TRHLIM
- Thread starter cajunrevenge
- Start date
Tapate50
Well-known member
100% truth
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
We cheer for it. Y'all cause it by objecting to minor inconveniences during a pandemic and by touting cures that don't work.
Btw I didn't cheer the deaths of social media influencers and talk radio personalities during covid. I saluted them for their willingness to die for the cause (which as best as I could determine was owning the libs).
On a much bigger scale the widening of life expectancies between blue and red states owes much to folk libertarianism (muh rights). Death by libertarianism. Not quite as deadly as communism under Stalin and Mao or right-wing authoritarianism under Hitler, but nonetheless ideologically-induced early deaths on a significant scale.
If you look at the rising life expectancies of blue states and most advanced countries, it is mainly due to public health policies that folk libertarians decry as a form of socialism (including generous subsidies for health insurance that increase access for low-income citizens, including many children who of course have no say into who their parents are or the circumstances they are born).
Btw I didn't cheer the deaths of social media influencers and talk radio personalities during covid. I saluted them for their willingness to die for the cause (which as best as I could determine was owning the libs).
On a much bigger scale the widening of life expectancies between blue and red states owes much to folk libertarianism (muh rights). Death by libertarianism. Not quite as deadly as communism under Stalin and Mao or right-wing authoritarianism under Hitler, but nonetheless ideologically-induced early deaths on a significant scale.
If you look at the rising life expectancies of blue states and most advanced countries, it is mainly due to public health policies that folk libertarians decry as a form of socialism (including generous subsidies for health insurance that increase access for low-income citizens, including many children who of course have no say into who their parents are or the circumstances they are born).
Last edited:
Completely disagree. I think the primary difference is the right tends to center its bloodlust around groups of people they feel deserve it, such as Palestinians, illegal immigrants that have accidents or break laws, or other such groups they deem to be ruining some aspect of society.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
eh...i don't think i said that...but death by folk Libertarianism is a thang...visible in the deaths of right-wing antivaxxers and their followers and in the state life expectancy data
lets take a couple simple examples...if ideological objections cause the abolition of speed limits or stops flouride from being put in the water supply, then the deaths and cavities that ensue are very much byproducts of that ideology
i might add at one point antivaxx ideology was the province of Marin County moms, a very liberal group...now it is right-wing folk libertarianism...when disease and death spread due to such beliefs people promulgating them should get the blame whatever part of the political spectrum
Last edited:
sturg33
I
That you drive a car and support others doing so means you push for early deaths on a significant scale!!
chop2chip
Well-known member
I think you’re blurring the lines between idiocy and politics. I can’t control if those who want a bit more ownership of their choices attract the stunted folks.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
i don't blame you from distancing yourself from those folks...but i don't think idiocy and politics are so easily separated...in fact their comingling is a distinguishing feature of our times
chop2chip
Well-known member
It’s pretty easy to separate. Policy.
People chugging silver to kill cancer. Not so much
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I've been living a hipster carless lifestyle for several years now and loving it
but it's not something i expect other people to do nor do i judge those who need a car to get around....i'm lucky to be able to do without one
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
i don't think so...contempt for reason, the scientific method, evidence-based policy is the defining characteristic of large part of our body politic...it is not a fringe...it has captured the presidency among other thangs...seems like a rather important development to me...more important than some of its individual manifestations such as the shambolic tariffs policy
sturg33
I
Whether you drive a car or not I would imagine you often find yourself inside one.
And you're instigating shorter lifespan by doing so.
Best to sit in your basement. And wear a couple masks to be extra safe
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
i'm in a situation where i can catch a bus to work...i am rarely in a car
sturg33
I
Thats wonderful. Would you support policy that would ban all auto transportation if it meant increased life expectancy?
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I am for rational policy based on cost-benefit analysis. As a practical matter, people need cars to get around. Speed limits can be fairly easily set based on cost-benefit considerations. Ditto for taxes to correct for externalities related to congestion and environment degradation. Congestion pricing and pedestrian-only zones are great ideas for certain cities.
I might add there is a reflexive folk Libertarian resistance to ideas like congestion pricing and pedestrian-only zones. I don't really understand that objection. Maybe you or someone else can explain it.
Similarly there was an outcry on these boards to moves to phase out gas stoves. Well we've learned that cooking with gas has certain negative health implications. Why not make use of such knowledge and the availability of safer alternatives, just as once upon a time we switched out of charcoal as fuel for cooking.
Last edited:
acesfull86
Well-known member
I lol at “minor inconveniences during a pandemic.” Disingenuous flattening of a complicated, ever changing situation that stretched over multiple years. Gets more pronounced the further away we get from it.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
There is a long history of people changing their methods of cooking. Often for safety reasons as we learn of various hazards. Sometimes due to the emergence of new technologies and alternatives for cooking. And quite often through changes in public policy. Society is lucky that the muh rights folk libertarian movement was not around to save charcoal-burning stoves.
were there changes in laws that sped up the transition from charcoal burning stoves
1. Urban fire safety regulations (19th–early 20th century).
So the transition was partly legislated:
were there changes in laws that sped up the transition from charcoal burning stoves
ChatGPT said:
Yes — in many places the decline of charcoal-burning stoves wasn’t just technological and cultural, but also shaped by new laws, building codes, and public health regulations. A few important legal and regulatory drivers stand out:1. Urban fire safety regulations (19th–early 20th century).
- Many cities in Europe and the U.S. began banning or restricting charcoal braziers and stoves in crowded housing after a series of tenement fires.
- Building codes increasingly required flues, chimneys, or venting systems that charcoal stoves often lacked.
- By the early 20th century, carbon monoxide poisoning from charcoal was well-documented. Cities like Paris, New York, and London issued warnings, and in some cases forbade indoor charcoal burning except in properly vented commercial kitchens.
- Coroners’ reports on “accidental asphyxiation” (or sometimes suicides) from charcoal stoves fed pressure for regulation.
- In the U.S. and parts of Europe, the mid-20th century slum clearance and housing code reforms (1930s–1950s) often mandated gas or electric hookups in new apartment blocks, effectively pushing charcoal and coal stoves out.
- For example, U.S. federal housing standards after the New Deal specified safer heating and cooking facilities, which aligned with gas and electric stoves.
- Charcoal burning contributes to indoor smoke and particulate pollution, which became a target of postwar public health reforms.
- In Britain, the Clean Air Acts (1956, 1968) were directed more at coal, but also discouraged other solid fuels, nudging households toward gas and electricity.
- During wartime (WWI and WWII), governments rationed solid fuels, while encouraging gas and electricity where possible. This sped the shift away from charcoal, which was considered inefficient and strategically less useful than coal or oil.
So the transition was partly legislated:
- Late 1800s–early 1900s → city ordinances banning charcoal in tenements and crowded urban housing.
- Mid-1900s → housing codes and clean air laws effectively made gas and electric the “default.”