A couple of reasons (off the top of my head). Depending on the type of cancer, there are certain genetic markers that indicate how it might progress + impact the overall risk. This is something you might want to communicate to other biological family members. Your genetics also can impact what treatments you respond the best to, and knowing ahead of time lets you start on the things that are most effective for your body in particular.

What would stop people/states from suing to prevent the debt relief after it was instated?

I'm one of the people with a ton of student loans, and I was also one of the people who consolidated my loans when the Biden admin rolled out SAVE. Now the government pulled SAVE but did nothing for those of us who consolidated to take advantage of it. We were told one thing, and it was almost immediately reversed.

The US government is unreliable and sees no need to keep the promises it made a few years ago. Why would anyone sign up to be in mortal harm's way for relief that has a decent chance of not even happening? They've lit their integrity on fire. The promises of something after a few years means nothing.

Something can be a huge problem and still be small potatoes to people having catastrophic problems, and often those of us in very, very dire circumstances are tone policed to within an inch of our lives and have to constantly consider normal people above ourselves (and make no mistake, people with MDD are closer to normal than somebody with ALS or severe cancer). We're never allowed to express anger, never allowed to talk about having it harder, have to stop and attend to the feelings of others while ours are ignored, etc.

Also, no offense, but depression can end up making people very self-centered. It's your illness that makes you think that what you're going through is more important and worse than what anyone else is going through, and it's not. (And it's not for me either: there are definitely people who have it worse than me and could say they wish their problem was 'just' MS. I just wouldn't get offended by that.)

None of this is to downplay depression, but there are absolutely people for whom 'just depression' would be accurate. Migraines suck, but someone with cluster headaches might call them 'just migraines' and they wouldn't be wrong.

I absolutely had withdrawal when I needed to go off of it, and I can say with certainty that the mental effects of going off of it were not just the reappearance of the underlying mental health issues since there weren't any. My emotional regulation was in the toilet, I was extremely irritated, I'd cry constantly, I was horny as hell, etc.

This is about the right time for the children, nieces, and nephews of the first and second big generations of post-Web software engineers, IT workers, etc. to be getting old enough to become a political force. There's been an explosion of tech workers since the mid-90s, and that means an explosion of people related to them as well. The kids who watched their parents be stacked ranked at Amazon, saw the difference in how MS treated contractors and employees, listened to their corporate IT parents talk about how hostile MS is, etc. all learned that the big tech companies are not anyone's friend even if the specifics of the tech go over their heads. And while the workers themselves might keep their heads down and be quiet in public for the sake of their careers, their kids and relatives are less constrained.

And they can talk to each other and find that it's a common sentiment. Since they don't necessarily have technical careers or hobbies, they're also able to export this sentiment to a wider variety of people through overlapping hobbies and interests (e.g. the IT guy at a school in suburban Ohio has a kid who's a theatre nerd, and the kid is good at communicating their anti big tech position to this 'new' group of people).

The distribution of knowledge about how tech companies operate is shifting and diffusing into channels and communities it didn't before.

I was born in America. About half of my ancestors lived in Canada on both sides of my family, I know my Canadian cousins, I spent time in Canada growing up/was taught Canadian history as well as American history, I have a Canadian education and half of my professional network is Canadian, etc. I'm eligible for dual citizenship and am pursuing it now, as are other members of my family, whereas we never bothered before because the separation never seemed to matter. With the recent change in Canadian citizenship laws, I'd estimate at least 25% of the Great Lakes population is eligible for dual citizenship at this point.

One of my parents and some of my siblings are Ojibwe/Anishinaabe. My paternal cousins are all French Catholic. (My dad's parents were Protestant but my aunt married into an old French Catholic family and converted.)

I don't even really know how I would separate out the two nations' influence, and that's true of a lot of people, especially those of us whose families have lived here since before America and Canada existed.

Additionally, modern Netflix is a streaming company, and even DVD Netflix was sending the materials directly to your house, which is a differentiator versus the library, whose materials need to be picked up. There's a convenience factor as an incentive to pay. Library streaming exists, but it's awful - very limited library and very limited watches - versus Netflix where once you sub you can watch as much as you want.

The economics aren't there.

I'm not sure re: the sunscreen being better. Maybe as a platonic ideal, but it's really easy to miss places when applying sunscreen, whereas a UV umbrella does cover everything with no fuss.

Since you're autistic, you might want to buy them in person: the tactile sensation of linens can be pretty different, so you might want to touch them before buying if sensory issues are a clothing concern.

One thing to look out for is that a lot of clothing that will come up when you search for linen are linen blends, which are better than a hoodie by far, but aren't going to have the same breeziness as 100% linen. Also, 100% linen wrinkles, so you've got to hang it right out of the dryer if you care about that.

Also, linen clothing. Far more comfortable in heat while keeping you covered. Hoodies and jeans sounds miserable.

And you want them to learn in a situation where the stakes are lower: at 18, someone can put themselves into a ton of debt or put nudes in the wrong place and just nuke their life in a way that they can't fix for a decade and everyone shrugs and is like 'you're a grown up!'

Think of all the kids who back in the day got scammed out of their Neopoints, or lost all of their in game currency in GTA, etc. That's a way, way better way to learn about account security and who to trust than their first experience with scammers involving real money.

Is the problem that we're exploiting kids, or is the problem that we're exploiting people? We're not going to be able to protect kids from exploitation in a society/culture that explicitly condones exploitation. If we think exploiting people is fine, actually, as long as they're over 18, then your kids will never be safe, because they will grow up.

Even setting aside the obvious examples I listed, binge drinking used to be a huge problem amongst college aged kids. Who's to say that the Internet/social media wouldn't be similar? How many kids are going to flunk out of school because they can't stop watching digital crack and now mom and dad aren't around to stop them? And unlike binge drinking, your body won't eventually revolt against you, and with the addiction consultants The Machine employs, there will always be new content. People grow out of binge drinking because eventually it grows stale and hangovers when you're 35 are far worse than ones when you're 21, but that's not true of social media use.

To tie this to other issues, we're already seeing issues with relationship and family formation amongst young people. I'm not sure flash banging them with addictive content when they're in their prime years is the call. If all it took for the Internet to be healthy was holding off until adulthood, we'd expect people who were adults when they started to have a healthy relationship with social media. They very much do not.

I've said before and I'll say again that this approach (strict age gating) also is going to produce a slew of really vulnerable 18 year olds. If I were a sports gambling site, I'd be salivating at getting a fresh crop of 18 year old boys each year who have had zero opportunity to learn how to navigate the Internet and who are legally on the hook for everything they do.

OnlyFans, likewise, is going to work out great! Now the 17 year old girls turning 18 won't have access to things like the social media of former OF performers or access to any communities where sex workers discuss the downsides of their job or how to stay safe.

Have to protect the children, don't you know. That way they can be perfectly pure and innocent when they turn 18 and are ready to be exploited. Like fattening up cattle.

One of the best ways to get through airport CBP quickly without being overly hassled is to be overtly, clearly sick in a gross way. If you're about to vomit or have horrible diarrhea, they do not want you in that line any longer than you have to be. If they're the type to want to take people down a peg, they won't bother with you because they're already miserable, and if they like picking on the weak, they're probably going to go for a solo young female traveler who isn't ill.

Nobody wants to risk getting vomit on their clothes or in their work area, having to close a line and shuffle people around while their coworkers glare daggers, or subject themselves or their coworkers to the very fun smells of human bodily fluids.

At the same time, it isn't purposeful so it's not read as malicious.

You don't want a conversation at all.

When I say 'right wing nonsense', I mean nonsense that is right wing, not that right wing inherently = nonsense. I thought that was worth clarifying. I'm left, sort of, in the sense that I'm more left than right, but a lot of my views are so far outside the Overton Window that categorizing them in either way is a futile endeavor. (And there are many instances where I 'cross the aisle' in my opinions: guns and administrative legal theory are two.)

It isn't the statistics that people object to when you present your case: it's the framing and the ideological assumptions behind them.

In writing your post(s) as you did, you embedded the following assumptions along with your statistics:

1.) That the government is 'acting in the place of a father', indicating that there is a specific natural place for a man in the world as it relates to his spouse and children, specifically that he should wield authority and care along the line of traditional roles (versus using the phrasing 'acting in the place of a parent' or 'acting in loco parentis', which would indicate a different critique centering around the amount of external authority in people's lives without prescribing how people should live otherwise).

2.) That we should organize society around/value what people willingly pay for. I disagree. Particularly in modern America, where we've all been raised from birth to be selfish babies and assholes with no ability to look beyond three months down the road (to be generous). Half of this country would throw a tantrum if you asked them to contribute to the roads they drive on. They're definitely not going to pay for cancer research, or to create any strategic resource reserves, if it means they have $5 less now.

3.) That 'bullshit jobs' are more likely to be taken by women and that as a class they're more likely to be impacted by AI than men. I don't agree with that. I think that white collar bullshit jobs are held pretty equally by both sexes: the devastation of the IT/tech job market + all the conversation around what AI means for tech suggests that white collar men are far from immune. In my opinion, pretending that women are going to be more impacted is a cope. They're going to be equally impacted, but women have more of an exit strategy. I also think they've got better non-white collar options, honestly. Pink-collar is going to be more resistant to robotics and AI than blue-collar. I'm betting that construction labor can be automated before hair dressers, and the fastest growing job sector is healthcare services. Or consider in home childcare and jobs like elementary teachers. We'll let robots drive our trucks, but letting them take care of our 4 year olds is going to be a much bigger hurdle.

Overall, I think your case would be stronger and better received if you dropped the gendered element. Discussions happen in a particular context (the Internet's attempts at collapsing that aside), and adding the gender aspect aligns you in the audience's mind with certain positions (just as I did deliberately when I described myself as a leftist woman - I did that specifically so I could present that I agree that women are likely to exit white collar work without aligning myself with other gender positions which in turn makes it easier to discuss the idea on its own merits, or when I started this message by walking back some of my flippancy wrt your message because I appreciate that you took the time to respond and are open to a conversation and therefore am also stepping forward to try to find common ground and reciprocate that I'd like a productive conversation).

The tl;dr is it's not the statistics that are putting people off and earning you downvotes, it's the rhetoric and presentation. Knowing your audience and the context in which an argument is being made is crucial. Like... if I posted this comment in any kind of sapphic group, I'd be run out with pitchforks.