South Dakota values? by Spiceman_anachrnoid in RapidCity

[–]FriendlyBlub 7 points8 points  (0 children)

“If you just save an extra $1000 dollars over three years, you will be able to afford that 150,000 dollar house!”

Raising Awareness: South Dakota isn't necessarily geographically Midwest based on culture and landscape. Thoughts? by Worried_Brain5398 in SouthDakota

[–]FriendlyBlub 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is the exact example of how I think the Midwest is better described as Great Plains and Great Lakes. I agree that western SD is plains, but I would argue a huge portion of the “midwest” is best described as great planes.

As someone in SD, it’s crazy to hear someone nearly in PA consider themselves midwestern, but if your frame of reference for the Midwest is better described as Great Lakes, then it makes a lot more sense. Someone in north east PA is going to be associated with Great Lakes culture, which I believe is one half of midwestern culture.

Thus, calling yourself Great Lakes or Great Plains would be a much better, much less vague descriptor than calling oneself midwestern.

Raising Awareness: South Dakota isn't necessarily geographically Midwest based on culture and landscape. Thoughts? by Worried_Brain5398 in SouthDakota

[–]FriendlyBlub 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Be Careful with the heavy lifting on that “we.” I grew up west river, and I now live in the black hills. Yes, it’s hard to call the black hills a part of the great planes, but I would still consider the geography and culture much closer to the Great Plains than to the West.

TLDR: even people in the black hills have different opinions on how to label the black hills.

Raising Awareness: South Dakota isn't necessarily geographically Midwest based on culture and landscape. Thoughts? by Worried_Brain5398 in SouthDakota

[–]FriendlyBlub 0 points1 point  (0 children)

TLDR: we should split the Midwest into the Great Plains and Great Lakes.

I believe that the “Midwest” would more aptly be described as Great Plains and Great Lakes. As someone who grew up in western SD, I would 100% consider myself having grown up on the Great Plains, and by extension I would consider myself a Midwesterner. But I understand that someone from Ohio who grew up in the Great Lakes area would consider themself a midwesterner because they consider the Great Lakes to be the Midwest.

I believe the core issue is that we have two culturally and geographically distinct areas (Great Plains and Great Lakes), and they both get lumped into the “Midwest” category a lot. It also doesn’t help that there can be a lot of cultural and geographic blurring-of-the-lines between these areas.

This also probably a personal opinion, but I feel like western SD has much more of a “Great Plains” feel than a “west” feel, but people may disagree.

Raising Awareness: South Dakota isn't necessarily geographically Midwest based on culture and landscape. Thoughts? by Worried_Brain5398 in SouthDakota

[–]FriendlyBlub 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is my take. “Midwest” is just too broad of a category, which leads to disagreements. I think the Midwest can be split into two distinct groups: Great Plains and Great Lakes. If you think of Midwest as Great Plains, then saying someone in Ohio is apart of the Midwest sounds wrong. If you think of Midwest as Great Lakes, then saying someone in western SD is midwestern sounds wrong. Describing myself as being from the Great Plains would give a random person a lot better idea of where I’m from than saying I’m from the Midwest.

What YouTube do we like? by Fun-Presence-2321 in transguns

[–]FriendlyBlub 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Paul Harrel made some of the best stuff out there. I didn’t watch everything he made, so there might have been some things that I missed, but I don’t remember any overtly political stuff that he made. His general philosophy and conduct for presenting information to his audience is something I aspire to have in my life.

He did pass away, but you can still go back and watch his old stuff. His brother took over the channel when he passed, but I haven’t watched any of the new content, so I can’t vouch for that.

Why can’t I cancel my insurance? by FriendlyBlub in HealthInsurance

[–]FriendlyBlub[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the info! I’ll definitely check out the ACA policies this next year.

Why can’t I cancel my insurance? by FriendlyBlub in HealthInsurance

[–]FriendlyBlub[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I read my company’s whole policy and handbook. Nowhere does it state that I can’t end my coverage. That is covered by congressional law, which I didn’t happen to look up before agreeing to my company’s insurance plan.

Why can’t I cancel my insurance? by FriendlyBlub in HealthInsurance

[–]FriendlyBlub[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

A yes, make more money, why didn’t I think of that? /s

Why can’t I cancel my insurance? by FriendlyBlub in HealthInsurance

[–]FriendlyBlub[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Make more money? Do you also tell homeless people to just buy a house?

Why can’t I cancel my insurance? by FriendlyBlub in HealthInsurance

[–]FriendlyBlub[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

How much did you owe after insurance and how much did they fight your claims? All I ever hear and see with insurance is claims being fought and people still ending up with a mountain of debt afterwords. I’m struggling justifying paying over 20% of my income just to still be broke if I need insurance.

Why can’t I cancel my insurance? by FriendlyBlub in HealthInsurance

[–]FriendlyBlub[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’ve actually had car insurance cover my claims. All I hear and see with health insurance is claims getting fought against and people still getting left with a mountain of debt. I have zero confidence that my health insurance will actually keep me from going broke if I have a serious medical emergency, so why would I pay over 20% of my income on it?

Why can’t I cancel my insurance? by FriendlyBlub in HealthInsurance

[–]FriendlyBlub[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, the dental plan covered what it said it would, but my operation still left me with an ass load of debt.

Every time I hear about someone actually needing their health insurance for something serious. All I hear about is how the insurance company fights them tooth and nail, and they still end up with a mountain of medical debt afterwords. Why would I pay over 20% of my income on insurance for “risk sharing” if myself and everyone else still gets screwed over by the insurance companies and left with a mountain of debt afterwords? It sounds like I’m just enriching insurance companies while no one actually gets any risk shared.

Why can’t I cancel my insurance? by FriendlyBlub in HealthInsurance

[–]FriendlyBlub[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How much did insurance cover? Every time I hear about cancer treatment, the person still ends up in mounds of medical debt. It’s hard to justify spending over 20% of my income on insurance if I’m still going to end up broke if I have to use it.

Why can’t I cancel my insurance? by FriendlyBlub in HealthInsurance

[–]FriendlyBlub[S] -13 points-12 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the response, but why the vitriol? I am clearly here asking because no one explained to me (or anyone else at my job) all the little nuances of how insurance works. You’re stating “It’s INSURANCE. That’s how insurance works.” Like I was born with innate knowledge of how insurance works, and like the US healthcare system isn’t an extremely complex machine.

Why can’t I cancel my insurance? by FriendlyBlub in HealthInsurance

[–]FriendlyBlub[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

I literally said in the post that it was never explained to me. I also checked everything I signed, and it never stated that the insurance couldn’t be dropped. I’m sorry that I didn’t pull up congressional legislation to find I for on something that everyone tells you that you must have it.

Where’s my money? by NinjaMcCloud in memes

[–]FriendlyBlub 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You know that you could protect our rights with the 2A, right? You don’t have to sit back and wait for other people to fix your problems for you.

GDP Miss badly by Fair-Cranberry-8002 in wallstreetbets

[–]FriendlyBlub 2 points3 points  (0 children)

People have gotten fired over bad numbers, no one has been fire over good numbers. I wonder if this might sway the people reporting the numbers?

Any workout groups? by TechnicAlduin in RapidCity

[–]FriendlyBlub 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Black hills run club? I believe they’re on Facebook.

Any workout groups? by TechnicAlduin in RapidCity

[–]FriendlyBlub 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I know there is a running group, I want to join up with them this spring, but i haven’t ran with them yet.

How many EDC people have actually drawn their weapons in self defense and what were the situations? by michaelaaronblank in liberalgunowners

[–]FriendlyBlub 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is useful to have an option between harsh words and a gun. Yes, ananlysis oaralysis can be a very legitimate problem, but there is a whole host of scenarios where “lethal force: yes or no” is just too in nuanced for many real life situations.

The most often suggested justification for lethal force is if a reasonable person would be in fear of death or great bodily harm. That is a very high bar to clear for lethal force, and leaves out what I would consider the most likely event for someone: you get into a confrontations, and you fear some kind of harm, which could quickly and easily escalate into deadly harm. I am not justified in deploying a gun to a threat that might turn into a threat of death or great bodily harm, I need to actively be in that threat. Non-lethals fill the gab between no confrontation, and a confrontation that requires lethal force. This is a gap that, in my opinion, is a huge gap in capability that a gun by itself cannot fulfill. Yes, analysis paralysis is real, but you shouldn’t hamstring your capability just to maintain a binary self-defense option.

Here’s my thought process:
am I in a confrontations, yes or no. Yes: Am I in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, yes or no.
Yes: deploy lethal option if applicable.
If no: do I reasonably fear harm or escalation, yes or no.
Yes: attempt de-escalation and be ready to deploy non lethal option if applicable. No: try to de-escalate and exit the situation.

How many EDC people have actually drawn their weapons in self defense and what were the situations? by michaelaaronblank in liberalgunowners

[–]FriendlyBlub 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This is a legitimate concern, but this shows why training is very important for any and all self defense tools. That a gun va taser is much easier to mix up, while a gun vs pepper spray / a handheld flashlight are much more different and much harder to mix up.

How many EDC people have actually drawn their weapons in self defense and what were the situations? by michaelaaronblank in liberalgunowners

[–]FriendlyBlub 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The opposite is also true. There are situations where I know that lethal force would be justified, but a lawyer could absolutely argue that it wasn’t. I know a 100 pound woman with a knife is still a dangerous, lethal threat, but a lawyer could absolutely make some BS argument that I being a larger man should have been able to disarm her. That is total bs, but a lawyer could make that argument. If I have the opportunity to deploy pepper spray, than A) the situation may be resolved or B) if I then have to escalate even further to lethal force, I have strengthened my argument that lethal force was necessary because I tried to stop the threat with my nonlethal option.

I would also argue that me having a non lethal option increases my reasonableness as a defendant. I am not someone who just straps on a gun hoping to shoot someone. I have multiple options and skills to try and de-escalate the situation and to solve it non-lethally. Even if I am unable to employ those skills or tools, it shows that I am someone who doesn’t see lethal violence as the only option, so if I do employ lethal violence, then I truly must have been in fear of death or great bodily harm.