OTC BIRTH CONTROL APPROVED BY THE FDA

Add to the list of “things about America I (american) didn’t know were not normal worldwide”

In half of Europe, you also need a prescription.

Yeah I doubt anyone will see this but as OP the notifs with blatant misinterpretation are driving me wild. The Plan B emergency contraceptive is OTC in the US. This post is specifically referring to hormonal daily birth control, which previously you could only get via a prescription, which is prohibitive to many people. This is common in many countries due to potential contraindications. However, this coming a little more than a year after the overturning of Roe v. Wade is huge.

OTC BIRTH CONTROL APPROVED BY THE FDA

Add to the list of “things about America I (american) didn’t know were not normal worldwide”

Are people confusing this with the morning after pill? Because needing prescriptions for the consistent contraceptive pills is pretty normal in both countries I've ever lived in, and in the notes it seems to be the case for many countries. Maybe everywhere but those countries do this systematically without prescription lol idk but its not America-specific for sure.

The “Open in App” button was out there to taunt you. it sends you to the app store even though you already own the app and it will never let you see the post on your phone browser. they do this because they hate yoy

For those worried about the crew having to do a whole job just for one person, flight staff only get paid for time they're in the air; if he'd cancelled, they wouldn't have gotten paid for zip.

So in other words, he gave them an easy day where they can spend most of it on break, and also airplane staff should unionize.

Also the plane likely has to get to NC somehow so you might as well have fun with it

According to the notes that isn't true and they actually would get paid not to mention are unionised (I have no idea about this personally). But tbh I don't see why he should have not gotten on the flight to "spare" the staff anyhow, like he booked that flight presumably because he was going somewhere, its not on him to make sure the crew don't have to work.

I fucking hate internet funnyman “leftist” meme sites run by people who’ve never raised a finger to help people with housing insecurity that occasionally just say with their full chest that they don’t think elderly people should have constitutional rights. Elderly people are a notoriously vulnerable group for housing insecurity and acting like they’re all Mitch Mcconnell in disguise to justify advocating cruetly to them is no excuse

"Old people shouldnt get a vote bc its 'not their future'" is one of the voting takes I hate the most.

Not to mention, and don't misunderstand me here this is wrong no matter what age this is referring to, a lot of these people define "pretty much dead" as being like over 60.

YEP YEP YEP YEP YEP I FUCKING HATE THAT TOO. Especially heinous is that the elderly (which as you rightly pointed out some people think is like 60 years old) should forsake their present for other people’s future when republicans have been steadily destroying social services many seniors rely on for years

Not to mention that the unhoused population is aging significantly (due in part to aforementioned destruction of social services). According to researchers at ucsf, the percentage of unhoused adults, single adults without kids was 11% in 1990 and ~50% today. to make this headline about housing specifically is pretty gross. source

I work with the truly old. My patients are almost exclusively seventy and above. Most are eighties and above.

We see so many people hospitalized for malnutrition. We see so many people who are 70+ and either homeless in the most expected sense—living in streets and the woods, while pieces of their body rot away on them because they can’t afford medications they need—and those who are forced to stay in horrific living situations because they have no other options.

The impoverished elderly are one of THE most vulnerable groups because they tend to have very few people they can rely on in any way and they tend to be multiply disabled.

What does a homeless eighty year old do when they have a stroke? What does a homeless eighty year old do when they break a hip? When they develop a UTI because they don’t have access to enough water and sanitary ways to clean themselves, causing weakness and an altered mental state?

Often times, they die. They die miserable, horrible, preventable deaths. Those who live often never go back to the same level of independence they had before, cutting years off their life. Because what does a homeless person do after returning to a homeless life when they’ve had that stroke and they’ve been medically cleared?

So. You hate old people or whatever? Sorry you don’t like that rude guy in the checkout line and hate your aunt. These are real people who are incredibly vulnerable and nobody cares about.

So, the Betoota Advocate isn't a "leftist meme site" it's a satirical newspaper. Also, it's an AUSTRALIAN publication.

I'm sure all this input is correct and I'm sure it's even correct in Australia, but the joke isn't that elderly people shouldn't get a say, it's that elderly people in Australia get their say all the time.

A lot of retirees in Australia invest in things like franking credits, which lead to them being able to claim tax back after they have retired (ie, they're claiming money in their tax return even though they didn't do any work in the financial year), and the idea of getting rid of franking credits or modifying their use is considered so politically loaded that no politician who wants to be elected will go near it.

Also, the housing plan that's being referenced is literally a housing plan to increase access to community housing and access to housing for the homeless.

That’s all good to know. Full disclosure i found this on a leftist meme group on instagram that AFAIK was run by Americans and was framing it more or less how I described it in the OP. I still think this is a poorly framed joke that could’ve been executed without playing into the stereotype of elderly people as rich and self-absorbed that is unfortunately very prevalent in a lot of progressive internet spaces.

I'm sorry but the joke IS that old people shouldn't get a say, in what does this headline say anything about how elderly people already get their say? It is true in most countries that elderly people do get their say, the issue is that leftists keep suggesting they shouldn't.

The whole article is referring to people as the "living dead", seems to be making fun of dementia/general age related memory problems, and is basing the whole argument on the idea that they just shouldn't care because they're too old, not like satirising the complaints themselves but just the concept of someone old having an opinion.

I could be wrong about this but I'm pretty sure the article is sending up the type of arguments had about development projects, not talking about a real one, so I'm not sure where this has come from that its a plan to increase community housing.

This is a satire on the Australian housing market, the unemployment crisis and the state of welfare (nonexistent).

The Betoota Advocate often frames its articles as local news, but they're referencing national events.

Since the 2019 election and the formation of the Australian Affordable Housing Party, there's been increased pressure for more affordable and more accessible housing in Australia, as well as fairer laws for renters.

The Housing Plan refers to the National Housing and Homeless Plan which specifically says it's being developed in collaboration with superannuation funds.

The French Quarter is symbolic of Australian urban centres. Most people who work in low paying jobs here can't afford to live near where they work. People on welfare (and welfare payments here are under the Henderson poverty line) also can't afford to live near where jobs are. Additionally, the government's solution has famously been that these people need to move further away from the city, to where the more affordable housing is.

The final paragraph referring to building more houses on the edge of town isn't talking about a disagreement over where a specific development is being put, it's referencing that official government policy. You can actually get more money on welfare if you move away from the city.

However, the writer is lampshading it, by having the character immediately call attention to the fact that the people who he wants to move away from "The French Quarter" are the very people whose labour he wants to take advantage of.

The article isn't about elderly people, it's about wealthy boomers acting like vampires, that's why they're referred to as "the living dead" and not simply retirees.

Its very explicitly saying, time and time again, that the problem with these people is that they're OLD. Its key to the headline, its repeated throughout out the article, once again i refer to the fact that it is making fun of dementia, it also very pointedly has the old man make a comment about how his opinion can't be irrelevant despite being 90 at the time they'll break ground, he also opens the conversation with "I'm old as shit so listen to me". It entirely is about elderly people.

I dont see how it could possibly refer to vampires, when variants of the idea that they are too old to care because they will be dead soon is repeated multiple times.

Yes, the point of satire is that the message is not explicit. Likewise, there is another article on the site about voting no in the upcoming Voice to Parliament referendum. That does not mean the Betoota Advocate thinks people should vote no in the referendum.

Please go back to school and actually listen to your English teachers this time.

The entire article is mocking old people for having opinions on things that the authors feel they shouldn't care about, on account of being too old. What it is satirising, is old people having opinions.

Idk if you're even reading what I've said if you think your point about the referendum refutes anything. No one thinks the article is actually siding with their old people characters, as you would if you read it without picking up on the satire. What I'm saying is that their emphasis is entirely about mocking these characters due to their age, not the position they are taking on this housing project.

Yes, because wealthy boomers are the only people in Australia who can afford to own their own home. Australia has had a housing price bubble since the late 90s. The economic downturn in 2008 barely touched us and it didn't touch our housing market at all. Housing prices here are astronomical.

There are dilapidated buildings in Sydney that sell for over a million dollars because they're not really selling the building, they're selling the location.

So naturally, the article is satirising people of a certain age, because people my age do not own houses in this country. Not unless we're very lucky or we've had help from someone. "Wealthy boomers" on the other hand, not only usually own their own homes outright, but they often own investment properties too.

I cannot tell at this point whether you are trolling or you're just unable to admit that you're wrong. It's okay to be wrong. You clearly know nothing about Australia, Australian politics or Australian culture. It's fine.

You are being deliberately obtuse now. And being condescending isn't gonna make you more correct lol. No amount of talking about how old people actually deserve it because of location or anything else is gonna change what this article does which is pinning the focus on the idea that old people shouldn't have opinions to begin with. This is not about home ownership or wealth, its about how old people shouldn't say things because they are gonna die too soon. Its mocking memory problems, its mocking old people sapping up "youthful energy" (real thing that it says).

It is not "natural" for things to be "satirising people of a certain age" because of anything written in your response. It doesn't magically become acceptable if old people have a certain amount of collective wealth.

Also its not even strictly true that Australia has some uniquely dramatic generational divide in regards to homeownership, the figures for age groups 25-34, and 35-44 are very similar to those from England and seemingly the USA, might even be a fair bit higher than the US (harder to tell as the ages are grouped differently). The overall home ownership rates are "on par with the US, UK, Canada and New Zealand and higher than those in Germany and Switzerland".

idk how to tell you guys this but the main plot of tonight's riverdale episode was about emmett till. you might be thinking 'riverdale doesn't really have the depth and quality to cover such a serious topic, though'. you would be correct.

I think it is supposed to sound economic, like trying to suggest people should be houses and putting responsibility on the society not the individual. Also I dont think, contrary to what is in the notes, that unhoused is meant to mean "unsheltered" as a subsection of homelessness. Most organisations seem to speak of it as a replacement for the word homeless.

From unhoused.org:

"The label of “homeless” has derogatory connotations. It implies that one is “less than”, and it undermines self-esteem and progressive change."

"The use of the term "Unhoused", instead, has a profound personal impact upon those in insecure housing situations. It implies that there is a moral and social assumption that everyone should be housed in the first place."

An interesting article about the pros and cons.

I fucking hate internet funnyman “leftist” meme sites run by people who’ve never raised a finger to help people with housing insecurity that occasionally just say with their full chest that they don’t think elderly people should have constitutional rights. Elderly people are a notoriously vulnerable group for housing insecurity and acting like they’re all Mitch Mcconnell in disguise to justify advocating cruetly to them is no excuse

"Old people shouldnt get a vote bc its 'not their future'" is one of the voting takes I hate the most.

Not to mention, and don't misunderstand me here this is wrong no matter what age this is referring to, a lot of these people define "pretty much dead" as being like over 60.

YEP YEP YEP YEP YEP I FUCKING HATE THAT TOO. Especially heinous is that the elderly (which as you rightly pointed out some people think is like 60 years old) should forsake their present for other people’s future when republicans have been steadily destroying social services many seniors rely on for years

Not to mention that the unhoused population is aging significantly (due in part to aforementioned destruction of social services). According to researchers at ucsf, the percentage of unhoused adults, single adults without kids was 11% in 1990 and ~50% today. to make this headline about housing specifically is pretty gross. source

I work with the truly old. My patients are almost exclusively seventy and above. Most are eighties and above.

We see so many people hospitalized for malnutrition. We see so many people who are 70+ and either homeless in the most expected sense—living in streets and the woods, while pieces of their body rot away on them because they can’t afford medications they need—and those who are forced to stay in horrific living situations because they have no other options.

The impoverished elderly are one of THE most vulnerable groups because they tend to have very few people they can rely on in any way and they tend to be multiply disabled.

What does a homeless eighty year old do when they have a stroke? What does a homeless eighty year old do when they break a hip? When they develop a UTI because they don’t have access to enough water and sanitary ways to clean themselves, causing weakness and an altered mental state?

Often times, they die. They die miserable, horrible, preventable deaths. Those who live often never go back to the same level of independence they had before, cutting years off their life. Because what does a homeless person do after returning to a homeless life when they’ve had that stroke and they’ve been medically cleared?

So. You hate old people or whatever? Sorry you don’t like that rude guy in the checkout line and hate your aunt. These are real people who are incredibly vulnerable and nobody cares about.

So, the Betoota Advocate isn't a "leftist meme site" it's a satirical newspaper. Also, it's an AUSTRALIAN publication.

I'm sure all this input is correct and I'm sure it's even correct in Australia, but the joke isn't that elderly people shouldn't get a say, it's that elderly people in Australia get their say all the time.

A lot of retirees in Australia invest in things like franking credits, which lead to them being able to claim tax back after they have retired (ie, they're claiming money in their tax return even though they didn't do any work in the financial year), and the idea of getting rid of franking credits or modifying their use is considered so politically loaded that no politician who wants to be elected will go near it.

Also, the housing plan that's being referenced is literally a housing plan to increase access to community housing and access to housing for the homeless.

That’s all good to know. Full disclosure i found this on a leftist meme group on instagram that AFAIK was run by Americans and was framing it more or less how I described it in the OP. I still think this is a poorly framed joke that could’ve been executed without playing into the stereotype of elderly people as rich and self-absorbed that is unfortunately very prevalent in a lot of progressive internet spaces.

I'm sorry but the joke IS that old people shouldn't get a say, in what does this headline say anything about how elderly people already get their say? It is true in most countries that elderly people do get their say, the issue is that leftists keep suggesting they shouldn't.

The whole article is referring to people as the "living dead", seems to be making fun of dementia/general age related memory problems, and is basing the whole argument on the idea that they just shouldn't care because they're too old, not like satirising the complaints themselves but just the concept of someone old having an opinion.

I could be wrong about this but I'm pretty sure the article is sending up the type of arguments had about development projects, not talking about a real one, so I'm not sure where this has come from that its a plan to increase community housing.

This is a satire on the Australian housing market, the unemployment crisis and the state of welfare (nonexistent).

The Betoota Advocate often frames its articles as local news, but they're referencing national events.

Since the 2019 election and the formation of the Australian Affordable Housing Party, there's been increased pressure for more affordable and more accessible housing in Australia, as well as fairer laws for renters.

The Housing Plan refers to the National Housing and Homeless Plan which specifically says it's being developed in collaboration with superannuation funds.

The French Quarter is symbolic of Australian urban centres. Most people who work in low paying jobs here can't afford to live near where they work. People on welfare (and welfare payments here are under the Henderson poverty line) also can't afford to live near where jobs are. Additionally, the government's solution has famously been that these people need to move further away from the city, to where the more affordable housing is.

The final paragraph referring to building more houses on the edge of town isn't talking about a disagreement over where a specific development is being put, it's referencing that official government policy. You can actually get more money on welfare if you move away from the city.

However, the writer is lampshading it, by having the character immediately call attention to the fact that the people who he wants to move away from "The French Quarter" are the very people whose labour he wants to take advantage of.

The article isn't about elderly people, it's about wealthy boomers acting like vampires, that's why they're referred to as "the living dead" and not simply retirees.

Its very explicitly saying, time and time again, that the problem with these people is that they're OLD. Its key to the headline, its repeated throughout out the article, once again i refer to the fact that it is making fun of dementia, it also very pointedly has the old man make a comment about how his opinion can't be irrelevant despite being 90 at the time they'll break ground, he also opens the conversation with "I'm old as shit so listen to me". It entirely is about elderly people.

I dont see how it could possibly refer to vampires, when variants of the idea that they are too old to care because they will be dead soon is repeated multiple times.

Yes, the point of satire is that the message is not explicit. Likewise, there is another article on the site about voting no in the upcoming Voice to Parliament referendum. That does not mean the Betoota Advocate thinks people should vote no in the referendum.

Please go back to school and actually listen to your English teachers this time.

The entire article is mocking old people for having opinions on things that the authors feel they shouldn't care about, on account of being too old. What it is satirising, is old people having opinions.

Idk if you're even reading what I've said if you think your point about the referendum refutes anything. No one thinks the article is actually siding with their old people characters, as you would if you read it without picking up on the satire. What I'm saying is that their emphasis is entirely about mocking these characters due to their age, not the position they are taking on this housing project.

saw someone refer to not knowing how to keep track of your money as "girl math" ......why are we in this weird era of treating women like idiots but repackaging it to sound cute and quirky. We All Need To Stop

at this point i also take issue with those tweets/posts that are of the genre “girls were meant to sit in their bed with treats and do nothing all day” it was fun and #relatable maybe the first few times but it’s really just feeding into this weird mass objectification and dehumanization of women going on all over every social media platform now

100% agree with the overall point here but as far as I can tell, girl math is doesnt mean not being able to keep track, its a joke about those psychological things like "paying cash means its free", "paying for something with money you got for returning something else means it's free etc".

Why this has to be a weird gendered thing is beyond me, all of these "girl" memes just serve to treat "girls" (read: grown women) as if they are like pets or some kind of alien. And this is somehow pegged as feminist like I'm not saying they thinks it's the suffragette movement 2.0 but there is this undertone that this is somehow progressive and at least anti-sexist. In fact it is the opposite.

I fucking hate internet funnyman “leftist” meme sites run by people who’ve never raised a finger to help people with housing insecurity that occasionally just say with their full chest that they don’t think elderly people should have constitutional rights. Elderly people are a notoriously vulnerable group for housing insecurity and acting like they’re all Mitch Mcconnell in disguise to justify advocating cruetly to them is no excuse

"Old people shouldnt get a vote bc its 'not their future'" is one of the voting takes I hate the most.

Not to mention, and don't misunderstand me here this is wrong no matter what age this is referring to, a lot of these people define "pretty much dead" as being like over 60.

YEP YEP YEP YEP YEP I FUCKING HATE THAT TOO. Especially heinous is that the elderly (which as you rightly pointed out some people think is like 60 years old) should forsake their present for other people’s future when republicans have been steadily destroying social services many seniors rely on for years

Not to mention that the unhoused population is aging significantly (due in part to aforementioned destruction of social services). According to researchers at ucsf, the percentage of unhoused adults, single adults without kids was 11% in 1990 and ~50% today. to make this headline about housing specifically is pretty gross. source

I work with the truly old. My patients are almost exclusively seventy and above. Most are eighties and above.

We see so many people hospitalized for malnutrition. We see so many people who are 70+ and either homeless in the most expected sense—living in streets and the woods, while pieces of their body rot away on them because they can’t afford medications they need—and those who are forced to stay in horrific living situations because they have no other options.

The impoverished elderly are one of THE most vulnerable groups because they tend to have very few people they can rely on in any way and they tend to be multiply disabled.

What does a homeless eighty year old do when they have a stroke? What does a homeless eighty year old do when they break a hip? When they develop a UTI because they don’t have access to enough water and sanitary ways to clean themselves, causing weakness and an altered mental state?

Often times, they die. They die miserable, horrible, preventable deaths. Those who live often never go back to the same level of independence they had before, cutting years off their life. Because what does a homeless person do after returning to a homeless life when they’ve had that stroke and they’ve been medically cleared?

So. You hate old people or whatever? Sorry you don’t like that rude guy in the checkout line and hate your aunt. These are real people who are incredibly vulnerable and nobody cares about.

So, the Betoota Advocate isn't a "leftist meme site" it's a satirical newspaper. Also, it's an AUSTRALIAN publication.

I'm sure all this input is correct and I'm sure it's even correct in Australia, but the joke isn't that elderly people shouldn't get a say, it's that elderly people in Australia get their say all the time.

A lot of retirees in Australia invest in things like franking credits, which lead to them being able to claim tax back after they have retired (ie, they're claiming money in their tax return even though they didn't do any work in the financial year), and the idea of getting rid of franking credits or modifying their use is considered so politically loaded that no politician who wants to be elected will go near it.

Also, the housing plan that's being referenced is literally a housing plan to increase access to community housing and access to housing for the homeless.

That’s all good to know. Full disclosure i found this on a leftist meme group on instagram that AFAIK was run by Americans and was framing it more or less how I described it in the OP. I still think this is a poorly framed joke that could’ve been executed without playing into the stereotype of elderly people as rich and self-absorbed that is unfortunately very prevalent in a lot of progressive internet spaces.

I'm sorry but the joke IS that old people shouldn't get a say, in what does this headline say anything about how elderly people already get their say? It is true in most countries that elderly people do get their say, the issue is that leftists keep suggesting they shouldn't.

The whole article is referring to people as the "living dead", seems to be making fun of dementia/general age related memory problems, and is basing the whole argument on the idea that they just shouldn't care because they're too old, not like satirising the complaints themselves but just the concept of someone old having an opinion.

I could be wrong about this but I'm pretty sure the article is sending up the type of arguments had about development projects, not talking about a real one, so I'm not sure where this has come from that its a plan to increase community housing.

This is a satire on the Australian housing market, the unemployment crisis and the state of welfare (nonexistent).

The Betoota Advocate often frames its articles as local news, but they're referencing national events.

Since the 2019 election and the formation of the Australian Affordable Housing Party, there's been increased pressure for more affordable and more accessible housing in Australia, as well as fairer laws for renters.

The Housing Plan refers to the National Housing and Homeless Plan which specifically says it's being developed in collaboration with superannuation funds.

The French Quarter is symbolic of Australian urban centres. Most people who work in low paying jobs here can't afford to live near where they work. People on welfare (and welfare payments here are under the Henderson poverty line) also can't afford to live near where jobs are. Additionally, the government's solution has famously been that these people need to move further away from the city, to where the more affordable housing is.

The final paragraph referring to building more houses on the edge of town isn't talking about a disagreement over where a specific development is being put, it's referencing that official government policy. You can actually get more money on welfare if you move away from the city.

However, the writer is lampshading it, by having the character immediately call attention to the fact that the people who he wants to move away from "The French Quarter" are the very people whose labour he wants to take advantage of.

The article isn't about elderly people, it's about wealthy boomers acting like vampires, that's why they're referred to as "the living dead" and not simply retirees.

Its very explicitly saying, time and time again, that the problem with these people is that they're OLD. Its key to the headline, its repeated throughout out the article, once again i refer to the fact that it is making fun of dementia, it also very pointedly has the old man make a comment about how his opinion can't be irrelevant despite being 90 at the time they'll break ground, he also opens the conversation with "I'm old as shit so listen to me". It entirely is about elderly people.

I dont see how it could possibly refer to vampires, when variants of the idea that they are too old to care because they will be dead soon is repeated multiple times.

Pros and cons of reusable period pants

So as I mentioned in a previous post most of the marketing of reusable sanitary products centres environmentalism with the benefits to the consumer being put on the backbench. Hence, I thought I would write this post about what they are actually like to use:

Pros:

Cons:

In summation, I would say the pros far outweigh the few cons, some of the latter they share with pads and tampons anyway.. if you're considering it at all I would definitely say go for it, as far as I'm concerned this is a marked improvement over commonly used period products.

These are the absolute cheapest that I found, they seem to have actually gone down to £40 for three or maybe I was misremembering but they only seem to do one style.

This is the company I actually bought from they have a nice range of styles and I can attest that they definitely work.

Im from the UK personally so I don't know if they deliver to elsewhere.

Note: there are two types of things called period pants, one is as described above, one isn't absorbent but somehow stops leaks when you wear them with a tampon. It should be fairly obvious which one you're looking at but if you are planning to get some make sure to read the description.

idk abt everyone else but personally i used 2 use tampons til i was like 23ish? and they made my cramps soooooo much fucking worse. i didn't even realise til i started using pads n noticed how much easier the pain would b on the first few days. my bleeding is def not light (at least for sure not those first couple of days) nd pads are a little more inconvenient (esp reusable ones which yeah they can b a pain in the ass in certain situations) but well worth the trade-off fr me. plastic pads are a little uncomfortable (i only rly use them if im travelling or otherwise in a pinch) but reusable ones are sooo comfortable imo. and the feeling of changing in 2 a freshly laundered pad still warm frm the dryer is crazy i literally never knew menstruation could b so cozy lmaoo

Would 100% recommend period underwear, honestly 10× more comfortable and practical than both pads and tampons imo. I expected them to be more difficult to use but they are so much easier. I have a post on here somewhere talking about the pros and cons but it was ages ago.

Before I got them I used to alternate between pads and tampons because they both had their aspects of discomfort and I'd switch it up when one got too much. Although on the first night or two I'd have to use both to sleep in.

I fucking hate internet funnyman “leftist” meme sites run by people who’ve never raised a finger to help people with housing insecurity that occasionally just say with their full chest that they don’t think elderly people should have constitutional rights. Elderly people are a notoriously vulnerable group for housing insecurity and acting like they’re all Mitch Mcconnell in disguise to justify advocating cruetly to them is no excuse

"Old people shouldnt get a vote bc its 'not their future'" is one of the voting takes I hate the most.

Not to mention, and don't misunderstand me here this is wrong no matter what age this is referring to, a lot of these people define "pretty much dead" as being like over 60.

YEP YEP YEP YEP YEP I FUCKING HATE THAT TOO. Especially heinous is that the elderly (which as you rightly pointed out some people think is like 60 years old) should forsake their present for other people’s future when republicans have been steadily destroying social services many seniors rely on for years

Not to mention that the unhoused population is aging significantly (due in part to aforementioned destruction of social services). According to researchers at ucsf, the percentage of unhoused adults, single adults without kids was 11% in 1990 and ~50% today. to make this headline about housing specifically is pretty gross. source

I work with the truly old. My patients are almost exclusively seventy and above. Most are eighties and above.

We see so many people hospitalized for malnutrition. We see so many people who are 70+ and either homeless in the most expected sense—living in streets and the woods, while pieces of their body rot away on them because they can’t afford medications they need—and those who are forced to stay in horrific living situations because they have no other options.

The impoverished elderly are one of THE most vulnerable groups because they tend to have very few people they can rely on in any way and they tend to be multiply disabled.

What does a homeless eighty year old do when they have a stroke? What does a homeless eighty year old do when they break a hip? When they develop a UTI because they don’t have access to enough water and sanitary ways to clean themselves, causing weakness and an altered mental state?

Often times, they die. They die miserable, horrible, preventable deaths. Those who live often never go back to the same level of independence they had before, cutting years off their life. Because what does a homeless person do after returning to a homeless life when they’ve had that stroke and they’ve been medically cleared?

So. You hate old people or whatever? Sorry you don’t like that rude guy in the checkout line and hate your aunt. These are real people who are incredibly vulnerable and nobody cares about.

So, the Betoota Advocate isn't a "leftist meme site" it's a satirical newspaper. Also, it's an AUSTRALIAN publication.

I'm sure all this input is correct and I'm sure it's even correct in Australia, but the joke isn't that elderly people shouldn't get a say, it's that elderly people in Australia get their say all the time.

A lot of retirees in Australia invest in things like franking credits, which lead to them being able to claim tax back after they have retired (ie, they're claiming money in their tax return even though they didn't do any work in the financial year), and the idea of getting rid of franking credits or modifying their use is considered so politically loaded that no politician who wants to be elected will go near it.

Also, the housing plan that's being referenced is literally a housing plan to increase access to community housing and access to housing for the homeless.

That’s all good to know. Full disclosure i found this on a leftist meme group on instagram that AFAIK was run by Americans and was framing it more or less how I described it in the OP. I still think this is a poorly framed joke that could’ve been executed without playing into the stereotype of elderly people as rich and self-absorbed that is unfortunately very prevalent in a lot of progressive internet spaces.

I'm sorry but the joke IS that old people shouldn't get a say, in what does this headline say anything about how elderly people already get their say? It is true in most countries that elderly people do get their say, the issue is that leftists keep suggesting they shouldn't.

The whole article is referring to people as the "living dead", seems to be making fun of dementia/general age related memory problems, and is basing the whole argument on the idea that they just shouldn't care because they're too old, not like satirising the complaints themselves but just the concept of someone old having an opinion.

I could be wrong about this but I'm pretty sure the article is sending up the type of arguments had about development projects, not talking about a real one, so I'm not sure where this has come from that its a plan to increase community housing.

I fucking hate internet funnyman “leftist” meme sites run by people who’ve never raised a finger to help people with housing insecurity that occasionally just say with their full chest that they don’t think elderly people should have constitutional rights. Elderly people are a notoriously vulnerable group for housing insecurity and acting like they’re all Mitch Mcconnell in disguise to justify advocating cruetly to them is no excuse

"Old people shouldnt get a vote bc its 'not their future'" is one of the voting takes I hate the most.

Not to mention, and don't misunderstand me here this is wrong no matter what age this is referring to, a lot of these people define "pretty much dead" as being like over 60.

i feel like there's a bit of a tendency in leftist circles to do the same thing conservatives do, and pine for an imaginary time period that never existed. except instead of like, ancient rome, or the 50s, a lot of people are weirdly fixated on like...the middle ages? or the hunter-gatherer days? or pirates? like people will try to be anti-capitalist and say "oh medieval peasants had better lives than we do" or "humans used to all live in small communities that took care of each other" and like. idk man id rather have vaccines and the ability to leave your abuser and the right to vote.

it's tempting to think that since things are bad, they must be uniquely bad. but there is no utopia in the past that we need to return to, no garden of eden we were cast out of with the advent of. idk the industrial revolution or whatever. we need to create a better future, not despair about an imagined past.

“when MY poor little meow meow commits atrocities it’s just because All Of The Pain He Has Wrongfully Suffered, the things he does are not great but it’s 100% totes understandable and the fans who are standing up for him are So Compassionate And Just for being able to see past his wrongs to his True Good Nature. but when YOUR irredeemable monster of a blorbo does wrong things it is only because they are Inherently Bad, and fans who defend THEM are only doing so because they are dumb, deluded or maybe secretly abusers” is one of my least favorite flavors of discourse

or in other words

The EU is doing a big survey for LGBTQ people who live in the EU about how it is for them right now. That's the kind of survey that's used for official reports and for laws so it's super important that it has as many people taking it as possible. You can take it in every EU language. (You can change the language in the top right corner) Share it with your friends!

https://www.lgbtiqsurvey.eu/lgbtiq

Not me in the UK filling out this survey up to "What country do you live in?" and only remembering from the options that I'm not in the EU anymore am I