All I see out there are gay rights, trans rights, whatever parades.
And people actually show up. like wth. given that it’s 5% population max.

Because the playbook to destroy democracies has already been written. You don’t destroy a democratic nation by attacking it, you destroy it by getting it to attack itself.

Fascist know that if they can just turn the majority against a specific minority, then they have a foot in the door. You can’t uninvite the vampire from your home, once you let them have their way with the minority, the rules have changed, and those rules will eventually be changed for everyone.

If you protect the neediest minority group that protection extends to everyone. If we ignore that need, then it’s only a matter of time before everyone needs that protection.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have workers rights parades. I’m saying that gay rights and trans rights are workers rights parades, because they are our fellow workers. I think a lot of modern leftist groups think of minority rights as vestigial or as a distraction. When in reality every trans rights parade should be protected by a sea of factory workers willing to stomp on some fascist for attacking the solidarity or the working class.

Hey, I’m a provider at a hospital who uses MyChart everyday and would like to offer perspective from the other side.

because it’s showing in MyChart as a former address but I’m not sure other places have the information. The problem is the address is associated with that psychiatric facility and may show in my chart as “Mental Health Behavior Modification Hospital,”

In Mychart I’m sure it stores previous addresses somewhere, but I have no idea where I would even find this information, and can basically guarantee no one else is going to be looking for it.

so doctors may refuse to treat me without a release of those records, leading to lots of hours billed talking about mental health instead of seeing if I have cancer.

Part of HIPPA is that we can only access information that is pertinent to your current treatment as a provider. A specialist like someone who works at a cancer clinic would have no reason to access or question you about a previous treatment in a mental health facility unless you have something like a brain tumor.

Also in MyCharts certain notes containing sensitive information like metal health treatment or sexual assault are usually automatically locked out unless additional consent is given by patients, or unless it is directly associated with the current providers treatment plan.

leading to lots of hours billed talking about mental health instead of seeing if I have cancer.

Healthcare visits are not reimbursed by time, but by visit type. It doesn’t matter if I spend 10 min or an hour with a patient. If the visit type is for a specific treatment they are reimbursed at the same rate. The affordable care act highly regulated how facilities are reimbursed for care, wether they are insured or lack coverage. And for the most part providers at hospitals have little to no control on how the hospital charges patients.

I also will refuse any mental health screenings/questionnaires, etc., and so it may result in them refusing to care for me.

I haven’t really heard of anyone refusing care because someone didn’t fill out a mental health screening. I specialize in orthopedics and rehabilitation, so that’s not exactly pertinent to my field. But we have people who refuse to fill out paperwork all the time, and i don’t really care unless it’s pertinent to my current treatment plan.

For me to refuse my services the hospital requires me to have a really good reason why, like attempting to assault me or the staff.

If someone asks you about your previous treatment at the facility and it has nothing to do with your current appointment, I would just ask them how it pertains to your current visit. If they try and make a big deal about it, I would just ask for their manager, and ask them why the provider asked about sensitive information that doesn’t have anything to do with your current treatment.

You were the one making accusations about me specifically. Now that your argument completely fell apart, you were talking about someone else? What a fucking loser, go kick rocks.

Free speech means being able to say and support things you believe in without the threat of being murdered for it.

According to whom? You can’t just redefine legal terms to suit your argument. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, again this is just a strawman argument.

You are already legally protected from being murdered for what you say, last time I checked murder is still illegal.

Any sympathy for the murderer undermines free speech and democratic society

First of all…who was expressing sympathy for the murderer? Understanding someone’s motive isn’t the same as being sympathetic towards something. The CIA has reported that 9/11 was the result of political blowback from our previous involvement in Afghanistan. By your logic the CIA is sympathetic towards the terrorist responsible for 9/11?

Secondly, you don’t get to dictate what people get to feel or talk about. Especially while hypocritically accusing people of undermining the freedom of speech for their beliefs or statements.

Lastly you have no fucking clue what the freedom of speech clause of Constitution actually means, because as I have previously stated… you are a moron.

This is not complicated…

I’m pretty sure tying shoe laces is complicated for you, this has obviously gone over your head.

Seems like a lot of victim blaming in here. It can be very simple. Don’t murder people you disagree with.

Moralizing once again, no one here advocated for murdering anyone.

Also, free speech needs to be protected culturally as well, and not just through the government.

The idea of freedom speech is a constitutional right, it’s not a social mores. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, you are just trying to erect a strawman argument.

doesn’t need to be a discussion about understanding motives at all. It’s wrong and needs to be condemned, full stop.

Lol, kinda ironic someone who is whining about free speech is trying to get people to stop talking about someone’s motive. We can discuss whatever we want, if you don’t like it you can leave. Hypocrite.

Otherwise you don’t have a free country. You can’t hand wave it away or shrug just because you understand their motive.

Lol, free speech means stop talking about something I don’t like because of freedoms…You are a moron.

a massive false equivalence comparing what Israel has done against the murder of two individuals.

People aren’t trying to equivocate the two, that would be insulting, not only to the people who were murdered, but to the tens of thousands of people being killed in Palestine.

The guy that got murdered isn’t Israel. He’s a person with opinions, right or wrong. He got murdered for a few tweets and an affiliation with Israel.

I mean he’s a representative of the state, which is why this is a politically motivated murder.

He’s not a combatant, but a civilian. Same for his wife. People justifying these murders are flat out wrong

Explanations aren’t justifications, just because people understand and even agree with the motivations of the killer doesn’t mean the agree with how he acted upon them.

I find the cries for the sanctity of protecting civilians to be pretty meek considering the state these civilians represent have overwhelmingly killed more civilians than armed combatants.

This is the inherent problem with a state targeting civilian populations, it provokes violence upon your own civilians.

In order to have a system where free speech is protected, you can’t allow people to be murdered for their views.

Another person misunderstanding the Constitution…Free speech doesn’t protect you from the public’s reaction to your speech, it guarantees protection from the government targeting you for your speech.

This isn’t an example of someone’s free speech being violated. An actual example would be students being arrested for their protest about Israels actions in Gaza.

There is no defending these murders or trying to justify them.

Again, understanding a motive isn’t justifying. No one said they agreed that those people deserved to be murdered , you’re just moralizing.

It’s illogical to compare them from a moral perspective.

The only person doing that is you… Everyone else is trying to point out that the two events are logically connected.

You don’t get to just shoot people because they have a different perspective than you, because they were raised differently or get their news from different places than you do.

Lol, I don’t think his motivations were centered around where people get their news. There is a genocide happening in Palestine, it’s not really a matter of perspective or debate. Violence begets violence, no one is claiming that’s a good thing, it’s just inescapable blowback.

It’s not exactly whataboutism though, it’s more of a false equivalence.

No one is equivocating the two. People are just acknowledging that political violence against those who represent a state is to be expected when a state conducts a genocide.

you think he is, then you are blinded by ideology and shouldn’t be allowed to participate in democratic society.

Lol, I’ve started my statement claiming I didn’t think people deserved to be murdered. You keep trying to connect my statements to moral grandstanding because you don’t have any other kind of rebuttal.

I don’t think I would really consider it a grossly exaggerated claim, more of just a misinterpretation of a report.

“For now let me just say that we know for a fact that there are babies who are in urgent life-saving need of these supplements that need to come in because their mothers are unable to feed themselves.”

“And if they do not get those, they will be in mortal danger,” he said.

I definitely wouldn’t claim that it was a claim based on antisemitism as Weissbrod is accusing. It’s a fact that the Israeli state is starving tens of thousands of people for no justifiable reason. I don’t think a misinterpretation of the timeline is really enough to claim someone is participating in blood libel.

I mean, I don’t think you get to decide what the scope of the context is.

For this not to be contextual you would have to claim that the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians had nothing to do with the gunman’s motive. I think that would be hard to claim considering that the murders were politically motivated, considering that the two victims were diplomats.

I think people have gotten a little too comfortable with claiming anything that shares a sentence structure with a logical fallacy to be a logical fallacy. You have to remember that logical fallacies have to be illogical in the first place. It’s not illogical to assume these two claims are associated.

Whataboutism have to equivocate two different scenarios that aren’t logically associated with the events in the originating claim.

I mean context is always important. Pretty sure any murder investigation goes into the motivation of the person who killed the victims.

I think it’s important to dispel the notion that the occupation of a neighboring country is somehow an act of protection, when it’s pretty obvious that it’s sparked a lot of provocation.

I mean also…

“In his final post on social media hours before the attack, Lischinsky had shared a post from the Israeli ambassador, Amir Weissbrod, accusing UN officials of engaging in “blood libel” over claims that 14,000 children faced starvation in Gaza.”

Not saying they deserved any violence, but even once moderate Israelis have been driven pretty far right in the last couple years. Accusations of blood libel while the state is actively starving children doesn’t exactly seem to be promoting any positive dialogue.

Gotta feed your hounds if you want to sic your attack dogs on someone. At this point there is going to be some sort of judicial or legislative confrontation whether it be meek or consequential. Midterms will be here sooner or later and he needs his constituents to feel like they are being attacked, he needs to feel like they need him to defend their ways of life.

Putain has zero intention of ending this without the full and complete subjugation of Ukraine.

Even if Russia subjugated the entirety of Ukraine, they still couldn’t afford to stop. They’ve completely transitioned to a war time economy and have isolated all foreign capital.

If Putin decides to end the campaign in Ukraine, it would just mean that they’re about to invade somewhere like Slovenia. They’re economy couldn’t handle the transition into a regular economy without imploding.

You seem to be either confused or unable to stay on topic. My point was that servers are paid by the hour which you confirm by stating the exact rates. What is your point? That they don’t get paid a lot? I’m aware, it’s why I don’t go to these places.

So you agree with my original claim…? What the hell have you been bitching about then?

Is this supposed to somehow guilt me into wanting to tip?

No, my entire point was that if you don’t want to tip, don’t go to a place where the employees rely on tips to make a living. If you do go to a place where they rely on tips, you should tip even if you don’t like the concept.

If a server doesn’t make enough money, that’s between them and their employer like in literally (and I mean literally, not figuratively) every other industry.

Yeah, because systemic poverty is a problem solved by personal responsibility…

A lot of people would love to not work for tips, but never had the resources or education to get a better career.

Oh, it’s just the system, nothing we can do! We have to conform to the system because the owners don’t care!" is exactly what greedy restaurants owners are hoping you’ll say and you perpetuate this system by repeating it over and over.

Or…like I originally said, don’t support those restaurants. Better yet, support politician and unions that aim to protect workers. My whole point is that we shouldn’t make it the workers problem.

I’m not even going to read the rest of you strawman argument, you’ve already agreed with my original claim. The rest of what you’ve said is just cognitive dissonance. You have been simultaneously saying it’s not okay to frequent tip based restaurant, but have also been defending stiffing waiters. So it seems like you are just angry and confused, I don’t think talking about this with you anymore is going to be productive in any sense.

If I’m not being tipped for waiting a table, I still get paid hourly wages, meaning I get money for that table or any other I wait during my work hours.

The hourly rate for most servers is less than minimum wage, which is already too low to make a living off of. Like I said, I don’t think you know how this works. You can legally pay a server $2.13 an hour in most states so long as what ever tips they make the rest of the day average to $7.25 an hour.

Do you think restaurant owners waste servers’ time by underpaying them?

I think they take advantage of their labour, just as people like yourself do.

You already agreed that tipping doesn’t end tipping culture, so your act doesn’t really make sense now.

Act? My claim is that if you don’t like tipping, don’t go to restaurants where servers rely on tips to make a living.

I don’t employ servers, so it is in no way my responsibility to pay their wages. I’m responsible for paying for the food and service that I receive. The owner is responsible to pay for the labour they receive. Rather simple in concept, really.

Lol, it’s also very simple to see that the system we currently utilize is inadequate and is geared towards maximizing profits to the owner, and that is not the fault of the server who is just trying to make a living.

It’s fine if you’re OK with picking up someone’s employer’s tab, I won’t. Just don’t confuse who’s exploiting who just because you so desperately want to shift the blame away from the restaurant owner.

I don’t tip because I’m fine with “picking up the owners tab”. I tip because I know that the only person who loses in the situation is the worker. The owner doesn’t care if you tip or don’t tip, he gets his money either way. I’m not shifting the blame from the owner, they are of course exploiting the worker. However, so are you if someone is working in the expectation of compensation and then receives none. I’m guessing you don’t tell the waiter you don’t believe in tipping before the service…?

the system surely sucks but apart from shaming customers into shelling out for what you systematically withhold, there’s just nothing that could be done :(" Does your family own a restaurant or something?

Or …you could go to the many restaurants that don’t rely on tips to pay their workers. That is the only way to actually fight tipping culture, by rewarding your patronage to an owner who utilizes a labour system you believer in.

An no, my family doesn’t own a restaurant. I used to work as a chef while I worked my way through school, and I know how feast or famine things can be for people working up front. I’ve known people who couldn’t make rent because they had a bad day. I have basic empathy for my fellow workers.

“I haven’t frequented tipped restaurants in 20 years”

You said you haven’t participated in tipping culture for 20 years, based on your other shitty opinions, I figured that could mean you just haven’t tipped for 20 years. Also, I don’t really think someone who defends stiffing wait staff so vehemently online would really have a problem with taking advantage of their labour in real life and lying about it on the web.

To be honest you just seem like a person incapable of empathy, like some sort of libertarian sleezball. Anyways, have fun being a miserable ass.

Oh, wow. Suddenly they’re not being paid at all only because one person doesn’t tip? How does that work?

Lol, I’m guessing you’ve never worked in a restaurant before? If you are taking one of their tables and they are having to serve you, and you don’t tip…they don’t get money for that table and whatever time you used it for. If you hadn’t taken up the table, they may have gotten a customer who wasn’t an asshole.

Not tipping wastes nobody’s time

It wastes the servers time, but you don’t seem to think that matters.

which I turned around on you, though.

How, by being wrong?

I don’t exploit anybody’s labour by not tipping since I’m not getting paid to eat out. You understand that.

Tipping is wrong because it turns over the responsibility of labour expense to the customer. You, the customer are denying that labour expense and leaving the labourer unpaid for their labour. Meaning you are participating and taking advantage of their labour.

Why didn’t I think of that and not do it for the last 20 years?

Lol, you are still participating in the tip culture if you give your business to places that rely on tipping, but don’t tip. The owner still gets paid and doesn’t give a shit if the server does or not.

And if you are saying you don’t go to places that accept tips, then why are you even fucking talking to me? My whole point was that people who don’t like tipping culture shouldn’t go to places that accept tips.

the same server still doesn’t get tipped.

They may have more time or availability for someone who does tip, plus they aren’t wasting their labour on someone.

You’re not ending tipping culture by tipping, either. Just saying.

Yeah, but I never claimed I was attempting to end tipping culture by wasting people’s time and effort.

Again, why not just support businesses that don’t rely on tipping to pay their staff?

Lol, I’m sure your reasoning is really going to make a difference to the person depending on tips to make rent. And I’m sure the owner is just going to feel terrible that his server didn’t get compensated.

Maybe you should just avoid giving your business to restaurants that exploit the tip based system? You aren’t ending tipping culture by not tipping, you’re just taking advantage of workers just as much as the owners.

Lethal injections are performed by physicians.

No they are not. They’re usually performed by volunteers, most commonly EMTs or nurses. A lot of state protocols request that a physician be present to witness and call time of death, but even that’s rare.

The code of ethics in the AMA strictly prohibits physicians from participating in executions.

“A physician must not participate in a legally authorized execution,” the American Medical Association says in its Code of Medical Ethics. “When physicians participate in capital punishment, they are being utilized to intentionally inflict harm by using their medical knowledge and skills to forcibly cause death,” AMA media relations manager R.J. Mills told NPR. “Physicians who participate in capital punishment take an active role as agents of the state, not as advocates for the condemned, even if their intent is to minimize suffering.”

I’ve said this before, but I truly believe at some point a psychiatrist diagnosed RFK Jr with autism or some kind of spectrum disorder and we are now getting to experience his grand display of denialism.

The guy was best friends with his flacon, was constantly called an odd kid, and has been fixated with being around, talking about, or acquiring dead animals since a very young age.

I don’t know if he’s actually autistic or just severely traumatized, but based on his bio it wouldn’t surprise me if someone’s given him the diagnoses in the past based on his history of troubling behavior.