Oh, I’m fuckin’ stealin’ that, thanks. Yoink!

It’s unfortunately not that simple. The bulk of America’s farmland is in red states, so blue states on their own wouldn’t be able to feed their populations. Plus, red states tend not to have the biggest trade cities in the country, so they’d be choked in trade on their own. Also, all states break down into blue and red counties. Basically, if you’re a rural county, you tend to be red, and if you’re an urban or sub-urban county, you tend to be blue. So, even red states have plenty of democrats in them and vice versa.

Why should they have to what? I don’t think anyone should have to do anything because of my opinion. Is that the best you’ve got when it comes to a counter argument? I don’t even know what you’re referring to. Come at me with better slop than this.

No, I’m not, and I’m adamantly against it, but those nets are not yet completely dismantled, and the actions of this twat of a president do not disprove my overall point. America still has better safety nets than most countries in the world.

And to an extent, I agree that adding barriers to disaster victims is entirely unnecessary and counterproductive; I simply meant to point out that it’s not discrimination to expect people of virtually all stripes to be able to handle email access, at least in America. I’ve worked with people who have all varieties of disabilities. Only in extreme cases is it reasonable to expect a person to not be able to handle basic instructions that can help them circumvent technological barriers. If the blind can do it, what are we really talking about here? In my experience, it’s 9/10 times the lack of will, and that is probably the toughest barrier of them all.

I help elderly clients too and I’m aware of all those problems. We get them aides that can facilitate their shortcomings when it comes to technology. Solutions are available; all it takes is the will to enact them. People here are being very pessimistic about what’s possible.

I can’t attest to that area’s WiFi access but if it’s as bead as you say, and what I’ve heard about people stubbornly continuing to live there is true too, then they have only themselves to blame. I’ve been poor and I know plenty of other people who’ve been broke at some point in their lives. There are always options in a nation as rich as America. They’re not always good ones, but you can chain them together into something better.

Source: my job experience.

You’re the one making shit up, man.

Name a reason your grandfather can’t afford what I’m talking about. Housing subsidies exist. Disability exists. Social security exists. Free phones exist. Hell, you exist. I help hundreds of people a week get access to benefits that are free to them, which help them live. It’s not a luxurious life, to be sure. But it’s a lot better than most poor people from other countries. And we all pay for it with our taxes. The real crime is that it should be paid for many times over with corporate taxes, for which there are loopholes.

In America, even the poorest person can afford a device with cellular or WiFi access. I’m not contesting that society discriminates against the poor or non-Whites, but I don’t see the discrimination here. Anyone can have access to email.

We do differ then. I don’t throw the term “evil” around that loosely. Most of the suffering in the world is caused by well-intentioned people or people who feel justified in causing the harm they do. The very reason people try to justify the harm they cause is because they see themselves as a good person. True evil is thankfully hard to come by, and is typically the stuff of psychopaths and malignant narcissists. You do encounter it outside of that, like in extreme racists, but that’s also thankfully fairly rare.

But I’ll give you an example: I work in a community mental health clinic, and some of my patients have some pretty hardcore criminal histories. Just about all of them also have some pretty hardcore trauma and abuse histories. They’re, at least in some senses, “the product of their environment.” This is such a truism that there’s even a saying in social work: hurt people hurt people. Are they evil?

Good people see what is right, know what is right, and do what is right regardless of what others try to instill or coerce into them.

No, I would argue you’re describing intelligent people. Good people are defined by their intentions. My relatives are good people because they want what they believe is best for others. The fact that their beliefs are wrong is a testament to their stupidity. Plenty of harmful things have been done by good people.

Edit: Take their votes for Trump. They voted for him because they genuinely believe he has their welfare at heart. They’re wrong, because they’re stupid, but that’s not the same as the KKK Trump voters who voted for him because they’re evil.

It’s worth pointing out that empathy is different from sympathy and compassion.

Empathy is basically just understanding someone else. It doesn’t mean agreement or acceptance. Empathy is usually necessary in order to manipulate someone effectively.

That being said there is a component to empathy—sometimes called affective or emotional empathy—that reflects the phenomenon of emotional contagion, or how empathizing with someone else’s feelings can sometimes cause you to feel the same emotion on a lesser level.

Sympathy is understanding another person through shared or similar experiences.

Compassion is caring about someone.

What these Christians are talking about is the way there’s a trail from simple empathy to compassion that can cause some people to get over the bigotry and intolerance they have worked so hard to instill in them.

I have some of these Christians in my family. They are good people who have been taught rotten beliefs, and to avoid any critical thinking about said beliefs. I avoid associating with them as much as possible. Religion is a mind virus and these folks have one of the worst strains.

Yeah, some porn influencers (e.g. Belle Delphine) sold their “bath water” for, like, $500 a pop. They sold out in minutes. Desperate people are very easy to manipulate.

I mean, oldest profession and all that. Shouldn’t be surprising. When you can just fill mason jars with tap water and let the imaginations of some horny others do the rest, what’s not to like?

Imagine doing shit like this and thinking history will remember you fondly.

“Are we the baddies?”

Co-opting CPS a weapon in the “war on drugs” was a very intentional choice with extremely predictable outcomes.

That’s a nice sentiment until you look at the actual data. Drug-addicted parents are horrible for their children. Even if you want to make the argument that it was some intentional class warfare shit—and I’m not actually disputing that point here—it’s still a fact that SA parents tend to be shit parents. Every case should be evaluated on its own merits, that’s the point. And that doesn’t happen, and it sucks. But that doesn’t mean that drug testing pregnant mothers is a bad policy inherently. In fact, it’s a good policy, with sub-par implementation following it.

bro do you have any idea how much the US influences the rest of the world?

Oh, I’m very aware of it; I just don’t think you’re an honest actor. Name your country and I’ll comment further on what I think your legitimate claims to grief are.

Hospitals have no business testing for drugs without cause, which they do in the US per the article: “Hospitals across the country routinely drug test people coming in to give birth.” Screening people routinely for drugs is some police state shit.

Yes, they do. You can’t trust the self-reporting of patients when it comes to drugs, especially when it comes to the life of a yet-to-be-born child, who may be affected by said drugs. It’s a totally rational thing to do for the sake of a newborn. It’s not some “police state shit,” it’s completely rational medical care.

However, I just cannot imagine a scenario, where someone would be consenting to a drug test without coercion, can you?

LOL, I absolutely can. If you believe you haven’t ingested any drugs, what’s the harm in having yourself tested? If anything, the outcome you expect to happen simply adds credence to you. Where do you live that people who aren’t on drugs would categorically refuse to be tested? Because their “privacy” rights are being tested? Who cares about being tested for a crime when you know you’re in the clear? The test literally becomes evidence in your favor.

Add to that, that these tests are not good enough for random testing.

I’ll concede I don’t know enough about these tests to comment on their validity. But that’s a separate argument to be made in court, regardless of the result.

In the U.S. all healthcare professionals are “mandated reporters.” That means, if they find out about any form of child abuse while they’re on the job, they’re legally required to report it. Failing to do so can result in the loss of their professional license. Doing so is always considered an exception to confidentiality rights.

I suspect the hospital in question has a strict policy about reporting any pregnant mother who tests positive for drugs to CPS as a means of avoiding lawsuits. The problem is really with CPS systems in the U.S. They’re supposed to investigate reported instances of abuse and if it turns out there’s no cause for concern, close the case in short order; but CPS workers aren’t all of equal quality, and in my experience (I work in mental health), there’s a real problem with people who were abused as children becoming CPS workers and having a bias towards being overly suspicious of all parents. So, cases sometimes get dragged out, which ironically results in psychological harm to the children the CPS workers are supposed to be protecting.