Where the hell are you getting $75 urgent care visits? And $20 doctor visits? I have a high deductible plan and these are like $150 for a doctor and $250 for urgent care.
My wife had a cyst drained and it cost us over $1,000 between 3 visits and them draining it once. Draining it was $600.
Wanna know how dumb my brain is? I almost told you that America isn't the only place people walk across the street not at an intersection. I thought you to be an idiot.
Alas, it is I. The idiot.
I think the main issue is that he never actually wanted to go through with them. It's all posturing and leverage.
Calling out the TACO aspect takes the wind out of the sales. Going through with them would be even worse for him. It's helping to neuter one of the many things that is tanking our reputation.
Also gives the rest of the world some assurance that not all of America is in on this garbage.
He might be the right pick. I'm interested to see how he does. I love the other hosts, but a lot of them fall into the format of the show too much. It's like punchy section headlines and clear setups and punchlines. The delivery sounds like a talk show host reading a joke from writers if that makes sense.
Jon Stewart was always a master of weaving it all together. Josh Johnson is much more in that camp. His stand up, which he has a new 30-45 minutes every week, is pretty crazy. While it's more rambling than would work on the Daily Show, he does have a good ability to drive the underlying point home in a very unique way.
Might work, might not, but excited to see him get some at-bats.
Oh 100% on that. Part of that Billings Ovulation Method is that you need open communication and the practice takes both people.
I understand that it's not practical for all couples or situations, but it's an option for some that isn't talked about much.
I mean I want people to łook them up. A lot of studies have them at 99% effective, but with perfect use, which I noted above. Wikipedia says 0.5%-3%, but it depends on the study.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billings_ovulation_method
Realistically, quoting stats doesn't change anyone's mind. I doubt you'll really believe the above. I'm sure you can find things that list it higher, or that you should use typical use rates, which is a completely fair criticism. As I said, this method is not for everyone.
I'm gonna get hammered here because this is Lemmy and anything even loosely associated with Natural Family Planning is going to get down voted.
There are very specific and narrow methods that work well (not perfectly, obviously). I won't quote and statistics here.
To start up top, if you want to use any method of birth control, do it. It's up to you entirely, I don't judge anyone at all.
Also, anything related to the calendar method, day counting, or any such nonsense fuckin sucks. Some like to rope that into natural family planning because they are super simple... But super simple doesn't work.
If anyone is interested in learning about one that actually has scientific backing, it would be the Billings Ovulation Method. But it's not day tracking or anything... You need to do some work. You need to learn about it, learn your own body, and be diligent. And most importantly, use alternative methods when you aren't sure.
Again, I'm willing to bring on the downvotes, but I hope people research before assuming it's all bullshit.
And just to be clear: If you want something easy, use birth control.
As an edit: I want to fully acknowledge the gap between typical use and perfect use. My wife and I are certainly in the perfect use category... Her dad is a doctor and we are well aware of all the science behind it. If you aren't going to put in the work, the method is NOT for you. At all.
Sorry for the shift in tone here but this is absurd...
I will continue to show up when it matters and do things like actively promote a great documentary on the day trans people's rights were stripped away from Iowans because of our dumbass legislature, because I cried watching friends of mine in that room being actively hurt by a government that should protect them. And continue to do the hard work to change the minds of bigoted people in my community, but yes let's pretend I'm just virtue signaling on an anonymous forum for "optics". I am actually doing real work and I won't apologize for not having patience for people saying I don't do enough because I say mentioning maybe Harry Potter in the proper context is probably fine. It's not the thing we need people paying attention to right now.
There's so much more hurt out there. If we boycotted Harry Potter entirely and wiped it from existence in an instant, the average trans persons life doesn't get suddenly get better.
It's fucking irritating. We're wasting breath talking about one stupid fucking lady and an imaginary wizard pretending it's a leading issue for the trans movement. You can hate me for saying it, but I'm fighting for bigger change than trying to make JK Rowling irrelevant. I would rather raise awareness about the systemic harm that I'm actively witnessing in laws being passed removing trans people's protected status. That's a FAR bigger issue.
I appreciate it.
There was a part of me that got tired of being shouted down because I wasn't whatever they wanted me to be. Or being told that I can't have an opinion because I'm not one of the people affected.
I mean generally I agree with that. As a white dude, it's not OK for me to pretend that my opinion on the treatment of black women is accurate, or even that I can fathom what that is like. However, there is some level of voice I need to have to be a part of the movement.
There was a massive rise in this sentiment that people needed to support these groups they weren't a member of but only if they were completely silent. You need to build a movement and people generated apathy on some topics. I remember sort of giving up talking about things because I had every so slightly different perspectives, and I would get cast into the "you aren't a real ally" bucket.
I'm also not convinced I'm right all the time either... I'm constantly listening and changing my perspective, but you need to leave room for people to do so. But that's what I mean by building durability. My beliefs in trans rights are strong because I have challenged, listened, and adapted. They are truly my beliefs, not just things I'm told I need to believe in.
You're actively alienating people from the movement you say you're a part of.
You are doing more damage than I am, and continuing to alienate people over your perception of a strict adherence to what is right is not helping.
You're trying to use childish spelling to say I can't get over not having Harry Potter. I'm not even arguing it's good. I probably bring it up maybe once a year? And pretty much always with a caveat of wishing the author wasn't such an asshole. Yet that isn't enough for your purity test apparently. I would reflect on the fact that you need allies that you don't agree with to build a movement. Right now you're narrowing your scope to a tiny percentage of people, all because you can't imagine that maybe you aren't fully and totally correct on this topic, and you want to try and belittle me into agreeing with you.
I don't think I'll continue the conversation from here. I hope you limit further damage and alienation to people trying to be on your side.
I want to be respectful here, but this has a lot of issues embedded in it.
This kind of rhetoric rises from what I've called the Authoritarian Left, which is an immensely detrimental wing. It's a group where there is no nuance.
You say that if a trans person says it's hurting them I should stop doing it. OK, but what if a republican says it? Now suddenly I should ignore them? You can't base your entire ideology on what members of groups say or demand that others adhere to yours simply because you think you're right.
I love trans people, and I actively fight for them and their rights. But why? I'll tell you, it's not because Democrats told me to love them, or a religious leader, or anyone in politics. I looked at the world critically and found their cause worthy.
I'm a durable ally. I'll stick with it when it's not cool or trendy, or when it comes at a cost. But that's because I arrived at those truths myself.
To loop all the way back to the premise - if talking about Harry Potter at all hurts Trans people, then this post hurts trans people. If you disagree with that, then nuance exists. And I'm saying in the nuance of how and who I talk about any topic with, I know and understand that those people understand the situation.
I don't make public posts about Harry Potter. I often talk about how JK Rowling is a garbage person. My friends have a Harry Potter party that they've been hosting for years, and every person there is of a similar mindset that trans people deserve so much more than they are getting.
You have to allow more than one idea in your head at the same time. If you're making the rule "talking about Harry Potter in any way, at any time, makes you an active enemy of the trans movement", then that's not a place I want to be associated with.
If you want advice - focus on how JK Rowling is harming people. Elevate that as much as you can. When you make these purity tests, you make people not give a shit because it makes it impossible to adhere to the strict and narrow path you say is OK.
This authoritarian left wing of democrats is what got Trump elected. They are so hard nosed on every issue they completely isolate people and make these issues harder to fight for, not easier. You're heart is in the right place, but we live in a world full of nuance, and the real trick is not scolding people into adherence, but it's coalition building and asking people to think critically about their choices. They have to find their beliefs, you can't just demand them.
Honestly, I think we have to recognize that even the appearance of sincerity is honestly further than where most politics is at right now.
You don't necessarily have to praise it if you think that, but at least we can give credit that at least the words were the right message, even if you think the intention was not.
We need to reset the bar. I think people (not you) are actively trying to say that it was all fake and she only did it for political gain, etc. Maybe that's true, but at least for right now her message was good. I mean Trump's portion was a fucking disaster.
We don't have to praise it, but it's hard to criticize. I think the criticism galvanizes harsher responses, and it's an easy thing to focus on as a good thing. Yes, forgiveness is a good thing. I mean she actually spoke about Jesus in correct context and didn't completely bastardize the message to jail refugees in inhumane conditions. It's a step in the right direction, even of the intention was hollow.
At least we could start there.