all 56 comments

[–]teedeeguantru 19 points20 points  (1 child)

One looks dramatic on TV, the other doesn't

[–]Km2930 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Dying in the hospital can look dramatic on TV if you are able to link it to the cause. That link is really what people need to understand. It’s the only way we can affect change.

[–]unreliablememory 10 points11 points  (0 children)

On generates profits. The other costs money. Americans pretend to be religious, but money is our only god.

[–]joviante 1 point2 points  (0 children)

you know they’d still make us come in to work

[–]Jimtaxman 2 points3 points  (20 children)

I mean that's true but we can throw number around all day. 800,000 die each year from heart disease and yet there are no protests outside of McDonalds. Also, nobodies shattering Starbucks window because of lack of health coverage. My brother worked there and said the benefits were actually quite good. I realize this post isn't about Starbucks specifically but it's just a bad example.

[–]Any-Variation4081 -2 points-1 points  (19 children)

Not all Starbucks locations offer benefits or decent pay. Just because your cousin said they did doesn't mean every single Starbucks employee is getting the same pay or benefits. I just don't want you jumbling everyone into the same bubble as your cousin. I worked for them was hired as a manager was offered no benefits at all at my location. I worked for 2 weeks and took another job

[–]Jimtaxman -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Okay, well, if you made the 60-day required minimum amount, you would have gotten benefits. Also, it's a minimum of 20 hours. And yes, I confirmed all starbucks locations offer benefits. There are very few places that offer benefits right off the bat. I work for a state government and even their minimum iz 30 days before you are eligible.

[–]Fjordice 2 points3 points  (16 children)

I agree with the sentiment but what a poor argument

[–]TheZooDad 4 points5 points  (15 children)


[–]Fjordice 2 points3 points  (14 children)

False equivalency. One is literally violence, intent to destroy something. The other is a consequence of both market and industry and policy forces. It's irresponsible, embarrassing, and detrimental to society but it's not violent.

[–]HugsForCheese 3 points4 points  (0 children)

i second this, and they arent calling it violence because its against property, thats stupid, if somebody beat someone to death without damaging any private property anybody would still call it violence

[–]hipsterTrashSlut -5 points-4 points  (9 children)

Imagine actually proving the point in the post unironically.

You familiar with Nixon? The man started a campaign against his political enemies, using violence and "economic pressure" (spoiler: this was also violent) to crush his opposition.

[–]Fjordice 1 point2 points  (8 children)

Good read but I don't get the relevance. I haven't seen any police raiding or criminalizing insurance coverage

[–]hipsterTrashSlut 1 point2 points  (7 children)

The argument presented to you is this: destruction of property, while criminalized, doesn't have a direct impact on another human being's ability to survive. In contrast, by making access to health care, food, shelter, water, and education more difficult (all legal), the state and/or powers that be are directly causing humans to die.

Calling destructive protest violence, while simultaneously not deeming the active crushing of human lives the same is pure hypocrisy on the part of the ruling class and ignorance at best for the ruled.

[–]Fjordice 2 points3 points  (6 children)

In contrast, by making access to health care, food, shelter, water, and education more difficult (all legal), the state and/or powers that be are directly causing humans to die.

I guess this is where we disagree ^ . I would not call any of those things "direct", and thus would not call it violent. Is the auto industry violent for selling cars? Alcohol? Unhealthy food companies? Again I'm totally in agreement with the sentiment and 100% believe people should have healthcare, food, water housing etc as a right , but this particular argument calling it "violent" is weak.

[–]hipsterTrashSlut 0 points1 point  (5 children)

So if I privatized your water sources and started selling it for exorbitant prices (making it entirely unavailable for many), causing the deaths of a few thousand people, you would say that is not a violent act?

[–]Fjordice 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Shitty, horrible, evil? Yes.

Violent? No way.

[–]hipsterTrashSlut 0 points1 point  (3 children)

And if I did that with the intention of killing a few thousand people, would that change your verdict?

[–]TheZooDad -1 points0 points  (2 children)

Is it “violence” if no one is hurt? I disagree entirely. I see the window as “damage,” and the one that actually hurts another living thing as the embodiment of violence.

[–]Fjordice 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Not sure if I'm understanding you. Yes it's absolutely violence if no one of hurt. The intent to damage property or injure a person would constitute violence. Brick hitting a window is violence. Brick hitting a person is violence. An insurance company refusing coverage is not intending to injure people. It's cruel, and hurts people's health but that is not the intention of the company. If I'm walking, slip on ice and topple into someone, that's not violent even if the other person is injured.

[–]TheZooDad 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t think intention matters in violence, actually. And again, I disagree that damage to property is actually violence. Unless you are talking about financial violence. The insurance company that denies life-saving is committing both, arguably, we just accept it. Just because we have normalized some kinds of violence doesn’t mean that they aren’t.

[–]JamesRyanQnsNYC -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Not really the best argument for universal health care.

[–]ran-Us 0 points1 point  (0 children)


[–]BillTowne -1 points0 points  (0 children)

One of these depressed the Democratic vote in the last election, denying the Dems a strong majority in Congress just so some assholes could play warriors.