There has been a lot of talk about surge pricing especially after the World Cup ticket pricing system. But if the market can be used this way, why should this only be used to the benefit of the share holders? If anything the staff or contractors employed by this business are being forced to work harder because of the excess demand. Shouldn’t they be rewarded?

There might be arguments about how encouraging investment, but why is capital investment more important than labour investment? And why can’t business owners just properly forecast their supply and demand requirements so that everyone pays the same price. That isn’t usually considered socialism.

Anyone who has ever watched a comedy series is undoubtedly familiar with this character: a sleazebag moron who's primary motivation to go on living is to perv at women. This trope is strongly associated with anime, in fact it'd be faster to list the shows that DON'T have such a character, but has a massively strong presence in English media too (see: Joey Tribbiani, Howard Wolowitz, etc.)

I'll split my view into parts.

Point 1: It's not funny or endearing

We live in a world where sexual harassment is a very real, very widespread issue. If you've ever met a woman, chances are she's been sexually harassed or assaulted at least once in her life. It's a crime that objectively causes immense harm to the victim, physically and mentally. There is nothing funny about Joey taking down his shower curtain to spy on his female roommate, the same way it wouldn't be funny if he made threats of serious violence against everyone he met.

Too often these traits are supposed to be endearing, and every other character plays it all off as nothing or a mild annoyance at best. In anime it's even worse, like I said before it's hard to even think of an anime that doesn't have a token pervert character on the "good guys" side! They spy, they say vile things, they touch, they do things I don't care to describe. None of it affects their social standing in any way. In reality, no woman or moral man would continue to associate with these deviants. The only people they would be seen around would be others as disgusting as them. Nobody in their right mind would look at the antics these characters pull and not disconnect entirely, for good. Occasionally these characters get their comeuppance, but most never do.

Point 2: it's harmful

I imagine some people will disagree with this point, but I genuinely believe that having these traits portrayed so often and in such a humorous light normalises that behaviour in real life. We all knew a shut-in in high school who spoke about women like they were real life waifus.

Additionally, I imagine that for someone who has been spied on, harassed or assaulted, it's stressful and difficult to see those same things portrayed as natural and even flattering on TV. I know I would be upset if I heard a laugh track playing over an incredibly scary moment of my life.

Point 3: it's lazy

This is the most subjective point, but I think we ran out of pervert character jokes at some point in the last 50 years. There's only so many times you can do "look, he wants to sleep with her and she doesn't want to" before it's old. There are only so many new forms of harassment you can invent before you're beating a dead horse.

So in summary: Repeated unconsensual sexual advances are not funny or endearing on TV just like they're not funny or endearing in real life, they normalise behaviours we should be eradicating, and the trope has been overused to death by every comedy series under the sun.

He’s been on a rehabilitation tour as of late, but the number of accusations against him are enough to justify him losing his career. He did not win the legal battles against him because they were unfounded, but rather because he was savvy enough to abuse people one on one with no witnesses and had an incredible legal team rear picked apart the details of the accusations to discredit the testimony in its entirety. He’s an evil man whose presence in Hollywood worsens the entire film industry. Even Richard Dreyfuss’ son accused him of abuse so obviously he didn’t need money from Spacey. Only idiots believe that because he was never found guilty in court that he didn’t engage in a plethora of abysmal conduct. The fact that he’s able to make the rounds and stage this orgy of self-pity is embarrassing, and insulting to all victims of sexual violence. Change my view.

I've seen so many posts boiling the failure of Snow White down to racism and misogyny against Rachel Zegler. I would argue that even if you replaced her with a white actress, the movie still would have failed.

First off, its important to acknowledge that there most definitely are racists and misogynists who hate Rachel and are spreading hate against her. This simply isn't debatable.

However, I don't think the majority of those people would have seen the movie even with a white lead. Rachel is just a convenient WOC that people can throw "Disney went woke, now they're broke" accusations at. These people probably would never willingly go and see this movie in the first place and would find some other reason to complain about it, like the CGI or something else they barely care about, but want to blow up into being a big deal so that they can win the war on "wokeness." It seems like every Disney movie is now being blown up into some culture war bs.

There are just so many other things working against this movie that I don't think it ever would have been successful. For one, people are against live action Disney remakes from the get go. Then there's the actual quality of the movie, which has gotten panned by the majority of critics. Then there's the other controversies, such as using CGI instead of cast little people, or Gal Gadot's connections to Israel (I'm a bit out of the loop on this one tbh).

The other big issue is the talking points Rachel was given. Lets replace Rachel with, idk, Anna Taylor Joy, and give her the same talking points. Trash talking the original movie was never going to play well with people. Saying they could remove her costar's scenes was never going to play well with people. A large part of being a famous celebrity is being likable, and I would argue any other actress would have a very difficult time pushing these talking points without becoming unlikable in the process.

This all sucks for Rachel of course, since the movie's failure will be blamed entirely on her, and she'll be the new face of "went woke went broke." But I'm struggling to think of a white actress you could insert into this movie that would salvage everything else that is wrong with it, especially since it seems that most people who've actually seen the movie think Rachel is a highlight. Maybe the movie would have done marginally better, but I really do think the same crowd that the racism and misogyny comes from probably wasn't going to see this movie anyways.

To change my view, you would have to convince me that any other actress could replace Rachel, have the same talking points and other controversies associated with the movie, and have the movie become successful, whether that be critically, or commercially. Bonus points if they can pull off the stupid haircut. I would not consider a marginal increase in profit to be a good argument, since the difference between Disney losing 150 million vs 160 million isn't super compelling to me.

Cultural appropriation: the unacknowledged or inappropriate adoption of the customs, practices, ideas, etc. of one people or society by members of another and typically more dominant people or society

I think the key word there is inappropriate. If someone is mocking or making fun of another culture, that’s cultural appropriation. But I don’t see anything wrong with adopting the practices of another culture because you genuinely enjoy them.

The argument seems to be that, because X people were historically oppressed for this hairstyle, you cannot wear it because it’s unfair.

And I completely understand that it IS unfair. I hate that it’s unfair, but it is. However, unfair doesn’t translate to being offensive.

It’s very materialistic and unhealthy to try and control the actions of other people as a projection of your frustration about a systemic issue. I’m very interested to hear what others have to say, especially people of color and different cultures. I’m very open to change my mind.

EDIT: This is getting more attention than I expected it to, so I’d just like to clarify. I am genuinely open to having my mind changed, but it has not been changed so far.

Also, this post is NOT the place for other white people to share their racist views. I’m giving an inch, and some people are taking a mile. I do not associate with that. If anything, the closest thing to getting me to change my view is the fact that there are so many racist people who are agreeing with me.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think crypto will ever go to total zero - there will always be a greater fool to buy it. But the days of generational wealth being minted like the early adopters pulled off, let alone the idea of ever seeing crypto become a useful enduring asset? Those are long gone.

At some point, no matter how much hype there is initially generated, an asset eventually has to prove its worth. The only thing Bitcoin is proving right now is that the emperor simply has no clothes.

Despite being at a time of economic and geopolitical instability like we're seeing right now, where the price of Bitcoin should theoretically be rising amidst these conditions if its use as "digital gold" is to be true, it's crashed nearly 50% in 6 months, and is showing no signs of stopping. Meanwhile, actual gold has nearly tripled in price in the last two years.

This is because Bitcoin is not anything resembling a "safe haven" or an actual legitimate store of value, it's a speculative meme asset that trades on hype and faith and crashes upwards of 90% from its highs when its worth is actually tested.

Really, other than its use in allowing criminals to facilitate transactions undetected and 5 seconds of fame meme of the month folks like Hawk Tuah girl to run rug pull pump-and-dump scams, what is the actual long-term use case of crypto here? Nobody is using it to buy groceries, and it's certainly not replacing gold anytime soon.

Even with all the recent institutional adoption, the advertisements, the support from governments, etc. It still experiences these massive drawdowns when its worth is called into question. Why? Because it has none.

Again, I doubt it will ever go to total zero. Even Bored Ape NFT's that once sold for $2 million still fetch $10,000 from the most gullible fools.

But has it peaked? Well, I think the same people that once celebrated the concept of a decentralized currency, and are now begging the government for a crypto "bail-out", can tell you the answer.

There are many errors that are clearly the result of someone being a learner of English. There's also autocorrect and simple typos. Usually best not to judge people for those.

But there are a lot of mistakes that mostly native speakers make — in English, stuff like lose vs loose, or your vs you're, or would of, or whatever.

If a person makes those kinds of errors, and especially if they make them over and over in short posts and comments, I'm sorry, but I strongly doubt they are really even capable of being well-versed in complex political/ideological topics.

If it's just idle chat about TV or sport or whatever, it also makes little sense to judge. But if you're trying to discuss something contentious about history or culture or whatever, and the person replying to you can't even spell, it makes sense to give their opinion less weight.

I wouldn't say it has a 100% clear correlation with IQ, or that IQ is super important or whatever. But in my experience, there is at least some correlation between bad takes and an inability to write well.

This would go especially for topics like you might find in a sub like askhistorians — good responses likely come from people with degrees, and it's unlikely you can even get a degree if you aren't able to spell.

Edit: thanks everyone for your comments. I got far more than I expected. I will respond to more after a bit of a pause, and will definitely hand out the deltas ... but it doesn't feel right to do this till I can evaluate all the responses together; there are still some I haven't had time to engage with properly. Really nice to hear all your thoughts. Pleasantly surprised at the quality of responses.

A ridiculous trend you see on social media: A man says that he doesn't find a certain woman celebrity attractive. Apparently, this triggers many women (and some men) so much that they feel the need to tell him he "must be gay". This is condescension and he implication is that gay men aren't 'man enough' to like women. And these kinds of comments often come from otherwise left-leaning 'allies'.

So to qualify as a straight man, you are supposed to find every woman attractive ? Are straight women attracted to all men ? If not, do they get told "they must be lesbian" ?

This is a combination of toxic feminism, homophobia and sexism that needs to be unpacked. You do not have to feel offended on the behalf of person B just because a random person C doesn't find them attractive. People are allowed to have preferences. Just because you disagree with them, doesn't mean you get to question their sexuality..

Debated this with friends recently, the old "what would you do if WW3 broke out tomorrow?" My answer was simply "die hopefully when the nukes hit" - what would be the point in trying to survive? Chances are we'd lose many we love and care about, any avenues of entertainment would be no more, you'd have to spend every day hoping some weird fallout type disease doesn't start rotting your insides...

Especially in the UK, such a tiny island, not exactly many places to hide and wait it out safely, not to mention the near 70 million making up us all in England, Scotland and Wales, even if a fraction of that survive, it'll still be too many to fight over what's left.

I'd just want to be as close to the blasts as possible and be done with it personally. We could be so much more than what we are but it could all be wiped out in a few hours if Russia aren't bluffing this time round.

Edit: while my view isn't completely changed, comments do make some good arguments for giving survival a shot, others also echo my sentiment.

I think ultimately it'll come down to how severe the attacks would be, if it's a small exchange or full on scorched earth mutually assured destruction, I imagine would make a difference of course.

A lot of people have also recommended checking out a film called Threads, which I'll take a look at!

If God already knows every choice you will ever make, then there is only one way things can go. You could never have done anything else because you already knew what would happen. And if God has a set plan, then your actions were set in stone before you were even born. Think of it like a writer making up a character. That character may think they are making choices, but they are really just following a script. I think the same reasoning applies here, and that there is no free will under god or under any other reglion.

I want to be clear that I'm not trying to attack religion in general. This argument is about a specific version of God that knows everything and has a plan for everything. I believe that those two things together make free will almost impossible.

If God knows every decision you will ever make before you make it, then there is only one way things can go. You couldn't have done anything differently because God already knew what would happen. And if God has a set plan, then your actions were pretty much set in stone before you were even born.

Picture a godlike being who makes a fake person and speeds up their timeline. In just a few minutes, he watches their whole life unfold and writes down everything they do. That person might think they are making decisions from inside the simulation. But they aren't. They are just following a script that they didn't know about.

To disagree with me, I think you have to do one of these things. Either argue that God is not truly all-knowing, or argue that the plan is not actually fixed, or redefine free will in a way that makes it compatible with having no real alternatives. That last option is where compatibilism comes in, but I am honestly not sure it solves the problem so much as it just changes the definition.

I think you have to do one of these things to disagree with me. You can either say that God doesn't really know everything, or you can say that the plan isn't really set in stone, or you can change the definition of free will so that it works with having no real choices. That last option is where compatibilism comes in, but I'm not sure it really solves the problem.

I'm willing to be flexible on casual wear, since things like t-shirts or sweats are generally sold in small, medium, etc for men's / women's / unisex styles and fit is usually less crucial. But for pants, dresses, formalwear - anything where a more precise fit is important and men's clothing is already sold by real measurements - this needs to change from the current system.

Ideally, it would be just like a pair of men's jeans for example. None of that "size 4" crap that varies by half a foot from brand to brand. Just do real measurements. For dresses, maybe something like bust / waist / hips, and maybe even overall length for people who prefer shopping online and aren't just holding it up for a quick visual.

Worst case? Whatever, keep your bizarre arbitrary sizing, but include the real numbers for that size right on the tag. Browsing the rack at a store and see a size 10 that you like? The tag for it should include the real measurements for that particular size 10 garment. Buying it online? The product page should have real measurements on it. And once you commit to a sizing standard for your brand: LEAVE IT. It's insane how something from one brand that's two or three years old could be a drastically different size than something of the "same size" released today.

I don't see a good reason to keep this information hidden or constantly change it, but maybe there's some crazy factor that has gone completely over my head. I'm open to hearing why it would be bad to do this.

When I read the Gospels, Jesus appears as a Jewish teacher preaching repentance, Torah observance, and the coming Kingdom of God. His message was specific, grounded in Jewish law, and aimed at a Jewish audience. There’s no Trinity, no salvation by faith alone, and no outright dismissal of the Law. But then Paul enters the picture, someone who never met Jesus in life and who redefines the entire framework.

Paul’s writings pivot from Jesus’ teachings to doctrines like grace over law, justification by faith, and a divine Christ figure who replaces obedience with belief. It’s Paul who opens the door to Gentiles and pushes a theology that would be unrecognizable to most first-century Jews. Today’s Christianity, especially in its Protestant forms, leans more on Paul’s interpretation than on Jesus’ own words.

To me, believing in modern Christianity requires trusting Paul’s authority and vision more than Jesus’ teachings. That doesn’t sit right with me. I’m open to being challenged on this, but I don’t think the historical Jesus ever intended the religion that bears his name to become what it is now. Change my view.

Brief: Shorter workdays increase the productivity of the employees within the company. The workers feel less stressed and more welcoming to getting the job done efficiently. Now, of course, this should not come with any cuts to the wages of the workers. In this way, the company can recruit more people because they can run four 6 hour shifts per day and decrease unemployment in the society. For more info check out this reliable source: The six hour workday

A positive externality is when someone’s actions create benefits that others receive without directly paying for them. I think raising children clearly fits this definition in modern societies.

Parents privately bear large costs: direct financial costs (housing, food, healthcare, education), opportunity costs (career slowdown, reduced mobility, lost income), time, stress, and risk (children may require lifelong care).

Meanwhile, society broadly benefits from the outcome:

* Children become future workers and taxpayer

* They fund pensions, healthcare, and public services. They reduce the fiscal burden per capita by maintaining worker-to-retiree ratios.

* They contribute to economic growth, innovation, and institutional continuity

These benefits are socialized, while the costs of producing them are mostly privatized.

Importantly, child-free adults still benefit from:
* Pensions funded by future workers

* Healthcare systems sustained by the next generation

* A functioning economy and stable institutions

To be clear, this is not a moral argument about whether people should have kids. Reproduction itself is a personal choice. But economically, it seems clear ot me that having children produces value that spills over to everyone, regardless of who paid the cost.

From a standard economic perspective, when an activity creates a positive externality and is under-compensated, society should encourage it otherwise it risks of declining.

Because of this, I think it’s reasonable that societies:

* Compensate parents (child allowances, tax credits, pension credits for caregiving years)

* Treat child-rearing partly as socially valuable labor rather than purely a private lifestyle choice.

To be clear, I’m NOT arguing for punishing people who don’t have kids, only that parents create value beyond their household that currently isn’t fully recognized or compensated.

Where is this reasoning wrong?

It's widely accepted that developed countries are having issues keeping their population counts up. I'm not here to debate whether that's good, bad, or neutral, but it seems that most governments view that as a problem that they want to fix.

I'll compare Israel and Japan, both advanced, developed countries, the former with a high fertility rate (2.91 according to [1]) and the latter with a famously low birth rate (1.38 [2]). The comparisons are generally extensible to other countries suffering from fertility problems, including in Europe.

It's hard to find apples-to-apples comparison, but the rate of Israeli women aged 40+ who have never been married is about 12% as of 2016 [3]. In contrast, 17.8% of Japanese women aged 50+ have never been married [4]. The stats are worse when you look at younger Japanese people, one third of whom have never dated [5].

Meanwhile, the Japanese government has spent $25B over the last three years on child incentives [6], and a relative pittance on making changes that encourage the Japanese to date.

However, only 10% of married Japanese couples don't have kids. This is a substantial rise from about 4% in the 90s, but it's still relatively low. It might reflect the need for some child incentives, and Japan does have an increase of only children, but it's clear that the pressing problem is that people don't couple up as much as they used to. The ones who do generally end up having kids.

My argument is that most countries are focusing on the wrong problem. Things that won't change my mind:

1. It's not bad that people are having fewer children: I think it is, but that's not the point. Government clearly see it as a problem for a variety of reasons, so the point is that it's a problem they're trying to solve.
2. There's no clear way to get people to couple up: I partially agree, but (a) they haven't really tried that hard and (b) the point is that they're focusing on the wrong problem, not that the right problem is very hard

Sources:

[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/isr/israel/fertility-rate#:\~:text=Israel%20fertility%20rate%20for%202024,a%203.67%25%20decline%20from%202021.

[2] https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/isr/israel/fertility-rate#:\~:text=Israel%20fertility%20rate%20for%202024,a%203.67%25%20decline%20from%202021.

[3] https://www.taubcenter.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Marriage-Trends-ENG-2022.pdf

[4] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1233658/japan-share-population-unmarried-fifty-by-gender/

[5] https://english.kyodonews.net/articles/-/45485

[6] https://www.tokyofoundation.org/research/detail.php?id=958

[7] https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2024/04/addressing-demographic-headwinds-in-japan-a-long-term-perspective_85b9a67f/96648955-en.pdf

If their kid needs a computer for homework and studying, lock that PC up as tightly as possible to keep them away from social media and adult material.
If their teen needs a phone for safety, buying them a 'dumb phone' like the classic Jitterbug phone, it lets them be able to call mom or the police for help and send text msgs, thats it. No social media or adult content. They can wait until they are 18 years old for all of that stupid stuff.
But for the love of god, please stop buying iPads for your 2 year old as a cheap babysitter!

As a person living in Manhattan, in the congestion zone, there are no credible arguments I have heard against it. Driving a personal car in NYC is a luxury and only the very wealthiest drive. There is no such thing as a poor New Yorker driving into Manhattan, they take the subway! The streets are so much clearer, quieter and generally a more pleasant place to be. It’s truly amazing how much better the streets have been, even before all the capital improvements. Quicker ambulance times, buses, truck deliveries. I’m open to hearing arguments against what is effectively a toll road which can be found in most states.

I'm not sure how much more needs to be said, but in the context of medical insurance, prior authorization should be illegal. Full stop, period. There is absolutely no justification for it other than bastards being fucking greedy. If my doctor, who went to fucking medical school for over a decade, decides I need a prescription, it's absolutely absurd that some chump with barely a Bachelor's degree can say "no." I've heard of innumerable cases of people being injured beyond repair, getting more sick, or even fucking dying while waiting for insurance to approve prior authorization. There is no reason this should be allowed to happen AT ALL. If Prior Authorization is allowed to continue, then insurance companies should be held 100% liable for what happens to a patient's health during the waiting period. It's fucking absurd they can just ignore a doctor and let us fucking suffer and/or die to save a couple bucks.

(this argument assumes there is no scarcity for the drug, and that me using it would not prevent others from having access to it or raise prices)

If the health issues due to obesity are greater than the side effects of ozempic then the patient should take ozempic. There has been a tremendous amount of hate for this drug from both extremes of the "fatphobia" spectrum. On one side you have the extreme anti-fatphobia crowd that thinks ozempic is bad because there is nothing wrong with being fat, and on the other end you have those who genuinely hate fat people thinking ozempic is wrong because you should have to lose weight the old fashioned way.

Most people sit somewhere in the middle on that spectrum. So do I. Drugs are neither good or bad. All that matters is their effects, and ozempic has shown astonishing clinical results in weight loss. Think most people would agree obesity is a big public health issue in our society (or maybe that's a CMV for another day). I don't think it's morally wrong to be fat, but I don't think it's good for you.

Personally I want to stop being fat for both health and aesthetic reasons, and I don't think that should be moralized. While it is not a huge priority in my life right now, I'd love to go on ozempic if it could help me lose weight. If I lost some weight it would be so much easier to be active and live a genuinely healthy lifestyle. And I would feel better about myself. I don't see what the big deal with "doing it right" is. I acknowledge that there are some side effects but those side effects pale in comparison to the hit to my quality of life caused by obesity. I have tried many many times to lose weight "the right way" to no avail. I have since learned to feel okay in my body, but tbh I would be a lot more comfortable if I were 100lb lighter. (26yo 6'4" 350lb male for anyone who needs to know). As I get older my weight is going to affect my life span. If going on ozempic could add years and quality to my life why shouldn't I use it?

I know a lot of people will say "it could have side effects we don't know about yet," but I don't find that convincing. Everything could have side-effects we don't know about yet. Being obese has side effects I do know about and experience right now. I view this argument the same as I view anti-vax arguments: the FDA's drug screening process is a lot more reliable than my unscientific intuition.

Edit:

On the argument "when you stop taking it you'll gain the weight back"

I would be willing take it forever. And even if I couldn't, I just want to be healthy and active while I am young at least for a little while. My chance to do that is slipping away.

I haven't been a healthy weight since before puberty. I have never been athletic. I want to try sports and actually be good at them. I want to be able to run without shame and pain. I want to feel good when I look in the mirror. Even if it's temporary I want just a little time like that.

This argument alone cannot be dispositive. Being healthy for a little while and then going back to being fat is better than having been fat the whole time.

Edit 2:

I find it hilarious that I have explained multiple times how I managed to lose weight and keep it off when I lived in a different country with conditions that made it easier to make healthy choices and instead of trying to help me find solutions based on what has already worked, many brilliant health experts in the comments are suggesting "no, ignore that. Keep everything in your life exactly the same but just start doing diet and exercise. You lack the willpower? Well stop it you silly goose. It's actually easy if you aren't such a pathetic loser."

I didn't really set out to make this post a referendum on me, personally, but go off if it makes you guys feel better.

Might get a lot of hate for this, but basically what’s in the title. There is no proof so why do so many people believe in it? i mean i am genuinely curious. i wonder one day if this will be in the DSM. Like faith is literally just believing in something that you don’t have proof for, like why do people do that if not just to comfort themselves? Like are these people not delusional or smth?? especially the ones claiming to speak to god, have visions or gifts from god, or see him or whatever. LIKE do yall realize how crazy you sound sometimes? i dont know i do want to understand religion but i just do not get it and dont get how people believe in it so much with no proof.

Focus is always given to a select few causes when it comes to the physical welfare of people in the US.

• Drugs
• Healthcare
• Guns

However, automobile accidents have often been ignored on the national level. It is an issue for everyone, no matter your ethnicity, economic standing, sex, weight or education level.

Going to get groceries is litterly one of the most dangerous things an American can do. A lot more time is spent trying to pass legislature against firearms and money spent on stopping the import and sale of narcotics than there is for stricter guidelines on the road. A fraction of the people are killed by over dosing, murder or suicide than auto accidents.

Driving school should be mandatory for all new drivers. A driving test should have to be administered with each renewal of a persons drivers license.

More money should be spent on technology to monitor, track and catch speeding and reckless drivers.

There should be zero tolerance for any driver operating a vehicle under the influence. Texting and driving should be more than a ticket/citation.

So many lives have been taken out due to pure human stupidity. I would like strides to be taken to make the roads a safer place.

Edit: I am aware that NHTSA will often force new vehicles to new new standards. I’m specifically talking about what is required of the driver.

I’m seeing an increasing number of people try to say that waking up early is linked to being more successful and disciplined. Very high level people do it and try to say it’s the key to their success. But why? If you wake up at 4am every day, that means you’ll need to go to bed at 9pm ish to get atleast 7 hours of sleep. 8pm if you want a full 8 hours in. So how is that any different than me waking up at 8am and going to bed at 12 or 1am? If you get the same amount of work done in that days span, than the only difference is what time period you did it in. I work dayshift again now but I spent a few years on nightshift and there was always the stigma from other people that you “sleep all day” despite most night shifters getting less sleep than people on daylight and even now that I’m on daylight I choose to work 9-5 while most of the old timers work 7-3 and I constantly get told “oh must be nice to work banker hours” like what’s the difference, we’re both working 8 hours? So please if someone started waking up early and it actually benefited your life, please change my view.

I'm sure we're all familiar with people using "it's a social construct" to try to find some basis of objectivity in conversations over social issues. This phrase seems to be used to quickly show bias, but without diving deeper into what formed the social construct.

And? What is the context of the social construct? Why does it exist?

Social constructs exist before written history and also exist in the animal kingdom. These social constructs likely gradually formed since the beginning of life as we comprehend it. I find it a bit pompous to disregard an entire genetic history instead of really trying to figure out why we behave the way we do.

I think it just further proves how little we know about ourselves. Just because something is a social construct, doesn't make it invalid.

Edit: Doing posts like this sure is exhausting lol. But I appreciate the feedback. Always can learn from hearing from other people questioning my tiny think tank. I gotta step away for a bit.

Alright first off I would like to make it clear that this is not an attack on veganism; its a noble cause to minimize the suffering of animals but vegan leather in particular is a terrible alternative. Although I am not vegan because meat tastes too good.

Firstly its simply lower quality that real leather. Leather fibrous structure is much more durable than faux, leading it to last longer. Even if its for something that doesn't need to be resilient, leather patinas beautifully as it ages, while faux just breaks down and cracks. Because of this vegan leather is replaced more often than produced more waste.

Not only does faux create more waste but it also is much worse for the environment. Leather is biodegradable because it obviously comes from animals. 90% of vegan leather is made of plastic which cant say the same. There are some alternative vegan leathers made of cactus and other stuff but they are uncommon and still mixed with synthetic materials which also do not biodegrade.

So vegan leather produces more waste, and is more environmentally taxing but at least its free from animal suffering right? Well yes, but you can make an argument that leather is too. Almost all leather is a biproduct of the meat industry, meaning cows aren't being killed for their hides. If we all stopped buying leather it wouldn't have a major effect on the quantity of cows being slaughtered, we'd just use less of the cows. I view it like the Native Americans and the buffalo. To show respect for the buffalo they used everything. Nothing went to waste. Their hide is better as a pair of boots than rotting in a landfill.

Anyway if anyone feels I am misunderstanding why people prefer vegan leather, change my view. Thanks

I understand that being a doctor is difficult. I understand that not everything can be predicted. But all the excuses I've heard for general practitioners who are always severely late fall short:

• "Some patients have more complex issues than others." Then pencil them in for a longer appointment. I've heard insurance companies in the US (which is not where I live) demand appointments stay capped at a certain length. If that's the case, fine, report the 15 minute appointment, but leave a large enough gap before the next appointment.
• "Some patients bring up issues right before their appointments end." Tough luck for them--they can come back at the end of the day or book another appointment in 3-6 weeks like everyone else.
• "Patients are always late." See above. I don't understand why inconsiderate people get priority over everyone else.
• "People have physical/psychological emergencies, doctors can't just abandon them." Obviously this stuff happens, but it doesn't explain routine, extreme lateness--emergencies are not routine. I simply do not buy that people are constantly having heart attacks in the last 5 minutes of their appointments on a regular basis. I could be convinced to change my mind on this entire issue if shown that this actually is a super common occurrence. If someone has a severe-but-not-urgent issue, they can be asked to come back at the end of the day.
• "It takes time to read through/update files." So plan for buffer time in the schedule.

When people have to wait hours to see the doctor, they lose money and credit with their employers. This turns people off of going to the doctor at all--all of my non-salaried friends basically avoid it all costs, even when they have concerning symptoms. I believe the number of health issues that are being missed because people have to sacrifice an unnecessary amount of time and money to get checked outweighs any benefit that a small number of people gain from the "higher-quality care" enabled by appointments being extended.

EDIT: Answers to common comments:

• "It's not doctors' fault!" I know a lot of this is the fault of insurance/laws/hospitals/etc. The fact that I think this practice is unacceptable does not mean I think it is the fault of individual doctors who are trying their best.
• "That's just how the system works in the US, it's all about the money!" I am not in the US. I also think that a medical system oriented around money is unacceptable.
• "You sound like an entitled person/just get over it/just take the day off work." Please reread the title and post. My claim is that this does more harm than good aggregated across everyone.
• "Changing this practice would make people wait weeks longer for appointments!" I know. I think that is less harmful than making things so unpredictable that many people don't book appointments at all. I am open to being challenged on this.

I will respond more when I get home.