EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3935
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6190 Posts
| ||
NonY
8748 Posts
On May 09 2023 22:22 ChristianS wrote: Didn’t Nony have a whole thing about insisting “I could care less” makes sense and is actually the only one that makes sense? Yes, of course. "I couldn't care less" means the same thing as "I don't care." By saying "I couldn't care less" you are using this kind of roundabout and verbose phrasing to describe your own apathy, which undermines itself. Someone who is conveying apathy or disinterest should be doing so with a style of language that conveys what they're feeling. Even if it's not really apathy or disinterest that a person is feeling, but rather they want to emphasize how much they don't care about a particular thing, then again I feel that the direct and simple "I don't care" is the superior phrasing. Anyone who says "I couldn't care less" isn't conveying to me that they've been driven to the extreme that the words literally mean, as they still want to hear themselves talk more than they want to express themselves. I have never ever heard someone say "I couldn't care less" and thought it was really a better choice of words than "I don't care." It's like in a creative writing class when someone learns how to use style and likes using stylish writing but has no ability to implement style correctly in a way that meshes with and enhances the substance of the prose. It's just kind of cringe once you see it for what it is. For a young person still discovering themselves, it's fine, I'm not laughing at them for it. But if an adult expects me to take them seriously and wants to convince me that their words are matching their true feelings, then "I couldn't care less" is a red flag. I don't think they're necessarily being deceptive but I do think that they don't choose their words carefully and I'm going to have to have to decipher their intentions rather than take their words at face value. That's a very dramatic way of putting it and it's not really that one phrase by itself that is a red flag all by itself, but you do encounter these people who don't use words to express themselves, but rather they pick up patterns of language from society and loosely match these patterns to how they're feeling, and it never turns out to be very accurate. So it's good to be aware when you're talking to someone like that so you know to interpret their communications differently. You can't hold them to what they're literally saying; you have to constantly guess at what they really mean. And "I could care less" is often the factually true phrasing, as the person usually does care a little. In almost any conversation that involves someone saying "I couldn't care less", if you remove everything except the declaration of "I couldn't care less" and you're asked to quantify how much each person in the conversation cares about the thing in question, no one is saying zero. On the other hand, "I could care less" has actual uses, like as a threat. Again, if you look at actual conversations, I'd say it's more useful for someone to say "I could care less" as a threat than it is to falsely claim "I couldn't care less" as some kind of declaration. Because that's when people tend to say "I couldn't care less": when they're exasperated and want to stop talking about it. Presumably the other person cares more, so by saying "if we keep talking about this, I'm going to care even less about it," that's a more accurate and useful communication than suddenly saying you don't care. Of course, in reality, both of these phrases are now so tainted that it's best to avoid them completely unless you're trolling. The only way I'd use "I could care less" is if I've already made it clear I do care so that I can bait someone into saying I've misspoken so that I can go back and prove them wrong -- an exercise which used to amuse me but has lost its charm. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
Although I’m not sure I buy it (the first part, about “I couldn’t care less” being too strong of language to actually mean you don’t care). I mean, I think being “aggressively disinterested” in something is a separate and distinct thing from merely being “uninterested” in it. I’m uninterested in lyrical analysis of Justin Bieber’s music – I bear him no ill will, I just don’t particularly care about what his lyrics are or why. I’m aggressively disinterested in cryptocurrency – I know a bit about it, enough to have decided it’s wasteful at best, or actively detrimental at worst, as an intellectual pursuit and I want no more of it. I realize there’s a slippage happening in the word “care” - in one case, meaning “emotional investment in the outcome of something” and the other something like “positive or negative view of the value in learning about something.” But that’s language, baby, it’s messy and you gotta roll with the changes. I think “I couldn’t care less” indicates an actively negative view toward something, and the stronger language doesn’t undermine that at all. I tend to agree that “I could care less” could have an interesting and distinct meaning but at this point it’ll just troll people so it should be avoided. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10180 Posts
On May 19 2023 20:58 Magic Powers wrote: Except for the fact that BJ compared ADHD to GD and attempted to call people out on their double standard. There is no double standard, and BJ compared two things that aren't of the same nature. His argument wasn't that the rise in ADHD diagnosis was caused by the pandemic, it was that people are only concerned regarding GD but not ADHD. If his argument had been that the pandemic caused overdiagnosis of ADHD, then he should've simply stated that to begin with without the implication of a double standard. These unproductive discussions happen because BJ is using bad faith tactics to try to win something, not because we're talking past each other. Right, I think there's a double standard on the way people make emotional arguments and display selective outrage when speaking about gender dysphoria than when speaking of other ailments that are just as real. You know who is even more conservative on gender dysphoria than the United States? Sweden. Here are some recommendations on gender affirming care: "For adolescents with gender incongruence, the NBHW deems that the risks of puberty suppressing treatment with GnRH-analogues and gender-affirming hormonal treatment currently outweigh the possible benefits, and that the treatments should be offered only in exceptional cases. This judgement is based mainly on three factors: the continued lack of reliable scientific evidence concerning the efficacy and the safety of both treatments [2], the new knowledge that detransition occurs among young adults [3], and the uncertainty that follows from the yet unexplained increase in the number of care seekers, an increase particularly large among adolescents registered as females at birth [4]." You know what arguments probably weren't offered, things like "You shouldn't speak ill of gender-affirming care because it harms trans people" and "how dare you insinuate that transgender people are jumping onto a social fad" and "Omg the Evangelicals" and "Omg Ron DeSantis." I doubt that average Swede really knows that much about Ron DeSantis. Imagine being on the Health Board in Sweden and when debating these recommendations with your colleagues and your arguments are "But the conservatives in America...!" "But Ron DeSantis..." Do you think maybe you would get laughed out of the room? Do you think these are the good faith arguments? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10180 Posts
On May 20 2023 09:22 JimmiC wrote: I think you’re wrong. For many people in the world finding out that an opinion or assumption matches that MAGA, American conservatives, Ron DeSantis and so on makes one critically think about whether or not they want to match with that. I’m quite certain you are wrong. I’m quite certain most places are critically thinking about all the available evidence in a rational way. Policy makers on the other side of the globe are not waiting to hear what Ron DeSantis thinks about an issue so they can come down on the opposite. But this perfectly sums up the tribalism prevalent in American politics that I often rant about. The fact you care more about appearing anti-Cletus than anything else and you think it automatically makes you the correct one before objectively examining the evidence is rather appalling. That a paper suggests there is reason for caution is the first and only good part of the argument you have presented and it is not surprising that you’ve waited until now to bust it out for maximum pwn the live gotcha effect. The problem is that most of the people here would likely not be against being cautious, it would be interesting to see what they say is exceptional. And there is a huge amount of space between gender openness and surgery. It’s not the first time someone has accused me of “waiting to bust out” an article or source when it’s actually something I just googled in relation to my argument. What does your paranoia and obsession with this “pwn the Libs” phrase you are always posting about have to do with anything? | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3709 Posts
If you mention Sweden having a problem regarding GAC, I see no one here saying "not my backyard", far from it. There is no double standard, just accept that already and move on with the discussion to something more fruitful. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10180 Posts
On May 20 2023 16:41 Magic Powers wrote: This thread is about US politics, not Sweden. The reason people are complaining about US politics regarding gender affirming care and acceptance of transgender people is because this is the thread for it. They do NOT have selective outrage. Neither do they have selective outrage regarding ADHD prescriptions. That's completely made up on your part. If you mention Sweden having a problem regarding GAC, I see no one here saying "not my backyard", far from it. There is no double standard, just accept that already and move on with the discussion to something more fruitful. Obviously this is the US politics thread. If you can't see how this relates to this thread let me say it more clearly. 1) I'm making a commentary on US political discourse which is that other countries are able to discuss things civilly and rationally, while the US has 2 tribes comprised of "if you criticize this you're a transphobe and you're making trans people kill themselves" vs "if you promote this you're a groomer and a pedophile." But not for every ailment. The outrage only exists for this specific ailment that's part of the culture war. 2) Maybe by pointing out that this issue persists throughout must of the Western world people will be inspired to formulate some arguments that apply universally to the conversation I brought up instead of having so many posts ranting about the Evangelicals and MAGA and DeSantis. Also comparisons to other countries get brought up all the time as part of the US Politics thread. Do you think we don't talk about other countries when we get on the issues of universal healthcare or gun control? | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3709 Posts
On May 20 2023 19:34 BlackJack wrote: Obviously this is the US politics thread. If you can't see how this relates to this thread let me say it more clearly. 1) I'm making a commentary on US political discourse which is that other countries are able to discuss things civilly and rationally, while the US has 2 tribes comprised of "if you criticize this you're a transphobe and you're making trans people kill themselves" vs "if you promote this you're a groomer and a pedophile." But not for every ailment. The outrage only exists for this specific ailment that's part of the culture war. 2) Maybe by pointing out that this issue persists throughout must of the Western world people will be inspired to formulate some arguments that apply universally to the conversation I brought up instead of having so many posts ranting about the Evangelicals and MAGA and DeSantis. Also comparisons to other countries get brought up all the time as part of the US Politics thread. Do you think we don't talk about other countries when we get on the issues of universal healthcare or gun control? Show me the people around here who want to bury the GAC issue in Sweden, and the people who want to bury the issue of ADHD prescriptions in the US, then you have a point. Otherwise you're just arguing for argument sake. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10180 Posts
On May 20 2023 21:16 Magic Powers wrote: Show me the people around here who want to bury the GAC issue in Sweden, and the people who want to bury the issue of ADHD prescriptions in the US, then you have a point. Otherwise you're just arguing for argument sake. Sounds like you are the one that wants to bury the GAC issue in Sweden because you are giving me grief for bringing it up. I'm posing the question, for the people that are confident that they know why there is an uptick in transgenderism and that it has nothing to do with Social Contagion, "Why do you think the Swedish National Health Board is also concerned about this "unexplained" increase in the number of care seekers for gender dysphoria which in part has caused them to recommend against GAC?" Again, I'm talking about Sweden because then the answer of "Because they want to persecute trans people to win over the MAGA base" no longer applies and people have to come up with a deeper argument than "cause they're bigots, duh." If you don't have an answer then you don't have to answer. Arguing over whether or not I am allowed to ask this and how it pertains to US Politics is cluttering up the thread for no good reason. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3709 Posts
On May 21 2023 05:29 BlackJack wrote: Sounds like you are the one that wants to bury the GAC issue in Sweden because you are giving me grief for bringing it up. I'm posing the question, for the people that are confident that they know why there is an uptick in transgenderism and that it has nothing to do with Social Contagion, "Why do you think the Swedish National Health Board is also concerned about this "unexplained" increase in the number of care seekers for gender dysphoria which in part has caused them to recommend against GAC?" Again, I'm talking about Sweden because then the answer of "Because they want to persecute trans people to win over the MAGA base" no longer applies and people have to come up with a deeper argument than "cause they're bigots, duh." If you don't have an answer then you don't have to answer. Arguing over whether or not I am allowed to ask this and how it pertains to US Politics is cluttering up the thread for no good reason. I give up, I simply give up. You're completely hopeless. PLEASE start a thread about Swedish politics, and PLEASE talk more about GAC in Sweden, PLEASE! I ask you to do it! If you really want to talk about it more, do it! I'm not just asking you, I'm encouraging you! The only reason why I'm not doing it is because I can't spend all of my time talking about every single issue that exists in the whole world. I might chime in every so often. Seriously, you're absolutely absurd. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On May 21 2023 05:29 BlackJack wrote: If you don't have an answer then you don't have to answer. Arguing over whether or not I am allowed to ask this and how it pertains to US Politics is cluttering up the thread for no good reason. I think there's been a lot of cluttering the USpol thread for no good reason as of late, and I'm way over it. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10180 Posts
On May 21 2023 06:21 Magic Powers wrote: I give up, I simply give up. You're completely hopeless. PLEASE start a thread about Swedish politics, and PLEASE talk more about GAC in Sweden, PLEASE! I ask you to do it! If you really want to talk about it more, do it! I'm not just asking you, I'm encouraging you! The only reason why I'm not doing it is because I can't spend all of my time talking about every single issue that exists in the whole world. I might chime in every so often. Seriously, you're absolutely absurd. If I made this post in a Swedish Politics thread then wouldn't people criticize me for bringing up MAGA/DeSantis in the Swedish Politics thread? Sounds like you have me in a good old catch-22. You win this time... | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10180 Posts
On May 21 2023 05:32 JimmiC wrote: Why are you so certain that “unexplained” means you are right? I read that as they are not sure. To me that does not prove or disprove anyone’s theory. Who says I'm certain? Two people proposed theories. I said NewSunShine's theory was "plausible" but I think mine is more likely. Here's my quote in my post introducing the topic: Sure, a plausible theory. To me it doesn't even seem like the most likely. On the other hand NewSunShine has "guaranteed" his theory is the correct one. So why are you asking me what makes me certain when I quite literally said I was not certain? Or more importantly, why aren't you asking NewSunshine why he is certain in his theory on this "unexplained" phenomenon when he's the one that seems quite certain? Why are people demanding conclusive evidence for my theory but nobody is asking NewSunShine for evidence of his theory? Biased much? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On May 21 2023 07:33 BlackJack wrote: Who says I'm certain? Two people proposed theories. I said NewSunShine's theory was "plausible" but I think mine is more likely. Here's my quote in my post introducing the topic: On the other hand NewSunShine has "guaranteed" his theory is the correct one. So why are you asking me what makes me certain when I quite literally said I was not certain? Or more importantly, why aren't you asking NewSunshine why he is certain in his theory on this "unexplained" phenomenon when he's the one that seems quite certain? Why are people demanding conclusive evidence for my theory but nobody is asking NewSunShine for evidence of his theory? Biased much? There's a lot of homework you need to do before you get to claim that everyone is biased against you, instead of just disagreeing with you. There exists pages and pages and pages of people explaining why they disagree with you. That's free material that you can review as much as you like. In the meantime, I'm tired of reading the bickering you keep putting yourself at the center of. Quit acting like you're some victim of anything but your own ego. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23765 Posts
On May 17 2023 16:39 MJG wrote: This (in bold) is common in the UK also. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-65534449 It doesn't surprise me that people are profiteering from people's misery. It’s that or, nothing for an increasing amount of people. People are more aware of mental health issues than ever, more liable to seek help, and people are broadly more receptive than ever. People have more information, and a culture that has normalised shared experiences of struggle, and realised they too are struggling. Then what? Good fucking luck getting an NHS appointment and proper oversight. Go private and hope you land at a clinic that upholds good practice and ethics. People defer to my unfortunate ‘expertise’, being Bipolar, having had an instance of psychosis and living and talking to folks with all sorts of issues and diagnoses to at least feel out what I think, if they’re concerned. I don’t feel comfortable, ethically or expertise wise to provide a name to what people ask about. I’ll basically always come to the same conclusion which is that something is wrong, if they had someone qualified to dig a bit, ascertain what the issues are, be it some condition or just regular stress (which can be just as debilitating) and reconstruct their typical week a little to mitigate issues, and come up with something more clear, that would help a lot. Instead, what has happened for multiple people I know, and it’s a majority of women is they can’t get an NHS referral because they’re too functional. They then go private and after a pretty short assessment are told it’s ADHD. Every time. Do I rule it out entirely? No. But it seems suspiciously commonplace as a diagnosis these days. And thrown out way too quickly, without putting the legwork in to eliminate other possibilities. Then subsequently what do you do? An individual can eschew meds but if they go down that route then they’re on some form of stimulant. Which can absolutely be effective provided you have ADHD, and I’m very skeptical to say the least that it isn’t being over diagnosed in my locale. The silver lining of getting severely mentally ill for any period is, you at least get a proper diagnosis and you get a significant period of time investment to structure your life to deal with the problems presented, and people to help with that. But many people have just as bad a time on the weekly, barely treading water, but not struggling enough to get the kind of help that would work for them. I got an adult autism assessment into the bargain, which was very involved, and a big conclusive negatory at the end of the process. Partly because I had enough contact that the psychologist got to see me a few times where I wasn’t stressed out the eyeballs, and that my social skills were absolutely fine when I didn’t feel like Atlas shouldering the globe. A less involved process maybe sees me once or twice, avoiding eye contact and staring into space and just stamps ‘on the autism spectrum’ pretty damn quickly. It’s a worrying trend indeed. The cat is out of the bag so to speak with mental health culturally, the stigma that was suppressing many from revealing their experiences is gone. And with that comes a clear demand, and need, for health services and employment practices to change to help practically deal with the problem. And they’re just not there, at least where I am services were already hugely stretched when there was still a widespread stigma, where many young men would kill themselves before seeking help and a fraction of the current demand would seek access. Talk can be nice, and help, but it’s ultimately cheap at the end of the day. A close family member of mine was extremely unwell, tried to get seen in London. Directed into an A+E there, only to be passed off. We took him home to my neck of the woods, directed to A+E, 14 hours to initially be seen. Had me present and a basic amateur case file of 2 full pages split by category and his current status is ‘try these SSRIs you’ve been on before and if you get bad contact your GP’. Ridiculous decision, one I’m convinced was made in part by the knowledge that I could work from home and keep an eye out and clearly knew the system, but others don’t have that and may be more in need. Which, in a stretched system is fair enough, it just shouldn’t be that stretched! Also apologies folks been inactive and going through an obscene amount of backlog here, just a thousand or so posts! Wanted to respond to this one in particular | ||
| ||
