct with mirrors doesn't have this property. You'd have to make sure the mirrors are angled correctly, and it'd only work if the light is collumated, so it's all traveling parallel and not spreading out.

    Fiber obtic cables, again, are just transferring light. They don't have an on or off state. It's just light. It isn't just used for data transfer. It's just good for that because it's flexible and transmits light with little loss, and little spread. Light that comes in one end almost all comes out the other end, no matter how it bends on its path. This also means it's great for something like transferring light in a building. You don't need perfectly aligned mirrors that would decay in effectiveness with dust. You just run some cables from a skylight to where you want light, and it'll come out the other end.

    You can transfer data without fiber optics. It can be done with mirrors, just like your idea. The problem is that this system runs into a lot of issues. It is only done for data transfer in very specific circumstances, where you can't have a direct connection usually, because of this. The same issues would happen here (with a little less concern, because we don't care about data integrity, only quantity). All this is to say, fiber optics are great for transferring light where you can't have a straight line, not just for data.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (4 children)

    The reason fiberoptic is better than a mirrored duct for data transfer is because you can pack say 32 or 64 fibers into a cable, that means 32 or 64 points of light that are either "on" or "off", creating a 32-bit or 64-bit word size and enabling data transfer. You can't do that with ducts.

    Fiber obtic cables, again, are just transferring light. They don't have an on or off state. It's just light.

    There is an on and an off state. Either the light is on or the light is off. That's how it translates into binary. Literally that's what binary data is: a single data-point is either on or off. Put a bunch of them together to create words with 2^n^ possible combinations per word where n is the number of datapoints. For electrical data, that's the voltage level of one wire or bus lead. For fiberoptics, it's each individual fiber. It's either on or off, that's the whole point.

    You'd have to make sure the mirrors are angled correctly, and it'd only work if the light is collumated, so it's all traveling parallel and not spreading out.

    [...]

    You don't need perfectly aligned mirrors that would decay in effectiveness with dust

    The mirrors don't have to be angled precisely. If you take a cylindrical tube, and make the inside a mirrored surface, then all light traveling down it will continue traveling downward as it bounces. The only time the angle matters is around turns, but that's easy enough to angle correctly.

    It also doesn't need to be columnated, but the thing about the fish-eye dome is that with a flat lense on bottom, it does output columnated light from the wide-angled light it receives. That's how convex defraction works.

    And dust wouldn't be an issue if your tubes are sealed.

    Fiberoptics would technically work, but it's more material than you need because it would require running fiberoptic cables everywhere instead of just using hollow chromed tubes. Also, the quantity of light it can receive and transmit is limited to the thickness of the cable.

    Fiberoptics are great for high-speed data transfer because of data-integrity and the fine-pointed nature of the fibers. But they aren't ideal for moving large amounts of light where precision isn't needed, e.g. enough natural daylight to brighten several rooms.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (3 children)

    There is an on and an off state. Either the light is on or the light is off. That's how it translates into binary. Literally that's what binary data is: a single data-point is either on or off.

    Not really. Yes, binary is on or off, but how the signal is read is it has a threshold for on/off. This is true for light, with fiber optics, and also electricity. The universe doesn't work on binary. We say "if the signal value is > X, do Y". Electrical engineering actually has to handle variability in the signal, while computer science just pretends it's actually binary.

    Fiberoptics would technically work, but it's more material than you need because it would require running fiberoptic cables everywhere instead of just using hollow chromed tubes. Also, the quantity of light it can receive and transmit is limited to the thickness of the cable.

    I'm not just making up hypotheticals. If your idea were better it would be used. Fiber optics to transfer light is actually a thing that's done. Here is a company selling that product, and there are many others, but I've also seen things about large structures using a custom solution too. It literally does work and is actually done in reality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    I see your dornob and raise you one solatube

    And yes, I know digital "on"/"off" isn't literally either 5V or 0V, it's really "high"/"low", but practically speaking that doesn't change anything about what I said and it's more cumbersome to use those terms in casual conversation because it assumes a knowledgeable audience. Either way, when the memory latches in the register, each bit is either on or it's off, and fiberoptics work the same as electrical in that sense. That level of complexity and precision is not needed for distributing daylight.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    That level of complexity and precision is not needed for distributing daylight.

    But that's my point. The data thing isn't relevant. It's just transmitting light. The fact it can transmit data doesn't means that's what it's for. It just transmits light of any intensity.

    It's a lot easier to just run some cables than install specialty ducts though. It doesn't need as much space and you also don't need to worry about being in straight lines. You just run the cable wherever you want and the light ends up there. Fiber optic cables effectively are just tubes with mirrors, except they dynamically adjust to whatever shape they're in. If you've got a short path to the outside, sure, do the duct, although you might as well just do a window. If it's to the interior of a building, especially if it's already constructed, fiber optic cables are the only reasonable option.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    Fiberoptic cables are limited by the diameter of the cable. A mirrored duct can be as big as you need it to be. We're talking about enough light to brighten an entire room. A half-inch fiberoptic cable isn't going to do it.

    Solar tubes are very effective at bypassing attics. That's probably their main application, but if we're talking about constructing post-apocalyptic catacomb cities, where we already need some sort of central ventilation shaft and duct work, then it's not like we need to retrofit it to some structure that isn't designed for it...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    I don't remember where, but i've seen architecture that moved natural sunlight throughout the whole complex. If anyone knows it, i would be thrilled to revisit that.

    Edit: i remember it used mirrors to move the sunlight, if that helps.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    I get the joke but maybe the opposite. Americans already did cross the border for cheap healthcare. If public healthcare means that only citizens get it, that business will dry up

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 71 points 4 months ago (17 children)

    How will this impact the medical tourism industry that Americans depend on for affordable healthcare?

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    You're not kidding. Some towns like Los Algodones built their entire economy around medical tourism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 4 months ago

    I'm sure it will persist, as it primarily services Americans. And their money is still good.

    If anything, we'll see the Mexican health care system expand in order to absorb all the domestic residents who can now afford the same care

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 4 months ago (10 children)

    I'm sure you need to be a Mexican citizen to qualify for the program, I imagine foreigners get a bill. But I'm an American that expects a crippling bill from medical care so I have a bias.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    In some countries they don't even have the financial infrastructure to bill patients, so injured tourists get free health care. A big chunk of American medical bills is due to the cost of billing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Which countries? Asking for a friend

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    The ones i know: Denmark, England, Sweden, Norway

    But I would imagine that most other countries with unified tax paid healthcare would be the same.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago*

    In Denmark (and I would assume those other countries as well) it varies depending on the factors. If you are a foreigner but are living in Denmark, or if you are staying in Denmark for a job, then you can apply for the rights of free healthcare treatment, but if you are a tourist needing urgent care, and are not a citizen of the EU (or the Nordic countries), or under the age of 18, then you will be billed.

    So there definitely is a financial infrastructure to bill in Denmark, even though its own citizens never see it. Without knowing it precisely I would also assume that the bill would be very reasonable compared to a bill for the same treatment in the US.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    I never went to surgery or anything, but I've been to a couple of Drs in Mexico and it's basically just like paying the copay and just peacing out. Most of the time you can just ask the pharmacist and they prescribe whatever right there.

    You're overestimating the American Healthcare system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    We have free at point of service health care in Canada for those signed up to the plan. You don't have to be a citizen just a resident and wait your 2 month grace period. For tourists and non signed up folks you pay the costs out of pocket, but they are reasonable compared to USA. A coworker wasn't here long enough for the signup and dislocated his shoulder. Hospital visit, xray, sling, etc $400

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 21 points 4 months ago

    It'll probably stay the same. This administration is very aware of these issues and I doubt they'll intervene. Private practice is already available to anyone who wants it, no questions asked.

    Source: am Mexican living in Mexico

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    That's one of the things uasians don't understand. Universal health care doesn't mean there are no private hospitals or practices. It means you have a choice, but you are covered no matter what.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago*

    Don't worry americans don't use public healthcare in Mexico, otherwise they would actually understand the struggle to get it

    They just use private healthcare since it is catered to them while being cheaper compared to the US (I worked on medical tourism, all the marketing for these clinics is targeted to americans; most of them don't even bother using Spanish on their ads)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 59 points 4 months ago
    [–] 117 points 4 months ago (9 children)

    Luckily the US built a border wall so Mexico won't be overflooded with illegal immigrants trying to profit the free health care.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 4 months ago (8 children)

    too late. migration started years ago. as long as the gringos bring money.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (7 children)

    Careful what you wish for. I don't want them in my country, even if they bring money. They fuck everything up. I'm not anti immigrants and refugees, they are welcome, they should be treated better, like equals which sadly isn't always the case in my country. But Americans are a different story. There are some proper Americans, I have a few American friends that are proper, but in general I don't like to have Americans around.

    Even their money can fuck everything up. Like raise property prices so locals can't buy property anymore. Same with groceries etc.

    It's better to keep them isolated in their own mess. Otherwise they will leave the mess they made to create more mess where you live, then to go somewhere else after that. Irresponsible and selfish people will only bring misery onto others.

    In the movie Team America they have a nice saying. "There are pussies, dicks and assholes". Right now Americans are the assholes. They need to get fucked "otherwise you will have all your pussies and dicks all covered in shit."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Right now Americans are the assholes.

    Right now? Americans have always been the assholes. Ask the Natives.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago

    I stand corrected, you are totally right.

    Ask the Natives.

    And all their slaves (including the current legal slaves who are incarcerated)

    The Vietnamese, Kmer, Iraqis, Iranians, Cubans, pffff....

    Wait. It's easier to list the ones that don't think they are assholes: Israel (bigger assholes), eeeehm.... Oh yeah, themselves as they are self-centered AF. End of the list.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    You can replace "muricans" with "rich immigrants".
    For corrupt/conservative governments, rich immigrants are cool, and called investors.
    Poor immigrants are terrorists.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Honestly, you're getting a bad bias from the kinds of Americans that currently are immigrating there. The important thing to understand is you don't want the Americans with money, you want the Americans without any money that are willing to work and help other people out. Lol. See, what you've got right now are all of the rich assholes that don't care about the culture or people of where they're moving to - they just want to live like kings in a cheap city that they can turn into an asshole bubble that prices all of the normal people out. Rich people are leeches. Ultimately, the world would be a better place with open borders everywhere, but no rich assholes. Think about why borders even exist. In what world does it matter? The only reason is ultimately just rich assholes not wanting to dilute their wealth. The best thing we can do at this point is to convince them to go to Mars and leave them there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 51 points 4 months ago
    [–] 240 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (19 children)

    not free; tax funded

    Which is great! Taxes should be invested in citizens’ needs.

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 149 points 4 months ago (12 children)

    Free as in "free at the point of service".
    Of course it is paid for somehow.
    But as far a a someone going into a hospital to get a cast, medicine, birth... It's free

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 49 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    That’s true. Unfortunately, calling it free is often used by people who want to paint it as infeasible, and is used as an excuse to cut funding—even when data shows it’s an investment with human and monetary rewards.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    As far as everyone except oligarchs are concerned, it means everyone can access it without getting financially fucked over into debt. And that's excellent news.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 4 months ago

    incorrect slightly- while most boomer and right wing assholes know it means free at point of service and tax funded they act like it means “free for welfare queens and illegals” because they think daddy capitalist is watching them lick boots.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago* (3 children)

    Yes I mean nothing is free if we try to be strict about it. The word would have no meaning. I think we all understand “sold at zero price” but there are always people in the crowd who want to pop up and say “it’s not free! someone pays!” Typically their next move is to start breaking down who pays and why it’s unfair. I have no patience for them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    I dont have patience for those people either, but in general a lot of people feel taxes are the state taking away money. Where i live this is true for large corpo's and rich folk ('the state should not waste money on things people can pay for by themselves' is how they tend to put it here), but also by people with low wages tend to complain about how the state robs them. Reminding them how things they use are funded by the taxes they pay (roads, hospitals, police, education) can help them; because here they tend to fall for the retoric of the parties serving the rich and they sometimes truly believe the country would be nicer if they paid less taxes (not understanding they would have much more trouble paying for things like education and healthcare). For that reason I much prefer 'tax-funded healthcare/public transport/education', as calling it free is like giving a weapon to the group of people and corporations trying to lower their tax burden (and getting out of their responsibilities as the heavy lifters of funding public services).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    Even setting aside the deceptive propaganda around this, “they” meaning right wing voters of modest means, still have two problems with tax funded services of any kind. The government may not be “taking money away” as in making it vanish, but they are taking away the choice of how that money should be spent. Conservatives see a moral hazard here where their taxes will pay for the poor lifestyle choices of others - and actually they are right, just not the way they think they are. It’s not abortions for slutty brown women they should worry about but metabolic syndrome brought on by their own white neighbors horrible diets that will burden the system most.

    Their other problem is they don’t want to benefit from this kind of public good themselves. They see it as “taking charity” and although white people accept plenty of advantages, they like to stay proud about it. It doesn’t help to say “look, you’re getting something here.” So there just isn’t any way of making them comfortable with the setup, even when it isn’t being grossly distorted to them.

    The whole “I don’t take no charity” is a very old American value and part of a complex system we have for giving people ways to feel superior to others. We don’t have a formal class system in this society but we service the same instincts in a hundred other small ways. Farm subsidies? Of course! Do you know how important farmers are? Healthcare supports? What… so I can pay for abortions for some illegal immigrant who couldn’t keep her legs closed?

    We’re terminally stupid here and everything is about feels I don’t see how we’ll ever get past all this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago*

    Conservatives see a moral hazard here where their taxes will pay for the poor lifestyle choices of others

    I see a moral choice where my taxes will pay for the poor political choices of conservatives in poorer red states, but they also deserve free healthcare

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    There are so many health services that can be delivered en masse at very little cost. I once lived in a “3rd world” country with state sponsored healthcare. They had an army of nurses in shop storefronts delivering vaccines and basic meds for common illnesses. Just walk in. Nothing fancy - one of them literally reused hypodermic needles after sterilizing them with a bunsen burner. But how fancy does it actually need to be?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    That's a thing in the US too, by the way. You can walk into a pharmacy or some grocery stores and get cheap/free vaccines for the current flu strain as well as the standard immunizations for a bunch of common diseases.

    Most people don't take advantage of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    True that’s how I get my flu shots and such. It’s often extremely modest accommodations. Once my feet were resting on a pile of discarded coat hangers and other detritus from the drugstore’s retail floor.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago

    I agree, as a Canadian even if not perfect I couldn't imagine having a pay system or even what the US calls healthcare. That's the point of taxation, we get roads that are drivable, healthcare that is affordable and stuff like food standards, clean drinking water, education. The billionaires are trying to say everyone else doesn't need such things so they can get a bigger nibble of the pie when they already have truckloads.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Fuck. I really should have taken Spanish seriously back in High School after all

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 58 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Who's the shithole country now, America? 😂

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 45 points 4 months ago (11 children)

    This stands out even more because we're in an era when even countries with Universal Healthcare have been walking back on it (as well as Social Security, Unions and other earlier Leftwing conquests) by privatizing them piecemeal through things like forced outsourcing of some services and public-private initiatives.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    What's important to note is that these placed aren't going back on it because it doesn't work. They are going back on it because of back room deals made with corporate insurance lobbyists and their bought politicians. Profit is always the driving force for privatization.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    Exactly.

    You can just look at the experience of creating the National Health Service in the UK (there's a bunch of documentaries floating around) to see how it's an overall positive for Society by a large margin, not just directly but also indirectly because for example when people can go see a doctor for free they are far more likely to end up being treated for sickness early on (which its cheaper and easier) or to get treatment for debilitating but not life threatening conditions which in turn even gets reflected in higher Economic outcomes because healthier people are more productive.

    Universal Healthcare Systems only "don't work" for those who are fatcats getting a slice of that sweet sweet 13%+ of national GDP (about 18% in the US) that goes into Healthcare in the average country.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    Yes it's what's happening here in Canada and it's sickening. But it looks like it's better to blame the left for no reason, so why vote for them? Better keep slowly dismantling everything we collectively built instead!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago* (6 children)

    I first saw that shit when I lived in Britain a decade ago, already at the hands of he who Thatcher called her "Greatest Achievement" (Tony Blair, who pivoted the Labour Party hard to the Right and away from a party representing the working class) and later directly at the hands of the Tories (Conservative Party).

    Now that I'm back in my native Portugal (which also has a National Health service), the current rightwing government here is trying to do the same thing, tough not quite yet at the same point as NHS sneaky privatization was in Britain over a decade ago.

    By the way, Mark Carney, now PM of Canada, was placed by and served as head of the Bank Of England for the Tories back when I was there, during which he was a great friend of bankers and presided over an economic period when in real terms the income of the lower 90% by wealth of the population was falling at about 1% per year, whilst that of the top 10% was growing at around 23%.

    So, yeah, it does not surprise me at all, in any way form or shape, that Carney is working to make the fatcats fatter - same as he did in Britain - not for the good of most Canadians.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Yes I agree, Carney is just the latest one. We've been electing people that are dismantling everything for decades. The worst part isn't the federal, it's the provincial governments as they are the one who are in charge of most of our social programs. Here in Québec, they've been dismantling health care, social assistance program, infrastructures, education, child care and even one of the thing we're most proud of Hydro-Quebec. Everything so slowly that most of the people thinks its because of the unions or shit like that.

    It's maddening to see people complaining about the decay of everything then turn around and elect the same type of people again that brought us there, but in another branding. And the only thing they will say is that they can't elect the alternative as they wear a hoodie... So stupid.

    Like my parents, like everyone they were complaining of the last liberal government (which is akin to a conservative party that likes immigrants), so they wanted change. What did they do? They voted for the CAQ which is filled with conservatives and old boomers. The exact same type of people. Now they act surprised as they are not satisfied with them anymore, for the exact same reasons again. Next time they will probably vote for the PQ which has made a turn towards fascistic rethoric. The only alternative is QS, but a few members are anti-capitalists so they are now intelligible in their eyes. Oh and a member one time used to wear hoodies in parliament, that was such news worthy...

    We're a bit luckier than in the US as we do have alternatives that are possible to elect, but most people are too dumb to give them a chance. Doesn't help that the whole media apparatus are for the statu quo and demonize the alternatives every chance they can.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago*

    Most people do not have the time to look beyond the propaganda and schemes that high net worth individuals invest in to ensure their own interests are the only ones served in the long run.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Weird, it's almost like there's a global class war going on where only one side is organized and doing the fighting. Also, that a big part of their campaign is to infiltrate any remotely left leaning political party to sabotage it from within. But that's crazy. I mean, if there were going to do something like that they'd also be constantly sowing conflict between left-learning centrists and leftists which only ever happens every single day on every single media and social media platform.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

    It's my impression that it's mainly the "center"-left parties (aka the larger ones) which got infiltrated, especially in countries with power duopolies thanks to Mathematically rigged voting systems like First Past The Post.

    If you think about it, it makes total sense that Greedy Posh Salesmen-types with no principles whatsoever who want to get rich quick would be drawn to the two parties in power duopoly systems, were they will sell themselves to those who can reward them the best for their services, and those people certainly aren't the Poor or the Working Class.

    I've concluded some years ago that the secret for Democracy to actually do what it says on the tin is constant change (the very opposite of those voting systems mathematically rigged for "stability") - rotten politicians must genuinely fear that if they sell themselves, they WILL end up out of power and the next ones in aren't going to be just "mates with a different pin on their lapel" so they are more likely than not to end up in jail for it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago*

    There are big differences then. Where I live, we just got dental included in free healthcare, which is getting rolled out to more and more people in the next 10 years, where in the end everyone is included.

    We already had free until age of 24 I think, but now they will go all the way. It's in Denmark btw.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›