Depress_Mode

Not to mention too expensive. The base ticket prices have skyrocketed over 1600% since 1996. In just the seven years between 2015 and 2022, attendees with household incomes of less than $100k dropped from around 56% to 40% and attendees with household incomes of $100k-$300k+ have risen from 43% to 59%. Over the years, it's seemed like the crowd has been increasingly yuppie and increasingly white collar; these numbers appear to back that notion up. I remember seeing a video from a few years ago where Andrew Callaghan was talking about how he paid $10k for an RV spot and 2 tickets. He also complained that a lot of the people there seemed like "weekend-warrior-types". I can only hope that price is with an insane scalper markup or a super deluxe VIP package or something. $10k is an unthinkable price for a weeklong camping trip in the desert, even a really cool one.

That, the heat as you mentioned (I found a chart that demonstrates rising averages and most in the comments are saying the reported highs are far too low), and the floods last year I think have combined to scare a lot of the core demographic away. I dreamed of going to Burning Man for years, but I haven't even thought of it in quite some time since I learned how prohibitively expensive it would be to go.

Also, lots of people will jump to say that a $250k household income is middle class and I've seen a few in this thread, but I personally don't know how anyone could arrive at that conclusion. Median household income in the US is more like $105k. A household income of $155k is enough to put you in the top 20%. $200k will put you in the top 12%. $250k gets you to the top 8%. When 92% of people are able to make do with less, it really just seems like people such as the ones in the article don't understand what it is to live within their means and don't understand how much better off they are than most everyone else.

Don't the lyrics in "In the Flesh" indicate that the nazis are actually a different band that had to be called in as substitutes because the lead singer of the band that was supposed to play is currently going through a mental breakdown in his hotel room (i.e. stuck behind the wall)? The main figure of the album might've just imagined the whole thing, though.

The government predicts a 70 to 80 percent probability of a magnitude 8 to 9 quake occurring along the Nankai Trough within the next 30 years.

Damn, and I thought we had it bad in the PNW with a 37% chance of a 7.1+ (possibly up to and beyond 9.0) in the next 50 years.

You're right, my bad. My comment was directed at the actual OP, though, so you can rest assured the comment wasn't for you

"You see them everywhere." That's it? This opinion feels way too specific for that to be the only thing on your mind lol. Maybe at least some context? Are you from somewhere where people are less tall on average? Is there something you don't like about tall people? Like the other guy said, give us a rant! Let's hear where this is going.

For real though, could you elaborate? Give us a few reasons why. Also, probably would have been a better post for the unpopular opinion community

Thank you for immediately and so willingly proving my point lmao. Sounds like this guy's only "crime" (thanks, SCOTUS! You must have been over the moon with that one) is being homeless. Even the sheriff said he wasn't a danger and his only crime is homelessness. You read "homeless" though, and that was enough for you to say "lock him up!" Then, based on nothing at all, you assume he must be a murderer and inherently dangerous or something. Yet another indication of your feelings towards the homeless in general for no reason. It truly speaks volumes. You're complaining the homeless aren't being thrown in jail just because they didn't want to be forced to stay in some shitty, privatized adult daycare. That's positively ghoulish.

Once again you make the misleading argument about empty beds/shelters when there isn't enough of either for all the homeless people in Portland and the vast majority are filled each night anyway, so even with 100% acceptance of help, Portland would still have lots of homeless people. What then? Portland only has like 250 of these tiny homes in total and much fewer actively available at any given time. Should all the homeless people be thrown in jail when the villages fill up? This all-too-common stance of "you will accept my help or you will be punished, because only I can decide what's best for you," is just shameful. Ironically, the widespread moralism of homelessness is maybe one of the biggest barriers to getting homeless people real, meaningful help. In short, your justifications are lacking in number and relevance, you blame the homeless themselves at every opportunity while ignoring any outside factors, you allow yourself to be swept up by media cherry-picking such as this, and you also treat the homeless as a monolith. So, yeah... I think I stand by what I said.

Did you know between 40-60% of homeless people have jobs? Did you know that only about 25% of homeless people are addicts? Did you know only about 30% of them have severe mental health issues? Homeless people are just like you and me, it's just they simply can't afford rent. Considering how high rents are in most places, it's really not that hard to imagine. And when you consider that most people live paycheck to paycheck, all it takes is one unexpected medical expense, one lost job, one setback to fail to make rent and end up in the streets. Even when they don't have jobs, or are addicts, or are severely mentally ill, that doesn't mean they deserve to be thrown in prison and are no less deserving of care and compassion.

Seeing as how vocal Jordan has been about his disdain and hatred of the homeless in the past, I don't think that's why he posted this article. People don't forget stuff like that, Jordan.

Lmaooo what a pathetic response. If you'd ever pick up anything more advanced than a coloring book, you'd know paragraphs can be longer than 4 sentences. In any case, a single sentence is never a paragraph, so you obviously don't know how to use paragraph breaks. You've shown once more that you're completely unable to string two sentences together. Quoting me for things I didn't say won't help you, either. Also, you're still a monster with dogshit opinions and you're very conspicuously trying to steer the conversation away from that fact.

is the point you are a clown? i agree

You argue like a 10 year old lmao. That's the best you could come up with?

if its author knew how to correctly break the text into them

It's hard to take this seriously coming from the guy who can't even go 2 sentences without a paragraph break. My points still stand.

You went out of your way just to tell everyone that you think former drug addicts aren't deserving of medical care? Not even people who currently do drugs (who are also all 100% deserving of medical treatment btw), anyone who used to do drugs is disqualified, too? It's an absolutely insane take to say "they used to do drugs, so they don't deserve to have teeth." And what of all those people who didn't do drugs, but still need and can't afford dentures or implants? If you can't afford reliable access to dental care from the start, you'll likely be stuck with preventable problems down the line that then become even more expensive to fix. The situations of these people aren't different from former addicts in any meaningful way; they need dental work, but can't afford it. You're ignoring the core issue that important and completely necessary dental work (and medical treatment of all kinds) is too expensive for almost everyone, not just current or former addicts. As a result, many are forced to go without that treatment. That's a bad thing. You saw someone complaining that dental work is unaffordable, and all you could think to say was "Yeah, but they're druggies, so there's no problem here." You've justified a terrible system to yourself because you view the people who were quoted as being beneath you. What's truly dystopian is both that medical care would be out of reach of so many, but also that people would be ok with that as long as it means the "undesirables" don't get to have any. The societal disdain for marginalized human life and the moral superiority complex that fuels it are both absolutely appalling.