You do realise this system is unsustainable, though ? We just cannot grow infinitely just because .end of life care costs money.

We are way too many, and the #1 source of global warming is human activity. At one point we'll have to stop growing, so the system of how we pay for elderly care has to change.

We don't have to grow infinitely. Population collapse comes with a huge host of problems though.

The problem of elder care isn't purely financial. It's not the model of paying that's the problem. At the end of the day, (kinda oversimplified) money represents a fractional value of the work output of a population. The output of the population depends on the number of people working in productive roles. The value of the currency is related to the consistent output of services and confidence in the existence of your country.

Shifting over an increasing fraction of your population to elder-care is non productive. It has a tension with both stability of currency and value of currency.

You are saying

> the thing so many of people with these views have in a common is they feel no shame about the harm they are causing.

> If in your own opinion you did something wrong, you should absolutley feel shame

It implies that the list of people you don't like think they did something wrong but refuse to feel shame about it.

To me, all those people are not shameless - in the sense that they don't feel shame _at all_ -, but don't feel shame because they don't feel like they did something wrong (how can you think you're wrong when you don't _believe_ in climate change ?).

So shame in itself is not the problem.

I didn't say I don't like those people, I said i believe they feel guilt yet avoid shame by using flawed reasoning and self deception. Those were just examples i thought would help sell my point to the HN crowd.

I think there is a huge difference between making something illegal for business (here: gambling in games) so that huge companies can't profit off of that legally, and making something illegal for people (war on drugs).

Like many people, I think the war on drugs was a terrible idea. But preventing huge pharmaceuticals companies from selling drugs isn't.

Mihoyo started as a 3-man company a decade ago. It's not exactly a huge business. Ultimately any bans are going to come down to making it illegal for the player, because they're the ones impacted the most by it.

Even stringent requirements to access these types of games are going to impact the player the most.

And why should we maintain the population ? Have we reached the perfect amount of people on earth ?

We could be a lot less humans on earth, it would be amazing for the environment, and I think we'd be as happy.

The only downside I see is economic (in the sense that everything is built with the expectation of growth). But it is to me an economic problem, and not a reproduction problem.

That's interesting.

A little nitpick : you seem to imply that buying a book is having an influence on parenting skills. I'd argue that's its correlated but does not have a direct influence.

As you said, if you're buying a book it means you're ready for self-reflection, which is what has an impact on parenting.

I'm fairly sure they are referring to a Freakonomics episode (or book). The researchers found "successful" parents, then found various statistics around them.

One of the conclusions was that they "type" of people that would go out of their way to buy a parenting book were already the type of people to do the "right thing" when parenting and the book itself offered no additional support.

> You know, your way of thinking will eventually lead to understanding that interviewing is inherently discriminatory against everyone but the best candidate

That's not discrimination. The problem is when you assume someone isn't the best candidate because of (pick (religion, origin, language, disability, ...)) but you don't know that.

A lot of people have used your way of thinking to justify discrimination. "Obviously foreign people are less educated. I'm just looking for the best candidate so I should not interview someone with a foreign name". How can you be sure that _you_ are not discriminating ?

> I love it when people from internet forums are telling me what my job is.

So you don't agree that your job is to hire the best person without discrimination ? Or you don't agree that giving people the proper tools allow them to be the best version of themselves ?

> The problem is when you assume someone isn't the best candidate because of (pick (religion, origin, language, disability, ...)) but you don't know that.

I assume that someone who can't throw up a few lines of text about himself is not worth even considering for an interview for a job that ultimately requires producing text, in a form of computer code, documentation and communication with co-workers. Yes, I'm pretty sure I'm discriminating against mentally handicapped and illiterate people. That's the intent.

That's an interesting idea. It would need some kind of tweaking for low values otherwise it would be exploitable to generate as much revenue from a 10 people sub then from a bigger one.

> This would encourage people to participate in smaller communities, which could be really nice for keeping the "small town" vibe of early reddit.

Couldn't it also cause a fragmentation of content across different same-ish subs ?

I work for a > 100 people company where the business model is entirely based on donations. We are using stripe for payment and it costs us money, but you can still use our service freely if you want to.

I agree it is not simple, but it proves it is doable.

I suffer from a disability and so does my girlfriend. Note that our main language is French and so there is a bit of nuance to how the terms are used. Disabled is usually said "handicapé" (this word means more "incapacitated" that anything) and "person with a disability" is usually said "personne en situation de handicap" which more literally translates to "person in a disability situation" / "person currently incapacitated".

While we don't have any problem with the term disabled, I can see some advantages to the "people first language" and try to use it when I can - but I agree it's often way more simple/clear to say "disabled", "blind", etc...

The advantages are :

  - Including temporarily disabled people (maybe more in french than english). If you break your legs and spend a few months in a wheelchair, you might not feel legitimate to use the term "disabled" in comparison to someone who has never been able to walk and suffers more from it. I'd also add my personal story: I suffer from chronic pain that is very incapacitating in my life. I don't feel legitimate when I call myself disabled. It's not temporary, but it's not as clear as blindness etc... Using people-first language feels more right.
  - Including more person means reducing stigma and reducing the gap between abled/disabled.
  - Not letting that disabilty define you as a person. I am not disabled, I am Sunderw, a complicated person with many different aspects.

That said, it should definitely not be a dictate because it only serves to divide more. Also, I had never heard the term "differently abled" which could sound almost sarcastic when employed to speak about someone in a wheelchair for example.

[Edit: formatting]

> If you break your legs and spend a few months in a wheelchair, you might not feel legitimate to use the term "disabled" in comparison to someone who has never been able to walk and suffers more from it.

I would say "I am hungry" even if I have food in the fridge, I do not need to compare myself to poor starving people and decide to say "I am currently hungry" or "I am in a situation of hunger"

> Not letting that disabilty define you as a person. I am not disabled, I am Sunderw, a complicated person with many different aspects.

also I am still a complicated person and hungry does not define my personality.

> Including more person means reducing stigma and reducing the gap between abled/disabled.

Actually, taking too many steps to think of how to describe a person with a certain medical situation already increases the stigma, I would feel more bad if people try to avoid calling me "sick" so I don't feel bad about being sick, this is even worse.

Imagine calling a midget "A person with less height" or some nonsense like that.

Well, the difference may come from the language. "I am hungry" translates in french to "J'ai faim" using the "have" auxiliary. You "are" hungry in english, but I "have" the hunger, in french.

So for me your example does not count as a label. Is there no nuance at all between "being hungry" and "being disabled" in english ? If so, you're right, my argument does not stand.

> Imagine calling a midget "A person with less height" or some nonsense like that.

I think midget is pejorative so this is not a very good example. But I don't know much about that so I'll take your argument as if it wasn't at all.

I should have added that this is of course useful in some contexts. If you are talking to a specific person, then changing the language isn't very useful (except if this specific person feels the term is offensive, but that does not mean we should all change how we speek).

Where it is more useful, for example, is when you talk about limitations due to a problem. You are writing an article about height problems ? No need to say it's about dwarfism, there are other small people that might relate. You're a store and design a special help to get objects on high shelves ? No need to call it "dwarf help" or "midget help", but just "help for small people" or even "high shelf help".

In this case this is not about thinking about how to describe a person with a certain medical situation. It is about taking a step back and removing the medical situation altogether.

This applies much more to "deaf"/"hearing impaired" (or whatever, my argument is about generalizing, not about a specific term). A lot more people have difficulty hearing than are completely deaf.

Knowing about it is good. Trying to think about what your language implies is good. Forbidding the usage of words is obviously extreme and bad.

> I would say "I am hungry" even if I have food in the fridge, I do not need to compare myself to poor starving people and decide to say "I am currently hungry" or "I am in a situation of hunger"

But saying "I'm starving!" when you are just hungry is a bit different. It's fine where there are no starving people around. It's just a exaggeration then. But if one of your friends starved last week while you are still fat and just a bit hungry it might not sound well.

The problem is that you let your friend starve, not that you used a wrong word. The humanity allocates too little money to medical research.

You can have more than one problem at the same time.

'Solving' the 'problem' of words only makes you feel good about yourself and gives you the feeling that you are helping somehow while actually doing nothing.

> - Not letting that disabilty define you as a person. I am not disabled, I am Sunderw, a complicated person with many different aspects.

The flip side of this is that it allows / encourages others to see your disability as a mere "inconvenience" or something that should be able to be separated from you. I find at least for people I know with mental health disabilities they feel "person with X" tends to lead very quickly into "I know you have X but why can't you just be/do/deal with Y". In fact, I have a general theory (untested) that where someone with a disability falls on the "I am a person with X" vs "I am X" is probably directly proportional to how much X is a strong defining factor in their lives. I notice this particularly in ADHD and Autism spectrum disorders, where being on the "less support needs" side of the spectrum tends to be described as "I have ADHD / Autism" but being on the side of the spectrum that requires more suppoed "I am ADHD / Autistic" is more common. And for those I know who prefer the "I am X" format, part of that is because, paraphrased "this is a major part of my life that fundamentally alters how I live and interact with the world and I need people to understand that about me"

Obviously to a large degree this depends on your language having an adjective form in the first place e.g. we have yet to come up with "I am cancered", though in a related way we often. see "I am a cancer survivor" / "I am fighting cancer", but it's still relatively common even for bad cases to be "I have cancer".

I'm supportive of all those goals, I just don't see how person-first language does anything for them. Does "he's a person with visual impairment" really stigmatize a person less than "he's blind"? Or does "he's blind" really one-dimensionally define a person? It seems to me that stigmas are not bourne out of language, and that a blind person is their own person seems understood and implied no matter the language that's used. If I say "sunderw's French" then it's also understood that you're more than just "French" and that your "Frenchness" does not singularly define you.

You can construct some armchair psychology arguments such as "the language explicitly acknowledges that there's more to a person", but does that really affect people's thinking in any significant way? And if it does, does it affect the thinking in the right way? Or does it trivialize the condition? No matter what language you use, being blind is a serious handicap and it really does affect what you can and can't do in this world; trying to euphemize the very real problems blind people face also isn't a good idea.

I've seen this at least twice on the french websites jeuxvideo.com and marmiton.org. I may have seen more but do not remember.

It think it's a gray area right now though.