|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 20 2025 05:51 BlackJack wrote:
“Do you plan to refuse or choose not to get 1 or more recommended vaccines (including seasonal flu or COVID-19 vaccines) for your child after birth?”
Including the COVID vaccine by name in that survey seems like a pretty big spoiler. What's the uptake for the latest booster globally? 20%? 10%? Which would mean 80-90% of all people are not fully vaccinating themselves. On that scale birthing-people are well above average.
Well, I learned 4 things today.
1. I'm as susceptible as anyone when it comes to clickbaity content that confirm my own biases. They could have easily separated seasonal vaccines from the "if your kid doesn't have these, they might die or be crippled for life" in that study. In my defense I did check the journal and it's in the top quartile.
2. Holy moly, 50 shots? Do Americans have to do everything the hard way? Like, I got way fewer than that (similar to drone) and we had vaccinations in schools, which made it all very little hassle for my parents.
3. Taking all recommended vaccines for your children is no longer the default position for new parents. This is pretty grim no matter what.
Seasonal vaccines aren't frivolous, but they're definitely not as "cost effective" as the others. Having said that, kids are a pretty good at passing on their illnesses to parents and grandparents so vaccinating kids does have a positive effect.
4. Maybe not straight dumbassery, but the fact that parents' default position is more "choose your own adventure" than "follow official guidelines" will have serious knock-on effects for the healthcare system and you would reasonably expect a sicker population on average based off of this. This will translate to higher premiums as preventative care is orders of magnitude cheaper than treating people when stuff hits. I don't know how much the flu shot costs, but hospitalising grandma because she got the flu from her grandkids is going to be a hell of a lot more.
|
Makes sense that America will have the most shots since it’s the wealthiest country and spends the most on healthcare. Hopefully the other countries can catch up to us. Maybe not to 50+ but maybe to at least 30+ or 40+ so that they can have better protection against communicable diseases as well.
|
Yeah at the end of the day, it looks like there is a shared agreement among the national/international medical communities for the vast majority of diseases that babies and children should be protected against.
Recommended seasonal/annual boosters like flu and covid are of course part of the conversation too, but I'd imagine that most parental objections to other vaccines like MMR, Rotavirus, Hep B, and DTaP come down to misinformation (like thinking they cause autism) or a myopic view of potential risks (parents know that needles hurt for a few seconds, but they might not realize how dangerous the actual diseases are).
|
On July 20 2025 19:30 BlackJack wrote:
Makes sense that America will have the most shots since it’s the wealthiest country and spends the most on healthcare. Hopefully the other countries can catch up to us. Maybe not to 50+ but maybe to at least 30+ or 40+ so that they can have better protection against communicable diseases as well.
Did you just "America is so wealthy thats why we have so many shots" to, among others, a Norwegian?
Bold play.
|
On July 20 2025 19:30 BlackJack wrote:
Makes sense that America will have the most shots since it’s the wealthiest country and spends the most on healthcare. Hopefully the other countries can catch up to us. Maybe not to 50+ but maybe to at least 30+ or 40+ so that they can have better protection against communicable diseases as well. I'd get warned for posting the mad max meme image but...
^that's bait.
|
On July 20 2025 20:54 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2025 19:30 BlackJack wrote:
Makes sense that America will have the most shots since it’s the wealthiest country and spends the most on healthcare. Hopefully the other countries can catch up to us. Maybe not to 50+ but maybe to at least 30+ or 40+ so that they can have better protection against communicable diseases as well. Did you just "America is so wealthy thats why we have so many shots" to, among others, a Norwegian? Bold play.
It's BlackJack; his post is probably just a mix of sarcasm and bait.
|
I am quite happy about the results of the Epstein debacle. No one believes anything; the # of people questioning whether or not the guy is alive has skyrocketed. I projected that the deep state would never permit the release of evidence against Epstein. Given the range of possible outcomes: this is a great result.
Now, Trump's regime tries to feed its base Obama scandals to quell the uproar about Epstein. LOL. 
If an election between Trump and whatsherface were held today I'd still vote Trump. I favoured Trump 95/5 on election day. Now, its down to 75/25. I can't wait for the economic growth #s to come out for the previous quarter.
|
Looks like WNBA is gonna be stepping into the culture war ring again.
My 2 cents: I think WNBA players should be paid the same % of profit/revenue or whatever as NBA players in the same skill percentile within their league. If a WNBA team makes the same money as an NBA team, that should lead to equivalent pay.
All sports leagues are entertainment. Entertainment success is measured in profits. I don’t need to explain why “skill” or “worthiness” have never been valid metrics to begin with. If a WNBA team makes 1/10 much money as an NBA team, the players on that team ought to make 1/10 as much money
|
United States24741 Posts
Mohdoo, is that not what's already happening? This isn't a leading question—I'm legitimately asking for what the delta is between today's practice and the practice you are calling for.
I follow your logic for how the team's income is what drives pay, but wouldn't competition already be doing that? If one team doesn't want to pay enough to a female player, then can't she go to another team that's willing to pay a little more? Rinse and repeat, until player's earn their actual worth? If all the WNBA teams quietly suppress how much they pay in an under-the-table agreement so that they all make more money, then becoming a player in the WNBA becomes less desirable, so the overall skill level of WNBA players (compared to NBA) goes down, likely reducing the public's interest in watching WNBA games when they can watch much more skilled NBA games. Do you think the owners are choosing to receive a higher percentage of today's income rather than increase the team's overall income and receive a lower percentage? Where is the breakdown?
|
United States43250 Posts
It’s somewhat missing the point. People arguing for comparable pay are arguing based on the principle of the thing. Saying “I have no principles, they’re all entertainers, let them get what the market will bear” is sidestepping the entire debate.
|
On July 21 2025 06:27 KwarK wrote:
It’s somewhat missing the point. People arguing for comparable pay are arguing based on the principle of the thing. Saying “I have no principles, they’re all entertainers, let them get what the market will bear” is sidestepping the entire debate.
I don't really think it misses the point. The discussion is kind of weird. Payment of top sports people is weird in general. The reason an NBA player gets paid more than a WNBA player is the same reason that the NBA player earns more than a handball player or a volleyball player.
Sexism may be involved, but if you wanted to solve this, you would need to make WNBA as popular as NBA, and the payment issue would solve itself. And as long as it is not as popular, the teams simply won't be able to afford the same wages as an NBA team can. So you can argue about principles, but the most important principles here are in fact market principles.
As to how one would shift the popularity like that, i don't really know. I find people who are really into watching a sport kind of weird.
|
United States24741 Posts
I don't normally watch physical sports either, but that's a strange take on an eSports website lol
|
Northern Ireland26058 Posts
On July 21 2025 07:01 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2025 06:27 KwarK wrote:
It’s somewhat missing the point. People arguing for comparable pay are arguing based on the principle of the thing. Saying “I have no principles, they’re all entertainers, let them get what the market will bear” is sidestepping the entire debate. I don't really think it misses the point. The discussion is kind of weird. Payment of top sports people is weird in general. The reason an NBA player gets paid more than a WNBA player is the same reason that the NBA player earns more than a handball player or a volleyball player. Sexism may be involved, but if you wanted to solve this, you would need to make WNBA as popular as NBA, and the payment issue would solve itself. And as long as it is not as popular, the teams simply won't be able to afford the same wages as an NBA team can. So you can argue about principles, but the most important principles here are in fact market principles. As to how one would shift the popularity like that, i don't really know. I find people who are really into watching a sport kind of weird.
Boooooo.
From my limited googling it seems the WNBA players are seeking more moolah somewhat independently of comparisons with the NBA. I may be off with that, and if so stand corrected but that angle seems to be one being made more by commentators than the women themselves.
At least they get paid, unlike college athletes who pull in tons of revenue, but that’s another weird American oddity to discuss another time.
I’m generally fully in favour of equal pay/expenses for international teams, or Olympic programs across genders. There are other elements at play besides commercial ones after all.
|
On July 20 2025 18:05 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2025 17:48 Magic Powers wrote:On July 20 2025 17:29 oBlade wrote:
Yeah I don't do anything to make doctors' jobs harder. You just did. Care to admit that "50 shots" was a lie? You realize that the link you yourself just posted states that including yearly flu shots kids might end up getting 56 shots by the time they are 18 years old?
The point is that calling them "56" shots and comparing that schedule to the vaccine schedule of other nations is inaccurate at best and harmful at worst. That its spread out more than nations like norway means that it should be safer, but people who are anti vax get to say "56 shots" to the uneducated about the specifics of vaccine science and convince them that its too much. If it were better or worse to have smaller, more frequent doses you should expect actors to be motivated to expose that information. Instead they peddle on the fact that the average american can't be expected to have college level understanding of health science.
This is the misinformation thats core to the eroding health of americans and you can see very much in this thread why its so insidious. BJ is the king of "technically correct but practically wrong" to score petty points in arguments.
|
My favorite commentary on equal pay for women's sports comes from US soccer/football player Megan Rapinoe. After being faced with the information that the U.S. women's soccer team actually earns more than the men's soccer team she said something like "While it's true that the women players earn slightly more, we actually bring in more money because we've won the world cup and are more popular compared to the men's team. So we should be making far more than slightly above what the men are paid."
Which I think is a pretty good argument but that's literally the argument AGAINST equal pay lol
|
On July 21 2025 06:02 micronesia wrote:
Mohdoo, is that not what's already happening? This isn't a leading question—I'm legitimately asking for what the delta is between today's practice and the practice you are calling for.
I follow your logic for how the team's income is what drives pay, but wouldn't competition already be doing that? If one team doesn't want to pay enough to a female player, then can't she go to another team that's willing to pay a little more? Rinse and repeat, until player's earn their actual worth? If all the WNBA teams quietly suppress how much they pay in an under-the-table agreement so that they all make more money, then becoming a player in the WNBA becomes less desirable, so the overall skill level of WNBA players (compared to NBA) goes down, likely reducing the public's interest in watching WNBA games when they can watch much more skilled NBA games. Do you think the owners are choosing to receive a higher percentage of today's income rather than increase the team's overall income and receive a lower percentage? Where is the breakdown?
I couldn’t tell you what currently happens because I can’t imagine a world where I look it up. The things I care about, I butt chug. The things I don’t, I talk about butt chugging instead.
Kwark is mostly right in his description. The only asterisk I would add is “because I don’t see how any other moral system applies to the situation”. I’m not saying “yeah it’s called a free market, libtard”. I’m just saying all we can hope for is for WNBA players to be paid using the same equations. It would be different if the whole basketball ecosystem was government-run, but it’s not. My understanding is the WNBA would go bankrupt if the top 100 WNBA players made the same salary as the top 100 NBA players.
In many ways, I don’t view the WNBA as related to the NBA. This isn’t 2 engineers being paid differently because one of the engineers took maternity leave.
To be more direct: I am speaking against people trying to force this to be a gender issue. Watching women I work with having their careers harmed by pregnancy has entirely radicalized me on the broad issue of how men and women are treated in their careers.
I don’t care if a pregnant woman did 70% the work of her male peer. The burden of humans continuing to exist should be carried by everyone. Pay women the same even if they do less, because we need babies. And that’s ignoring the fact many women I’ve seen sidelined or passed over for promotion for being a mother is enraging. It drives me up the fucking wall seeing people pretend we don’t need babies.
But I think it’s a mistake to frame this as “same pay for same work” because it’s just not the same at all. It would be like saying sponsors should have to pay the same amount for WNBA advertising as they do NBA.
|
On July 21 2025 08:09 BlackJack wrote:
My favorite commentary on equal pay for women's sports comes from US soccer/football player Megan Rapinoe. After being faced with the information that the U.S. women's soccer team actually earns more than the men's soccer team she said something like "While it's true that the women players earn slightly more, we actually bring in more money because we've won the world cup and are more popular compared to the men's team. So we should be making far more than slightly above what the men are paid."
Which I think is a pretty good argument but that's literally the argument AGAINST equal pay lol
The difference in numbers is a lot more stark when you find out that the drama was happening at the time because us soccer wasn't going to offer the women in the national team health insurance anymore. They needed to do this because it was the way to keep top pros playing soccer instead of getting a career to not be in poverty. The men didn't give a shit about their national team pay because they will always make far more from their club teams.
Depending on how much you value those legacy health insurance contracts the numbers swing a lot. The women did deserve to be paid more than the men for the revenue they were bringing in and would not be under the new negotiations. Us soccer paid a pr team to fund a misinformation campaign to make the women look bad so they could get out of the president of giving health insurance to players.
The whole drama got resolved now that NWSL is making money, can pay health insurance, and the USL stepped up to build out the minor league infrastructure to help avoid a competitive collapse in the event the top women athletes decide to prioritize money instead of the game.
The WBNA has always been intensively political and divisive due to American players being able to be paid more by playing in other countries. See Griner getting kidnapped by the Russians because of playing for a Russian basketball team.
|
The WNBA uniquely also doesn't exist in it of itself to make money but is a writeoff/advertising vehicle to make female fans of the NBA. The drama that it's involved with is inherently valuable as it helps fulfill the purpose of the WNBA. How many people here only hear about it due to the drama.
Expect drama with the PWHL to come up in the coming years. There's been some intrest with the NHL to do the same thing the NBA has managed to succeed with the WNBA but the southern strategy of the NHL conflicts a lot.
|
On July 21 2025 10:16 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2025 08:09 BlackJack wrote:
My favorite commentary on equal pay for women's sports comes from US soccer/football player Megan Rapinoe. After being faced with the information that the U.S. women's soccer team actually earns more than the men's soccer team she said something like "While it's true that the women players earn slightly more, we actually bring in more money because we've won the world cup and are more popular compared to the men's team. So we should be making far more than slightly above what the men are paid."
Which I think is a pretty good argument but that's literally the argument AGAINST equal pay lol The difference in numbers is a lot more stark when you find out that the drama was happening at the time because us soccer wasn't going to offer the women in the national team health insurance anymore. They needed to do this because it was the way to keep top pros playing soccer instead of getting a career to not be in poverty. The men didn't give a shit about their national team pay because they will always make far more from their club teams. Depending on how much you value those legacy health insurance contracts the numbers swing a lot. The women did deserve to be paid more than the men for the revenue they were bringing in and would not be under the new negotiations. Us soccer paid a pr team to fund a misinformation campaign to make the women look bad so they could get out of the president of giving health insurance to players. The whole drama got resolved now that NWSL is making money, can pay health insurance, and the USL stepped up to build out the minor league infrastructure to help avoid a competitive collapse in the event the top women athletes decide to prioritize money instead of the game. The WBNA has always been intensively political and divisive due to American players being able to be paid more by playing in other countries. See Griner getting kidnapped by the Russians because of playing for a Russian basketball team.
I bet if you took a poll of the general public most people would be surprised to learn that the women’s team, while fighting for years for equal pay, actually earned MORE than the men’s team. I think the misinformation campaign is a lot stronger for the people taking up their case for “equal pay.”
Also it’s fine to say that the women deserve to be paid a lot more than the men because they bring in more revenue but then you have to accept that the same argument can be used against women earning less in other sports.
|
On social media, Trump is trying to convince people to change the names of sports teams back to their previous racist names (Washington Redskins and Cleveland Indians).
Apparently, that's an extremely important and pressing concern for POTUS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
