Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MorleyDev]

In the UK the problematic attitudes tend to not be so much "Hoorah Glorification" as a quieter "Celebrating soldiers as heroes and ignoring the horror aspects except in-so far as it paints soldiers are heroes". That 'Remember their sacrifice' doesn't seem to lead to 'push for a world where nobody else has to make that sacrifice' in lots of peoples minds. And for the really racists, it flat out seems to go to "heroes died fighting foreigners therefore we should fight foreigners to be heroes".

I think more needs to be done to remember that soldiers are victims of war, living or dead. That the emphasis should instead be on mourning that they were/are needed and try to work towards a world where they aren't needed again rather than focusing on celebrating their actions by itself. You can be a victim and a hero at the same time, but the victim aspect of that dichotomy seems largely brushed under the rug.

[Starver]

That might be why I'm an avid buyer of Poppy Appeal poppies[1], but have nothing to do with Help For Heroes.

The former is (to me, despite the criticisms given in that Wiki page) a long-standing after-care organisation, the Royal British Legion commemorates those lost, their clubs support ex-soldiers in society (parallel to Working Men's Clubs, etc) and dependants - potentially from cradle to grave - and they did recuperative support long before H4H. Yes, I see the charges of Poppy Fascism, I've seen the "why aren't they wearing one?" comments of those on TV and note that those filmed in July for pieces scheduled for (first) broadcast as November hoves into view have started to be 'dressed' with token poppies, out of actual season, to forestall this, but this is not the fault of the Appeal.

H4H, though became (whether or not its fault) pushed by the tabloids, "poppy-washing" their more tabloidy activities (c.f. News Of The World). And I think they even (mis)appropriated the Poppy for a while until forced not to by the Legion, who found themselves losing funds by the apparent association. (I still see H4H flags/murals featuring a poppy-silhouette, which I'm sure is naughty of the artists involved).  They undoubtedly do good on the recuperation front, making up some of the gaps in national and Legion coverage and modernising but by leaching support from them in the process and threatening the wider support systems. And if "Help For Heroes" isn't glorifying, I don't know what is...

For me it's just not British. Not my era of British. Post "Empire Day", post "Flag Day", and prior to it becoming 'a thing' once more to hoist the Union Flag in a front garden, during something of an international sporting situation (or the St. George[2]) or put those little plastic flag-flutterers into a car's door-jambs. (It's Ok to wave it at the Last Night Of The PromsEurovision because loads of other flags get waved in both - even *gasp* the EU one!) Literally flag-waving for "Heroes" seems just wrong. Old (and infirm) soldiers deserve appreciation and support like old-everybody and infirm-everybody (that charity has to do some of this, is an inditement against the failings of the system that should exist, and 'trade specific' support charities who can cater for specific issues are an acceptible compromise given that the compromise is made necessary). Ex-soldiers in neither camp (assuming invisible issues are being invisibly dealt with, which I know is not a given) are citizens like the rest of us, for better or worse.


Which I realise may seem a bit of a mental muddle. But that's me.


[1] At least one a year, but as they're so easily losable in the run up to Armistice Day I'll probably buy another (and another, and another) to 'repoppy' myself, with a stop-gap of last year's poppy that did survive the season. It's not much, but a fiver or whatever (and quids or two-quid coins for the replacements) is my habitual direct donation. Probably outpaced by inflation.

[2] The Saltire is Ok. As is the Dragon, the Cornish cross, the Yorkshire rose or the Black Country one (though that one's symbology looks dodgily 'unwoke', it isn't). But the British flag and the English one have a lot of recent misuse to be erased from my mind. But I'm leaving out Norn Irnd from this aside, 'cos politics and flags over there are waaay too complicated to deal with here, and as potentially philosophically dangerous even more than Beaufort's Dyke is physically.

[dragdeler]

-

[Grim Portent]

That's ok, there is also non-profits who tend to the more disseminated graves etc and a nonprofit selling some symbolic widget is a bit polluting but also ok at large since it increases awareness....


but lmao they actually use opium flowers as symbols?

Poppies have been heavily associated with the first world war pretty much since it happened. Poppy flowers grew across chunks of the land around the trenches very well, creating big patches of them. The bright red colour, combined with the amount of war casualties, leads to a lot of symbolic associations. Fields of blood, passionate red, flowers of rememberance and so on.

The use of artificial 'remembrance poppies' was conceived of by a french woman who spent much of WW1 raising funds for orphans, widows and veterans. The artificial poppies were originally supposed to be made by French widows and orphans left behind by the war, as part of fund raising efforts to provide for them. Being a simple symbol, and one accepted in all the Entente faction nations it grew to be associated with war in general.

[Starver]

...with the outcomes of war, I would prefer to say.

[Reelya]

Those poppies are not in fact the same thing as opium poppies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papaver_rhoeas

David Cameron and his entourage rejected the demand from the Chinese government to not wear the Remembrance poppy, which was mistaken as the opium poppy, a plant with enduring connotations of the Opium Wars in China.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papaver_somniferum

[Frumple]

I... guess it goes here? I'unno, anyway, for folks that might not have noticed, apparently Colorado is currently having this thing where they're having freezing weather (temp swings from the 80s-90s to below freezing), snowstorms... and massive wildfires. So, uh. Best wishes to them and the other states currently on fire. I don't know if any other ones are having a go at being simultaneously on fire and frozen.

I'm hearing word that the sun-blotting ash clouds are at least cooling things off a bit on the ground, over in/around Cali. It's a thing!

[Maximum Spin]

I... guess it goes here? I'unno, anyway, for folks that might not have noticed, apparently Colorado is currently having this thing where they're having freezing weather (temp swings from the 80s-90s to below freezing), snowstorms... and massive wildfires. So, uh. Best wishes to them and the other states currently on fire. I don't know if any other ones are having a go at being simultaneously on fire and frozen.

I'm hearing word that the sun-blotting ash clouds are at least cooling things off a bit on the ground, over in/around Cali. It's a thing!

Pfffft, Colorado doesn't really exist.

[MrRoboto75]

Pfffft, Colorado doesn't really exist.

Im pretty sure someone copy pasted wyoming over on the map and called it colorado.

[Doomblade187]

I... guess it goes here? I'unno, anyway, for folks that might not have noticed, apparently Colorado is currently having this thing where they're having freezing weather (temp swings from the 80s-90s to below freezing), snowstorms... and massive wildfires. So, uh. Best wishes to them and the other states currently on fire. I don't know if any other ones are having a go at being simultaneously on fire and frozen.

I'm hearing word that the sun-blotting ash clouds are at least cooling things off a bit on the ground, over in/around Cali. It's a thing!

So, Business as usual for Colorado then. Hope the Hailstorms stay quiet. Stay safe and evacuate early from fires, y'all. Don't clog the highways.

[McTraveller]

Anyone know the history behind why capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than wages?  I mean, this is one of those systematic structural issues that permeates society.

I'm generally pretty conservative, but I can't understand why capital gains are taxed differently than wages.  I don't understand why there are different classes of income in the first place (passive gains, wages, etc.).  Why isn't income just income?

Is this based on any kind of objective (heh) economic theory, or was it really just political maneuvering to try and game the system?

[Reelya]

Because when you invest money in something there's a chance you'll lose your money. If you tax the gains as pure income then that's actually unfair because you're not properly compensating people for the risk they took by investing in the cases where they lose. If you work for 1 hour you just gain the money, there's little to no risk of losing the 1 hour of wages.

There's also inflation to take into account. If you invest your money in an indexed portfolio it'll basically keep pace with inflation and not much beyond that, so you're effectively just not losing the money. If you then taxed the person 30% of the "profit" then that would be unfair and prevent people saving for retirement and stuff. This is why it's also different to wages. If you worked 10 years ago for $10 an hour and invested that money, you'll say have $15 in the bank for every hour you worked back then, due to interest. However, in the meantime, your base wage has risen as well, so you're making $15 an hour now in your job, so inflation is already built into the wages system due to wages rising over time. Having a lower tax on capital gains means that you're not taxed on just trying to keep up with inflation on previous work you did where you've deferred the spending into the future.

[Doomblade187]

>Inflation is built into the wage system by increasing wages over time
>NOPE, NOT HERE AT LEAST.

[McTraveller]

What do you mean "not properly compensating people for the risk of investing?"  Isn't the expected rate of return of an investment already supposed to have the cost of risk built in?  Or is the argument that the tax rate make the wins enough larger than they would be otherwise be by enough to make more investment happen?  Is the benefit from those extra investments worth the lower tax rate?

I guess that's the ultimate question: is it the best price (in terms of money and other effects) for the increased investment?

[Maximum Spin]

Another important factor that went into this historically is that, since shareholders are legally the owners of the corporation, they are already indirectly paying corporate taxes on all corporate income — while that money is paid by the corporation rather than the shareholders themselves, it takes away money that legally belongs to them, which could have been used for reinvestment or distributions instead. There is a general reticence to tax people too many times for the same thing.