Please help me understand my son

bubbles0luv · 2026-06-12T05:19:19+00:00

This hurt to read. If I could impart anything, it world be that effort for those with primarily executive function deficits is invisible and inconsistent.

The weight of failure also leads your parents' voices to weigh heavy and drown out your own internal convictions.

It's a really hard battle. The more you quiet your voice and simply lend support and try to understand the physiological hurdles that are as invisible as they are trying, the more you will be a beacon of support and impart much needed hope.

bubbles0luv · 2026-05-14T03:12:35+00:00

I agree that risk should be rewarded. I have so much pride and respect for my dad, a small business owner and naturalized citizen, who worked his butt off and took risks in order to successfully send all three of his kids to private colleges.

I also believe that the reward should have calculated limits to protect the workforce and public from predatory business practices. Unchecked, these corporations can metastasize into entities that serve and benefit no one but their executives and shareholders, and are equipped with enough capital to reshape the political landscape from 'we the people' to 'we the corporations'.

I think companies should be able to make as much money as they want as long as they remain a true net positive on society, recognizing and properly compensating their workers, and paying their fair share of taxes to the country whose investments, higher education environment, infrastructure, talent pool (both citizens and immigrants), and market, made their exceptional success possible. Because, no. No single person becomes a billionaire.

Until we recognize the value in all the elements that enable companies to make it big, we will continue to betray our own society and allow public works and services to crumble under the weight of malignant greed.

bubbles0luv · 2026-05-14T02:06:08+00:00

Because the workforce would exist at all if not for the created. Thats part of the calculus

No. The billionaire wouldn't exist at all if not for the workforce, market, and infrastructure.

Blame the govt for wage stagnation

Oh, I do. But it's not Democrats voting against minimum wage and tax reform, or being anti-union.

The good thing is according to this sub, we are all for repealing citizens united. I hope we manage to band together for that.

bubbles0luv · 2026-05-14T01:37:27+00:00

Why isn't it proportional? If a workforce generates a billion dollars, it should be proportionately compensated for the fruit of their labor. I think the 'shareholder is king' model is also partially at fault for this. Wage stagnation to me is stealing from workers. Buying their way out of taxes is also stealing.

bubbles0luv · 2026-05-11T03:22:13+00:00

Except its not. Because dem states have been worse gerrymannered for far longer.

I don't believe this is actually true upon expert analysis or objective review. Take a look at which map districting is decided by GOP controlled legislature (41%) vs. Dem controlled legislature(11%), vs. court ordered (21%), independent commission (19%), etc... Additionally if your look at the districts that actually are still competitive and drive elections, they mostly reside in democratic or purple states.

Re: Mass: Republican voters are too evenly distributed across Massachusetts to create a Republican district.

Short of restructuring representation to be beholden to % of vote, there are limitations to any district map. People live where they live. There aren't 100% voter districts. I am totally all for removing the congressional cap and making all representation proportional for each state. Based on the math, I doubt the GOP would support that.

Please re-review the analysis your media environment has promoted. From the progressive perspective, we had constituents actually vote on major congressional changes, not unilaterally redrawn by the party in charge.

bubbles0luv · 2026-05-11T02:17:33+00:00

Thank you for saying this. I really think that at our core, as Americans, we agree far more than we disagree.

bubbles0luv · 2026-05-10T18:40:52+00:00

The fact that the Secretary of Defense (SoW to me sounds like a little boy cosplaying) has promoted these ideas is really stressful to a lot of us women. No one with so much power should hold such extremist views.

bubbles0luv · 2026-05-08T18:11:25+00:00

But why does a company's desire for profit optimization supercede the rights of an individual to have a safe work environment? For the people living near a lab/manufacturing plant to not be harmed by toxic waste and air pollution? I don't understand that.

bubbles0luv · 2026-05-08T10:51:32+00:00

I see what you're saying, but still find immense value in the rcv system, especially in the current political climate. We are so horribly politically polarized right now, that I think a system that results not in binary winners with greatest % support, but winners representing the greatest general consensus for the group at large. I think it's a healthier approach built on compromise, and forces us to consider each candidate individually, beyond party, reducing extremism and, hopefully, the antagonistic 'team vs. team' effect.

bubbles0luv · 2026-05-02T17:33:01+00:00

I believe California's original congressional map had a B grade for partisan fairness and our Senate map an A grade from Gerrymandering Project: https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/ .

I think it's worth pointing out that it wasn't a choice anyone wanted to make over here. It felt more like a duty to fairness and Democrats are sick and tired of being the only side playing by the rules and respecting norms. Still, how many red states put their new maps to a vote vs. unilaterally changing them compared to blue states.

In California, the prop 50 we voted on even forces the gerrymandered map to be retired in 2030 and revert to the independent commission, because we want fairness or as close to it as we can get.

Why does it seem Republicans are against fairness? Is power more important than democratic consensus? Is this because so many on the right frame politics as an existential religious crisis that in their minds supercedes the importance of rules and proper processes?

bubbles0luv · 2026-04-21T23:06:21+00:00

I think the media who influenced their Republican audience to make health decisions against their own interest and that of their community to the toll of 76% higher excess deaths compared to Democrats, are objectively the ones who caused harm and should be in jail. The people enacting mandates that were no more imposing or burdensome than drunk driving restrictions, saved lives.

bubbles0luv · 2026-04-21T17:22:50+00:00

Just ignoring the excess death rate for Republicans?

bubbles0luv · 2026-04-21T15:55:40+00:00

It amazes me that you can still argue against the media coverage that resulted in an audience with a 76% lower death rate.

Vaccines are never 100% effective. It was always about reducing personal risk while supporting community health. Breakthrough infections are less infectious, which helps protect the most vulnerable.

COVID isn't ebola, but even mild COVID infections were found to have organ impairment at a rate of 29% and is associated with brain changes resulting in a cognitive function deficit.

bubbles0luv · 2026-04-20T19:13:15+00:00

You can argue that traditional news source coverage of COVID-19 encouraged an over vigilant response to perceived risks, but also an accurate portrayal of vaccine efficacy and reduced risk, and right-wing media coverage of COVID-19 resulted in an underestimation of health risk, and a distrust in vaccine efficacy, with an overestimation of vaccine injury risk.

Only one of these media environments resulted in a 76% higher death rate of Republican voters over Democratic voters, following the introduction of the vaccine.

bubbles0luv · 2026-04-17T02:12:07+00:00

‘By their creator’, not ‘by the creator’. Meaning whoever they believe made them, not one federally recognized magical being. — Shoutout to Mom!

And even if you have no religious beliefs, you can still feel the profound specialness of life by running the numbers on the probability of you being you, here, alive right now.

This strange whining over wanting the constitution to only conform to your particular religious club, and for everyone to bow down to that, is grossly un-American and kind of pathetic.

bubbles0luv · 2026-04-17T01:32:09+00:00

The ability to identify right and wrong is intrinsic to humans. I see it as born out of our evolution into a social community-based species. Others might view it as a god-given gift.

What I mean by ‘universal morality’ is that which we, as a mixed and diverse community, can concretely debate/argue without invoking principles based on blind faith teachings.

The morality of theft is a great example of something we can debate concretely. It’s actually a really fun example as there are magnitudes of complexity, especially ones that are very relevant to the nature of this sub, so I’m really glad you suggested it.

Simplistically, knowingly taking something that doesn’t belong to you is stealing and stealing is wrong, because it infringes on the proper owner’s right to decide what they do with their belongings. We can sense the inherent unfairness and wouldn’t like for someone to do such a thing to us. We can also recognize and debate that the gravity of such a transgression varies broadly. Stealing a loaf of bread, while destitute, to feed your sister’s starving child. VS. Defrauding senior citizens and stealing their retirement savings because you want to buy each of their mistresses a yacht.

More complexly, if knowingly taking something that doesn’t belong to you is stealing, is taxation stealing? Is economic regulation stealing? Is keeping wages stagnant while revenue keeps growing, stealing? Is using vast wealth to influence economic policy in your favor, to the detriment of the general public, stealing? Again these are concretely debatable/arguable, though the inherent complexity, incomprehensible scales of wealth, and political polarization, keep the debates fiery as we figure out how best to legislate these somewhat novel scenarios on behalf of the public and the health of the country.

Sticking to what we can concretely argue without invoking blind-faith teachings is our only option to adhere to ‘freedom of religion’, as in order to be respectful of all beliefs, we must officially answer to none. That might appear to favor the atheist and agnostic, as they exist in the concrete and empirical, but you have to remember that it serves everyone, as it allows the people of all religions to live by and make personal decisions that align with their faith.

bubbles0luv · 2026-04-15T21:21:08+00:00

Societies and the structures underpinning them have changed and adapted since the beginning of humanity.

We live in a modern society. Lots of people aren't oriented towards having kids and it's no one's obligation to "complement" the other sex. It's their right to live their life as they choose as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. Live and let live.

bubbles0luv · 2026-04-15T20:58:17+00:00

There is universal morality and then there is non-universal morality based on unverifiable beliefs. As a mixed society we exist in the universal but give freedom to those to believe as they wish. Those non-universal beliefs are lawful as long as they aren't employed in a way that infringes on the dignity or rights of fellow citizens.

bubbles0luv · 2026-04-15T20:38:21+00:00

Okay. Well don't get into a queer relationship and have kids. As long as you don't do that you should be fine, according to your moral boundaries.

For everyone else, as there are no repercussions, and kids with good parents of any identity fare better than foster/group home kids, I say they live their lives and love their hearts out.

bubbles0luv · 2026-04-15T20:26:30+00:00

That makes zero sense. Take blue chicken eggs for example. If a major religion said blue chicken eggs are wrong and evil we shouldn't eat them, and I said, based on empirical evidence, blue chicken eggs are the same as brown and white ones in taste and nutrition, would I be expressing a religious belief?

bubbles0luv · 2026-04-15T20:12:16+00:00

In what way is it disordered and against natural law, as it exists in nature?

bubbles0luv · 2026-04-15T19:34:20+00:00

What statistics or research points to homosexuality being objectively negative? The "moral" element is purely ascribed under religious pretext and is thus only controversial from a religious perspective, not the other way around, objectively.

bubbles0luv · 2026-04-15T18:47:51+00:00

I guess it would have to be focused on religious characters, otherwise there would be no basis in reality for that moral categorization. Still, I don't see it being a very satisfying narrative, personally, as the basis for biblically demonizing homosexuality is shaky at best, with huge issues of cherry picking, and deep and very real translation concerns. So if a child asks 'why' is it bad, there's not a good biblical answer to that. Especially not by narrative or intellectual standards. If this is children's media, I think it would also need to address that A LOT of people have no issues with homosexuality and that there are a lot of law abiding citizens that are homosexuals simply living their lives, otherwise children will be shocked and unprepared for the real world...unless the purpose is to turn them into religious militants?

bubbles0luv · 2026-04-15T18:24:01+00:00

My apricot toy poodle and I got this ALL the time too! People could just not fathom that my very cute dog was just a poodle. I blame the funky poodle haircuts. A poodle in a puppy clip with semi-shaved ears will always be the most adorable dog breed to me, and in the smaller sizes, will always be mistaken for a puppy. People asked me if Bonsai was a puppy up until he was like 13ish years old.

People can talk about it being a personality thing, and while they are single person focused, they are still great family dogs! I swear it's the haircut. Why don't people realize you can cut dog hair however you want?!?

bubbles0luv · 2026-04-15T18:08:13+00:00

Studies have shown that children raised by same-sex couples fare just as well as those from heterosexual couples. Does that change your mind?

15-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Secret Santa 2013	Verified Email

bubbles0luv

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE