The irony is that there are no people advocating for “trickle down economics”, except by those who criticize capitalism while advocating for socialism. Supply Side economists don’t hold that there’s a zero sum economy where wealth is concentrated at the top, and that it trickles down when the wealthy spend that money on luxuries. They believe that lower tax rates encourages more economic production acts as a rising tide that lifts all boats. And then, in turn, tax receipts go up. Conversely, if governments taxed people at 100%, nobody in their right mind would participate in economic activity, everyone would starve, and tax receipts would crash.
Got diagnosed autistic at 27 yrs old and only now at 33 am I starting to try to unmask gradually and I got noise cancelling headphones very recently but there ones you can still listen to music in . I will slowly and gradually go to the construction sight looking ones 😅😅😅. Internalised ableism I think had stopped me from taking care of myself and my own needs because I didn't think my sensory things were "bad enough"
I don't plan on having a funeral, burial or cremation. Just give my body to medical science or trainee doctors. You don't need to spend a fortune, invite a few friends and family round and have a quiet gathering or party. I do not see the point in spending thousands on a funeral, casket, urn or formal service.
I am an American. I have a respectable amount of experience in handling firearms and a respectable level of knowledge on the subject and within the firearm enthusiast community in the United States. I will therefore take the liberty of presuming myself more knowledgeable on the subject of US firearm culture than four British celebrities who have likely never so much as touched a firearm in their lives. with that in mind, I present this fact check: 1. The greatest argument for the right of citizens to bear arms is not in self defense against other civilians, although that is an admirable argument in and of itself that can be explored in greater detail elsewhere. Instead, it is for the right of citizens to keep and bear arms in defense against a tyrannical government. While not talked about much anymore, the United States Declaration of Independence as a landmark and foundational document in our nations history maintains the right for the people to overthrow the current institution and reinstate a new government should the current one become corrupt and no longer abide the consent of the governed. Ironically, this idea came about from the founding fathers observing the tyranny of Great Britain, from which aforementioned celebrities derive, and wanting to ensure that such despotism could never happen again in the United States. 2. United States Police officers with their 18% hit rate, who are described in this video as "highly trained" spend less than 40 hours total of their training on the use of firearms. And this is total, which does not factor in the various multitudes of situational drills and scenarios that are trained in those forty hours that diminish the overall knowledge and preparedness for each trained situation. Your average civilian who is even mildly interested in improving their shooting technique can easily beat a trained police officer in a variety of shooting competitions. There simply isn't time in a packed schedule of a plethora of categories and subjects that are all contained within police training to spend the necessary hours on firearms training to call a police officer "highly trained" with a firearm. In most cases, it just isn't true. 3. There are more firearms in the United States than there are people. Trying to regulate a commodity of this scale is nearly impossible without trampling the rights of the people. In a situation like this it truly is impossible to keep ill-intentioned people from obtaining firearms, even if they were straight up outlawed. And forget about trying to confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens. This would almost certainly result in the reinstitution of the local or federal government that I talked about in issue 1. 4. Less a fact and more my own opinion but I feel strongly about this one and I feel it would be a difficult thing to argue. If you don't know or understand the culture or dynamic of a place with customs that your not familiar with, don't presume that you know better about the dynamics of said place than the people that live there. You wouldn't see someone who lives in a well hydrated community professing that water-starved areas and people would be fine if they just wised up and found some water to drink. It's not that simple. And the situation will certainly not be resolved by people who have only anecdotal evidence of the problem with no actual experience or knowledge. If you don't have the experience or at minimum haven't done the research then your commentary is worth nothing to the conversation. It is difficult to solve the problem the US faces on this scenario and I will admit that arming teachers is not the way to approach it, but neither is demonizing the means of the problem instead of the source.
There is a species of bird in South America that eats berries. Some of the berries are red, some are green, and some are yellow. Some of the birds in the species are really good at seeing green berries, others are really good at seeing yellow, still others are seeing red., and the birds are all seemingly of the same species. The berries are a big important part of their diet, but because their brains are wired to preference different colors of berries, the birds as a group are better able to survive in large clusters. Neuro-diversity works much the same way. Neuro-diverse people are able to pick out different evolutionary advantages from neurotypical people, and vice versa. The problem isn't that neuro-diverse are disabled for surviving in the world, it is that neurotypical people tend to write the rules, and they have, rather it was their intent or not, made the rules so that they get all the advantages, and neurodiverse get none. For example, Fern Brady, on Taskmasters, typically struggled to play most of the games, but every once in a while there was a game that favored her method of thinking, and she blew the other contestants away, like when she painted a self portrait of herself with a sausage. She was also the most entertaining of the contestants by far, which in a way made her the real champion.
Lots of positive comments about Bercow but it should be said that an independent investigation found him to be serial bully. Maybe don't judge people by what you see on screen.
Though I am skeptical about the objectivity of the autism label, I see it merely as evolutionary trial and error. Traits in those we call autistic that lead to passing on genes will survive, those that make people unattractive even to other disabled people will lose the genetic arms race. There, everyone happy? It is both an affliction and yet an advantage, a mutation fine tuning itself.
Imo both autistics and neurotypicals are just jokes. So, most of humanity. Is that misanthropy? I think psychiatry is nonsense anyway: a forensic psychologist wanted me labelled with anti-social personality disorder by 18, but she didn't know me and these labels often seem more like opinions than anything objective.
Still can’t decide whether he was saying these deliberately - if so his timing is great or these were jokes that later became intrusive thoughts and he thought he was thinking them in his head but was out loud instead
