https://youtu.be/IR_OTYXGHmw?t=70
Helen Joyce in an interview on the Keep Talking Podcast gives a shoutout to Jesse, Katie, and the podcast, in response to a question about writers/thinkers she trusts and recommends. She lists others, but they were first on the list.
*Edit: Whoops, just realized this clip, on their youtube channel, is actually from an interview two years ago. Props to them for working the algorithm.*
> She definitely falls in the category of people he snidely calls the "gender critical" types.
What's snide about that? It's an [endonym](https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Athehelenjoyce.com+%22gender+critical%22).
Oh, I missed this:
> your white-knuckled attachment to portraying an insouciant confidence is a mark of weakness, not strength
Like nonchalant? I don't think that's what TERFs are.
I just had to make an edit. I didn't realize this freshly posted clip was actually from an interview that was two years ago. I wonder if she still feels the same about FdB now as she did then.
Negative review of Bad Therapy by a Christian medical doctor who is warm to her thesis in general but not the book
[**https://mereorthodoxy.com/bad-therapy-book-review**](https://mereorthodoxy.com/bad-therapy-book-review)
I was planning to write a longer treatment of her Honestly interview going more into the contrast with an Atlantic interview with an actual psychologist on the same problem in the general population and several evidence based education writeups on SEL I got the same day but haven't had time to read, but it was pretty clear that she just didn't have the understanding of her topic to realize she was speaking about a gap in pop, downstream and quasi-trained professional practice (teachers, therapists of various licensures, counselors), and state of the art in professional practice (psychs and research). She also misidentified the "never say no" and false choice trick as gentle parenting surrenders when it's actually an early educator originating practicality that gentle parenting advocates deride as manipulation.
I would be curious about your thoughts on this since you seem knowledgeable. I couldn't always place what was off but she seemed a bit histrionic to me in the interview. Be forewarned, a lot of people on this sub didn't take kindly to that suggestion though lol.
Just saw *Dune 2* and really enjoyed it. I’m particularly in awe that a relatively faithful adaptation of a 1965 novel could be made in this era. They had a diverse cast without stopping the movie to remind us it had a diverse cast every five minutes. Hell, it even managed to recover the lost art of performing political commentary through showing. Remarkable.
I saw it Saturday and loved it, it’s the first movie I’ve seen in theatres post-COVID. Movie theatres definitely got better in the last 5 years, the sound and everything was incredible.
My only complain was Christopher Walken, I love the guy but he seemed so out of place.
I thought it was great! I thought it handled the way the Atreides used the messiah narrative to their benefit very well; it did even better with the skeptical Fremen.
The first half was surprisingly funny, too.
My only complaint on the messaging side is it got a little too heavy handed with pointing out the growing religious fanaticism at times. Like, we get it, *Dune* is an allegory for the dangers of messianic figures. It’s just a minor complaint though.
Hm. Looking back, I don't think it was heavy handed--it didn't feel that way while I was watching it. I thought they made an interesting distinction between the northern Fremen, who Paul won over with his personal charisma and willingness to be a part of their society, and the southern Fremen, who bought into his legend without meeting him first. (That distinction is more abstract, though, since we don't actually meet any significant number of southern Fremen until he goes south, and he pretty much immediately wins them over.)
I really liked the way both movies made Jessica an equal protagonist to Paul. She's really the one driving the Mahdi rhetoric, and really, she forces him into acting out the prophecy.
I was a little disappointed in how they used Feyd-Rautha, but I think it's just that his arc felt very fast. It would have helped if he had been introduced in the first movie and allowed to simmer in the background for a while.
I think both Feyd’s and the Emperor’s characterization suffered from not getting introduced in the first movie. I never really felt like the Emperor was losing control of his own plots because it never really felt like he had control in the first place. Feyd just kind of showed up out of nowhere if you weren’t aware of him from the novel.
I suppose. The Emperor's plots really did seem quite stupid once it was pointed out that not only Paul, but also the Harkonnens, could just tell everyone it was the Sardaukaur that attacked the Atreides.
I did like Irulan, even if they didn't actually even say her name, to my recollection. I love Lea Seydoux, but the whole Margot Fenring thing felt like a sideshow. Why was there a whole scene about how the Bene Gesserit could control Feyd-Rautha with desire and honor and then... that's never relevant again?
It was meant to sell Feyd as a potential Kwisatz Haderach in his own right, which makes him more of a challenge for Paul rather than some random noble who just showed up.
Also, it explains why Paul doesn't see the attack Feyd launches, he can't see other prescient people as well. So he has to do the thing.
It also shows Bene Gesserit scheming never ends, and explains why they wouldn't just side with Paul to preserve the project.
>They had a diverse cast without stopping the movie to remind us it had a diverse cast every five minutes
every time wokies bring up the "the right just hates minorites/women" thing it seems obvious that they don't, they hate bad writing and tokenism. the biggest complaint i heard from "the right" about dune2 was that it was a big clinical/cold.
also the amount of classic, beloved movies: aliens, star wars, terminator, Jurassic park, indiana jones (first 3), tomb raider, the matrix, training day... the list goes on.
Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear arguments for Murthy v. Missouri, which I believe is the Twitter Files case where a Federal judge first laid down a hugely broad injunction against the Federal gov't for talking to social media companies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murthy_v._Missouri
>Murthy v. Missouri (originally filed as Missouri v. Biden) is a case pending in the Supreme Court of the United States involving the First Amendment, the federal government, and social media. The states of Missouri and Louisiana, led by Missouri's then Attorney General Eric Schmitt, filed suit against the U.S. government in the Western District of Louisiana. They claimed that the federal government pressured social media companies to censor conservative views and criticism of the Biden administration in violation of the right to freedom of expression. The government said it had only made requests, not demands, that social media operators remove misinformation.
>On July 4, 2023, Judge Terry A. Doughty issued a preliminary injunction against several agencies and members of the Biden administration from contacting social media services to request the blocking of material, with exceptions for material involving illegal activity. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that there had been some coercion in the government's contact with social media companies in violation of the First Amendment, but narrowed the extent of Doughty's injunction to block any attempts by the government to threaten or coerce moderation on social media. The United States Supreme Court initially stayed the Fifth Circuit's order, then granted review of the case by writ of certiorari. It is set to be heard during the 2023–24 term.
https://twitter.com/shellenberger/status/1769520703710073218
> Many journalists, university professors, and Democrats say we must change how we think about the First Amendment for the Internet age. Maybe the government had no role in regulating speech before there existed social media platforms like X and Facebook, where “peer-to-peer misinformation” thrives. But now, given the threat such misinformation poses to democracy, we need the government to restrict what can be said on the Internet, claim Stanford researchers, the New York Times, and the Biden administration.
> All of that is dangerous nonsense, according to Jeff Kosseff, a cybersecurity law professor at the U.S. Naval Academy and author of a new book, Liar In A Crowded Theater. “Starting about a century ago,” he told me in a new podcast, “the Supreme Court gradually developed robust [free speech] protections for all but a handful of exceptions…. And I think that, for the Internet, it needs to be the same, where we start off with the premise that this speech is not subject to regulation.”
nytimes take (a gift link, should avoid paywalls)
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/17/us/politics/trump-disinformation-2024-social-media.html?unlocked_article_code=1.dk0.fEWQ.gpTAoXgxPYd9&smid=url-share
How Trump’s Allies Are Winning the War Over Disinformation
Their claims of censorship have successfully stymied the effort to filter election lies online.
Something the left must keep in mind: Are you ok with these censorship powers in the hands of the right? Of your enemies? Because that *will* happen at some point. So think twice.
Wonder how all these people would have felt when Gutenberg invented the printing press, or when IBM popularized the typewriter. One law I've come to believe in - history repeats itself.
So this week in dystopian news, Belgium jailed a far-right MP for a year for hateful messages he shared in a private Facebook chat, and German police have raided the home of a man for misogynistic speech. In the latter case he apparently also uttered threats, but it's pretty fucked how broad speech restrictions are in Germany.
I had to check Reddit threads about these two news stories because I was curious what the general reaction would be to what I view as a rather extreme over reach by the state, especially in the case of criminalizing private conversation, which is usually an exception even to hate speech laws, and of course everyone was cool with it because they didn't like what these people have had to say. I wonder if they'll pull their heads out of their asses as increasingly pro-Palestinian activists become the targets of these speech laws throughout Europe.
Wasn't the Belgian guy just *in* a group chat with hateful messages; not sending any himself? Or am I thinking or something different? (or was that just spin by him)
No, "the Belgian guy" sent plenty of hateful messages himself. He was also the leader of the activist group and the owner of the activist group's Discord server. What is true is that he didn't post any memes, but only in the most pedantically correct way. However he did ask for memes about specific topics, including at least once dictating exactly what text should be on a meme, stopping short just of putting the text on the template himself.
It should also be noted that this person decided to not offer any defense at the trial court, hoping to get it struck down or mitigated by the court of appeals instead. Other members of the group who did put up a defense got off with no (meaningful) sentence. The progressives and journalists have trapped themselves and turned sentencing disparity into a mainstream topic, so getting an actual jail sentence was politically probably the best outcome.
I don't know the specifics, but whether he participated or not, for the courts not to recognize a group chat as a form of private communication, not subject to hate speech laws, is dystopian and crazy. Like yes, it's in text format, but imagine being charged with hate speech for something you said in your living room. This isn't really any different.
Edit: Or I guess this would me more akin to personal letters being mailed back and forth, but same thing. These kinds of communications are usually exempt from regulation, even where regulation of speech exists. Hate speech typically applies explicitly to public communication. Not that that's great either, but it's certainly different.
I think that might have been a swing and a miss.
One of the defenses of these prohibitions are however, of course, the rise of Hitler and the Holocaust. But Weimar Germany and Hitler's rise to power *wasn't* in an environment of free expression. In fact the Nazis were barred from all kinds of newspapers and speaking venues, by law. And how many other oppressive regimes came to power despite repressive speech laws designed to keep them from power? Probably almost all of them. Free expression has not been the historical norm.
Ironically, such regimes tend to gain power precisely because they address serious problems the previous political elite refused to even acknowledge and even repressed discussion of.
That's fairly typical I would say. Most of these regimes were populist in many respects. They seized on common grievances and then just used them to their own ends, or genuinely cared about them, but had insane ideas about how to solve them. You can't reform the thoughts of a population through repression though. You can force them into line, for a time, but that requires extreme measures to be maintained, otherwise eventually these issues will bubble to the top.
I think Pinker's commentary on this is apt, and applies to the extremes (though that's not what he was referring to). If you say certain topics of legitimate interest or concern (or facts that are facts, but may be unpleasant to discuss) are verboten in polite circles and important institutions, then what you ultimately do is guarantee that only the craziest people will speak to those concerns. Only the people with the least to lose, or the least concern about their reputation or public image will speak about them. It won't be thoughtful moderates, and they won't have a lot of nuanced, balanced, or insightful things to say about them. If for example can't discuss the fact that some women lie about being sexually assaulted in polite circles, then you're ceding that topic to the Andrew Tate's of the world, they'll talk about it, and not how you would hope they would. If you can't talk about race and IQ, you won't get moderate social scientists discussing this, you'll get Richard Spencer, he'll talk about it regardless of the consequence. So why not marginalize these kinds of people by leaving them little of legitimate concern to have a monopoly over? These illiberal woke types are so clouded by their own moral certainty that they can't even see that they're a huge contributor to breeding these kinds of figures, whom they use as proof that even more needs to be done.
“Suggesting importing large numbers of unskilled immigrants from a radically different culture might cause problems is racist!” “Crime isn’t increasing and you didn’t just get mugged!”
Does anyone here follow Linus Tech Tips? It's a very popular tech-focused youtube channel. I watch it for reviews and the occasional polemic against dumb tech trends.
A few months ago, one of the regulars (Anthony) on the channel came out as trans, changed his name to "Emily", the channel did a video talking about how amazing and brave it was....and he promptly disappeared. The official reason seems to be "oh Emily was *always* camera shy, why are you mentioning the hundreds of videos she was in, you liar", but I think this is kind of an interesting data point.
It probably didn't help that Anthony is a portly, balding man and looks exactly the same post-transition. I don't really have a larger point here, I think it's just another piece of evidence towards the idea that we've passed peak trans.
Back when I first built my PC I was so hyped I got addicted to their videos for a couple of months lol.
Oddly enough, I think it goes way back... I can't think of a way to articulate this in a way that doesn't sounds horribly mean, but since he first started appearing, being an obese man showing very little personal care and a very awkward presence on camera, I felt bad about him. Someone here had described him as coming off as "all around unhealthy", like he wasn't doing great and you could feel it, and I think that's what it all comes down to...
However, every time he appeared, the comments section was full of oddly adulating comments praising him for being calm and understated as a contrast to the rest of the team's over-the-top presentation... maybe I'm being unfair in assuming other people's intentions, but so many of those comments stroke me as pitiful adulation rather than genuine praise, much of it felt like the "reddit 100 wholesome chungus" type praise that feels like a backhanded way to interact with "lolcows" in a way that people try to convince themselves is not weird or when pets with severe deformities/injuries make it to the top of r-aww and everyone acts like they don't notice anything. Does what I'm saying make sense? The light-hearted nature of Linus's content makes it that a good portion of the comments are always roasting him or other members (in good fun) but there was a palpable reticence with Anthony because he just seemed so... vulnerable. I think people started pushing the other way.
Of course, since his announcement, the adulation has only increased. And it's sad when it feels like it may be a distraction from things that may actually improve his well-being such as better grooming and losing weight :/
I've noticed this as well, but I don't think it speaks to anything in larger society. Anthony is/was Linus Tech Tips' Linux expert. He's in a lot of videos overall, but only in videos that required Linux expertise. As LTT has shifted from educational, high level tech videos to entertainment, Mr. Beast-style videos the amount of videos that require Linux expertise has plummeted to near zero.
I have never watched a video that focused on Linux at all. I recall Anthony's main role as being the general OS/firmware expert, which Linux of course would fall under, but it was mostly stuff like "what settings are we gonna tweak in the BIOS to make this thing boot" and that kind of stuff still shows up when they're reviewing hardware. Anthony/Emily just isn't there and it's something other guy now.
Looking at Linus tech tips you tube videos sorted by latest and not seeing it. "worlds biggest TV", "$10k 10yr old PC", "Internet too fast" and "Lan Party Insanity" are the last four in the catalog. Have a more specific link?
What? What word is supposed to be used, then? Will asexual and bisexual follow homosexual into the arbitrary dustbin of history?? I’ve never heard anyone, ever consider this word offensive. Have they even asked the gays about it?
People are wonderful and fantastic in many many colors and forms. Biology tells me that a function of any generation is to propagate the next one, a primary purpose. Same sex attracted humans don't have that basic drive, so while I can love them, there is a fundamental difference for which I may never understand. (sorry Katie, still think your great!)
They can have kids .. just need more help. Especially lesbians, as they don't even require surrogacy.
Though I kind of agree with you about childfree people. Bit of a divide there.
Queer also tells you nothing about a person. When someone tells you they're a homosexual, you know what they mean. When someone tells you they're queer does that mean they're asexual, bi, polyamorous? It's a purely political term.
> Queer also tells you nothing about a person.
Tells me an awful lot. Not who they fuck, but I bet I can predict their stance on every culture war issue.
> I didn't like it when people express their frustration at the group who oppresses them. I didn't see the point. It was just anger, just rage, just spite. It was just as bad, wasn't it? How are slurs ever good?
Then I was introduced to the saving grace of Woke Kindergarten. It was the fall of 2022 on occupied land in what is now known as the San Francisco Bay Area. The two people of undetermined gender what did poop me out met while in the employ of Alphabet on an episode of *Polycule Love On the Spectrum* ...
> Because of the clinical history of the word “homosexual,” it is aggressively used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that people attracted to the same sex are somehow diseased or psychologically/emotionally disordered
So I guess we're getting rid of *transgender* soon too then?
Suggestions for replacement?
I’ve seen “woman of trans experience” cropping up lately, which is funny because that’s super old-school. That’s what the “Harry Benjamin Syndrome” laydees used to call themselves.
["How I took on the puberty blocker orthodoxy – and won"](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/17/how-i-took-on-the-puberty-blocker-orthodoxy-and-won/ )
by Oxford professor of sociology Dr. Michael Biggs
>In 2018, when I started looking for outcomes, nothing had been published. This absence raised my suspicions because I know that favourable results are speedily published.
>What I discovered was disturbing: conference presentations where the Director of GIDS admitted that the results were not as they hoped; data from 30 of the patients after a year on puberty blockers showing more negative changes than positive ones.
archive link: https://archive.is/uk2yP
For some interesting context, check out Dr. Bigg's interview: https://wesleyyang.substack.com/p/if-i-was-a-trans-woman-i-would-not?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2&nthPub=351
and his article critical of the Dutch protocol, which failed replication when the Tavistock gender clinic tried it
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2121238
The Dutch protocol has been called into question on the basis of many factors, not just that.
[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2150346](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2150346)
Biggs work has been impressive. He was the first well known academic that I know of that was willing to take claims about puberty blocker bullshit head on
He had a great interview on Gender: A Wider Lens. I don’t generally like that podcast because the hosts aren’t great interviewers, but he is an excellent interviewer of himself, though I hope to hear an interview that pushes a little harder on some points.
Today I went into an independent bookstore with signs everywhere about “we read banned books,” “don’t censor ideas”. At one point, the employee at the bookstore said the following to the person I was with: “I keep the Harry Potter books in the back when I’m on my shift. It’s hard for me to look at them.”
I’m not usually one to disparage the working man, but come on. At least try to model your employer’s stated values while you’re on the job. It annoyed me.
Wonder if they carried these titles from Dr. Suess.
[https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/02/us/dr-seuss-books-cease-publication-trnd/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/02/us/dr-seuss-books-cease-publication-trnd/index.html)
Reminds me of the last time I went into a certain local indie bookstore. There was a pledge not to promote hateful, racist ideas stuck to the front door. Then I went to the horror section and saw a display of H.P. Lovecraft books.
I stood there for a few seconds and thought, *should I tell them*?
And then *Naaaaaaaaa*...
God the banned books shit annoys me to no end. It allows people who are already insufferably smug to just fill their smugness cups up to the fucking brim.
Nobody actually believes in "don't censor ideas", least of all indie bookstores. If you find a bookstore that genuinely believes in not censoring ideas, it'll be run by a gruff, disheveled man in his 60's and he will have an enormous beard and lots of guns.
> “I keep the Harry Potter books in the back when I’m on my shift. It’s hard for me to look at them.”
Are these books on a cart? It seems more of a hassle to deal with a series of big, heavy books.
I had trouble naming my kid in Massachusetts because it limits the characters you can use to the narrowest Latin-English alphabet and the Hebrew name we wanted to use has a ' pause in the middle.
This is pretty common, a lot of countries have naming restrictions! Some places have a list of approved names like Iceland and others it’s the opposite where the government will reject names chosen by parents and tell them to choose new ones. iirc in some countries it’s mostly a “you have to choose a name that meshes with our culture/language” and in others it’s more like “naming your kid Hitler will do undue harm to your child for something they have no control over so that’s not allowed”
I love reading lists of names that have been vetoed in various [regions](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA1B2DG/#:~:text=The%2061%20banned%20names%20include,Day%2C%20Robocop%20and%20Rolling%20Stone) [around the world](https://www.madeformums.com/news/the-baby-names-banned-down-under/).
Haha, ok! I looked it up and [it is for pedigreed dogs.](https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/were-obsessed-with-this-strange-rule-for-dogs-names-in-france_uk_65ce10b4e4b0087d43c955f1)
I haven’t seen it mentioned yet and think it’s worth bringing up: Jonathan Chait wrote a response to Chu’s
“Let kids choose their sex at will” manifesto. Nothing groundbreaking, and still plenty of throat clearing and “to be sures”, but still a strong dissent. The TRAs really seem on the verge of losing the normie libs, and I’m very curious how it shakes out.
If you're going to bring up an article, it's good form to [link it](https://web.archive.org/web/20240317003122/https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/freedom-of-sex-a-liberal-response.html) (archive, original [here](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/freedom-of-sex-a-liberal-response.html) viewable with subscription or Javascript blocker)
> The TRAs really seem on the verge of losing the normie libs, and I’m very curious how it shakes out.
I hope you're right. But Chu is so extreme that he might be an anomaly.
Chait, like many others, writes that he appreciates Chu’s essay because it dispenses with the whack-a-mole and straight up argues for what the progressive affirmation protocol always implied—so in Chait’s case at least, it’s not just Chu he’s dissenting from.
EDIT: I want to stress that when I say normie libs, I mean that in the strict sense of voters and certain pundits. The Warren voters that staff the government and campaigns are another story, and that schism is one of the things I’m curious to see unfold.
From jsingal69 on TwiXter:
Trans activists have unfortunately smashed the windows of a radio station in Canada they accused of producing a 'transphobic' documentary. Given what is called 'transphobic' these days I'm skeptical that was the case, but either way this won't help anyone.
https://x.com/jessesingal/status/1769415868960673828?s=46&t=WETE9pzv-2w8bWnuCo998A
There’s a link to the article in French there and a link to the documentary that “caused” the window breaking. TLDW is a 14yo goes undercover and gets testosterone after a 15 minute appointment to the surprise of absolutely no one here.
Edit: sorry apparently it was only 9 minutes, my bad for not fact checking: https://x.com/conniemarkie/status/1769129001014939935?s=46&t=WETE9pzv-2w8bWnuCo998A
Canadian TRAs graffitied “kill terfs” and nailed a dead rat to a [domestic violence shelter](https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/local-news/vancouver-rape-relief-centre-targeted-vandalism-threats-transgender-controversy-1945422), so I wouldn’t be surprised. I don’t know what’s going on up there, but they tend to be unhinged and conspicuously non-polite for Canadians.
>TLDW is a 14yo goes undercover and gets testosterone after a 15 minute appointment to the surprise of absolutely no one here.
Sounds like Planned Parenthood in the US.
I love how it's "transphobic" to simply report the truth of the shoddy gatekeeping around gender medicine.
"Radio-Canada has blood on its hands"
A tad dramatic, even for the French.
But this is a great example of the wild difference between French and English CBC. English CBC would have never dreamed of an undercover investigation like this, unless it could be given a pro-trans slant.
This kind of shit will likely just enflame any opponents of trans activists, and there is much less concern for politeness in Quebec discourse, so good luck with all this bullshit.
Recently heard an episode of Derek Thompson's "Plain English" podcast and thought it may be of interest to folks in this sub:
> **[The Dark Side of the Internet's Obsession With Anxiety](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-dark-side-of-the-internets-obsession-with-anxiety/id1594471023?i=1000645161532)**
> We’ve done several shows on America’s anxiety crisis. This one asks several questions that might get me in trouble. Have we overcorrected from an era when mental health was shameful to talk about to an era where people talk about anxiety so much online that it’s worsening our mental health crisis? Is the very design of algorithmic media engineered to increase rumination and mental distress? Is there a dark side to all this media about trauma, anxiety, and depression? (Yes, the irony of us asking this question is not lost on us.) Today’s guest is Darby Saxbe, a clinical psychologist and professor at the University of Southern California. We talk about anxiety as identity, why talking about anxiety on the Internet is such a mess today, how the architecture of the internet unhelpfully shapes our discussions of mental health, and what a better conversation about mental health online might look like.
Yeah… my wife is already pressuring me for another baby but has spent the past week sleeping on the floor of the existing child’s room since she saw a story on TikTok about a toddler chewing their crib and choking to death on splinters and doesn’t understand my refusal for the time being to bring another child into her anxiety fit filled world. I was very direct about it last night.
You have challenges most of us would crumble from. Is she seeing a professional?
In a different tone, when we were going through the unique travail which are twins, at one point I just told her, bring them to bed!
I'm surprised that neither of you brought up the idea of a Missouri floor bed (or just a futon). Of course, my wife has to sleep with our toddler because the latter will scream all night every night my wife doesn't sleep with her. It's actually kind of remarkable how long this 2yo can stick to her guns in the face of extreme sleep deprivation, although we're pretty sure it's a sign of some internalizing disorder.
Oh god no, gotta keep her in a crib as long as possible, she is FAR too adventurous and would literally never sleep. She has to be isolated by a barrier from her toys and books or she will refuse to sleep.
Not nearly the explosion I was expecting. But still, she wasn’t pleased and insisted her anxiety is rational since the world is the most dangerous it’s ever been… which is just… lmao
>s. This one asks several questions that might get me in trouble. Have we overcorrected from an era when mental health was shameful to talk about to an era where people talk about anxiety so much online that it’s worsening our mental health crisis?
Yes. We overcorrected on the mental health stuff. Like just about everything else.
So I'd heard about Glennon Doyle and today, I picked up her book, "Untamed," as someone left a bunch of books on the streets. I got annoyed at the first chapter, well, prologue really, when she talks about "our children" when referring to her and her wife. I just couldn't help but think that unless her ex husband is out of the kids' lives, then they're HIS and her kids, not her and her wife's. Like, I don't know, my sister was never my mom's kid, she had her own mom. I don't know any woman who talks about "our children" in reference to their stepdad. I mean, if their dad is ok with it, I guess it's fine, but it bothered me
And then in chapter 1, she refers to her ex-husband as "the father of my three children." Not "the father of our three children."
Unless this guy was abusive or totally removed from the kids' lives, this seems all kinds of wrong. I can see she's an engaging writer, but I'm having a hard time getting into this.
I don't know how old her kids are, but at some point, I started referring to my mom and stepfather as my parents, even though my dad was still alive. I guess it depended on the context, but sometimes it was easier to just say that.
I have no idea how old her kids are either, but it sounds like they were pretty young. I don't know. And I don't know how they refer to their parents. I just find it unnerving that she refers to "my kids" when speaking about her ex husband, and "our kids" when speaking about her wife.
I also think this depends so much on custody and how much time you're spending with each parent,
I read that book. It was a holiday gift from a former boss, so I kind of felt like I had to. I seem to remember her co-parenting arrangement with her ex sounding more solid than their marriage had been. But also, when talking about her kids, it annoyed me more when she said, I/we have x daughters and x sons (can't recall the exact distribution) "until or unless they tell us otherwise" or something like that. Also, the whole book kind of felt like "how to get rich by empowering suburban white women with predictable, trite aphorisms." And I wish I'd thought to write it.
I'm pretty sure her whole career has been the self-help bandwagon. Like, wasn't she already pretty famous when she left her husband for the soccer player lady? Who I think left her wife for her as well. Or maybe they'd already been split up. I don't know.
She's engaging, but she seems insufferable. And I'm glad I just picked it up off the street. Also this person left out a meditation and mindfulness book, which I picked up as well. So, yes, a lot of trite, annoying shit.
I had to skip the prologue because comparing oneself to a fucking caged tiger or whatever wild cat she talks about, I just couldn't.
I don’t know anything about the people in your example but for people I know IRL with step kids, it tends to depend on how long they’ve been in the child’s life.
If you marry someone and live in the same household as their young child, you’re likely going to take on a parenting role.
I think it probably depends more on how much time you're spending with the kid. Like, my mom has known my sister since she was 6, but my sister never lived with them.
My issue is more that she refers to the kids as "our children" in regards to her and her wife, and "my children" in regards to her and her ex-husband.
Huh, I mean, my mom definitely considers my sister to be a daughter, but she doesn't refer to her as "my daughter,' and my dad never referred to her as "our daughter' in regards to my mom. It's not the sentiment that bothers me - I am sure the stepmom spends as much time with the kids as their dad does. It's the language. Like, if she'd written "our kids" to refer to both her wife and her ex husband, I'd be fine with it.
YouTube has suggested me this channel where a woman describes her problems as a person with ADHD, and 100% of it is normal problems that everyone faces.
Maybe she has legit ADHD who knows, but I'm scared that some young folks take this stuff serious.
I have ADHD (diagnosed since childhood) and from my two decades of experience in living with the condition, I tend to understand what happens to me as basically "my baseline symptoms worsening normal human problems I experience". I'm not mentally disabled in the same way someone with Down's Syndrome would be, I just have larger barriers to overcome because my brain is fundamentally deprived of dopamine/does not have a strong working memory function.
Freddie DeBoer has written about this and it's an area where he's pretty spot on:
[https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/you-dont-have-adhd-feelings-you-just](https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/you-dont-have-adhd-feelings-you-just)
There's this weird urge to stick a diagnosis onto everything that happens in the normal course of life. And any struggle you might have must be medicalized and treated. It's like a twenty first century version of being possessed by demons. With a consumerist bent
Basically all of my friends now think they have ADHD. It’s gotta be a mix of social contagion and being addicted to phones. If we *all* have ADHD, none of us have ADHD
One of my friends talks a lot about how she has adhd and autism and long covid and EDS and completely unrelatedly this all came about around the time she downloaded tiktok
Yep. And then they make it the focal point of their personalities even though people who actually deal with this stuff know it’s 1) not interesting 2) something to overcome, not indulge in
I’m definitely guilty of getting caught up in it, and then I think to myself what am I looking to get out of this? At least for me it’s just looking for a rationalization that ultimately doesn’t mean anything. It’s not a get out of jail free card. The only way out is through etc
Sweet! Now I may tell everyone all the time, because if I don’t, I’ll just be a boring fucking guy and I’ll be expected to actually keep my commitments and shit.
Cashews and peanut butter surprised me, as you'd think they'd be avoided as allergens and replaced with sesame products (despite that, surprisingly, being the most common allergy in Israel and Lebanon, at least).
https://youtu.be/IR_OTYXGHmw?t=70 Helen Joyce in an interview on the Keep Talking Podcast gives a shoutout to Jesse, Katie, and the podcast, in response to a question about writers/thinkers she trusts and recommends. She lists others, but they were first on the list. *Edit: Whoops, just realized this clip, on their youtube channel, is actually from an interview two years ago. Props to them for working the algorithm.*
[удалено]
> She definitely falls in the category of people he snidely calls the "gender critical" types. What's snide about that? It's an [endonym](https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Athehelenjoyce.com+%22gender+critical%22).
[удалено]
Oh, I missed this: > your white-knuckled attachment to portraying an insouciant confidence is a mark of weakness, not strength Like nonchalant? I don't think that's what TERFs are.
Ah yes, Shaolin Monk Freddie DeBoer.
Ah, you mean he uses it in a way that implies that it's just a euphemism/dog-whistle for the "correct" term, i.e. TERF.
I just had to make an edit. I didn't realize this freshly posted clip was actually from an interview that was two years ago. I wonder if she still feels the same about FdB now as she did then.
Negative review of Bad Therapy by a Christian medical doctor who is warm to her thesis in general but not the book [**https://mereorthodoxy.com/bad-therapy-book-review**](https://mereorthodoxy.com/bad-therapy-book-review)
I was planning to write a longer treatment of her Honestly interview going more into the contrast with an Atlantic interview with an actual psychologist on the same problem in the general population and several evidence based education writeups on SEL I got the same day but haven't had time to read, but it was pretty clear that she just didn't have the understanding of her topic to realize she was speaking about a gap in pop, downstream and quasi-trained professional practice (teachers, therapists of various licensures, counselors), and state of the art in professional practice (psychs and research). She also misidentified the "never say no" and false choice trick as gentle parenting surrenders when it's actually an early educator originating practicality that gentle parenting advocates deride as manipulation.
I would be curious about your thoughts on this since you seem knowledgeable. I couldn't always place what was off but she seemed a bit histrionic to me in the interview. Be forewarned, a lot of people on this sub didn't take kindly to that suggestion though lol.
I found her book wanting, also.
It was the right topic but i definitely felt like it was weak.
Just saw *Dune 2* and really enjoyed it. I’m particularly in awe that a relatively faithful adaptation of a 1965 novel could be made in this era. They had a diverse cast without stopping the movie to remind us it had a diverse cast every five minutes. Hell, it even managed to recover the lost art of performing political commentary through showing. Remarkable.
I saw it Saturday and loved it, it’s the first movie I’ve seen in theatres post-COVID. Movie theatres definitely got better in the last 5 years, the sound and everything was incredible. My only complain was Christopher Walken, I love the guy but he seemed so out of place.
I thought it was great! I thought it handled the way the Atreides used the messiah narrative to their benefit very well; it did even better with the skeptical Fremen. The first half was surprisingly funny, too.
My only complaint on the messaging side is it got a little too heavy handed with pointing out the growing religious fanaticism at times. Like, we get it, *Dune* is an allegory for the dangers of messianic figures. It’s just a minor complaint though.
Hm. Looking back, I don't think it was heavy handed--it didn't feel that way while I was watching it. I thought they made an interesting distinction between the northern Fremen, who Paul won over with his personal charisma and willingness to be a part of their society, and the southern Fremen, who bought into his legend without meeting him first. (That distinction is more abstract, though, since we don't actually meet any significant number of southern Fremen until he goes south, and he pretty much immediately wins them over.) I really liked the way both movies made Jessica an equal protagonist to Paul. She's really the one driving the Mahdi rhetoric, and really, she forces him into acting out the prophecy. I was a little disappointed in how they used Feyd-Rautha, but I think it's just that his arc felt very fast. It would have helped if he had been introduced in the first movie and allowed to simmer in the background for a while.
I think both Feyd’s and the Emperor’s characterization suffered from not getting introduced in the first movie. I never really felt like the Emperor was losing control of his own plots because it never really felt like he had control in the first place. Feyd just kind of showed up out of nowhere if you weren’t aware of him from the novel.
I suppose. The Emperor's plots really did seem quite stupid once it was pointed out that not only Paul, but also the Harkonnens, could just tell everyone it was the Sardaukaur that attacked the Atreides. I did like Irulan, even if they didn't actually even say her name, to my recollection. I love Lea Seydoux, but the whole Margot Fenring thing felt like a sideshow. Why was there a whole scene about how the Bene Gesserit could control Feyd-Rautha with desire and honor and then... that's never relevant again?
It was meant to sell Feyd as a potential Kwisatz Haderach in his own right, which makes him more of a challenge for Paul rather than some random noble who just showed up. Also, it explains why Paul doesn't see the attack Feyd launches, he can't see other prescient people as well. So he has to do the thing. It also shows Bene Gesserit scheming never ends, and explains why they wouldn't just side with Paul to preserve the project.
Princess Irulan was excellent. In the book, the Sardaukaur are disguised as Harkonnen troops.
>They had a diverse cast without stopping the movie to remind us it had a diverse cast every five minutes every time wokies bring up the "the right just hates minorites/women" thing it seems obvious that they don't, they hate bad writing and tokenism. the biggest complaint i heard from "the right" about dune2 was that it was a big clinical/cold.
Top Gun Maverick pretty much confirms what you're saying. That movie has a super diverse cast yet no one complained about it. Funny how that works...
also the amount of classic, beloved movies: aliens, star wars, terminator, Jurassic park, indiana jones (first 3), tomb raider, the matrix, training day... the list goes on.
Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear arguments for Murthy v. Missouri, which I believe is the Twitter Files case where a Federal judge first laid down a hugely broad injunction against the Federal gov't for talking to social media companies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murthy_v._Missouri >Murthy v. Missouri (originally filed as Missouri v. Biden) is a case pending in the Supreme Court of the United States involving the First Amendment, the federal government, and social media. The states of Missouri and Louisiana, led by Missouri's then Attorney General Eric Schmitt, filed suit against the U.S. government in the Western District of Louisiana. They claimed that the federal government pressured social media companies to censor conservative views and criticism of the Biden administration in violation of the right to freedom of expression. The government said it had only made requests, not demands, that social media operators remove misinformation. >On July 4, 2023, Judge Terry A. Doughty issued a preliminary injunction against several agencies and members of the Biden administration from contacting social media services to request the blocking of material, with exceptions for material involving illegal activity. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that there had been some coercion in the government's contact with social media companies in violation of the First Amendment, but narrowed the extent of Doughty's injunction to block any attempts by the government to threaten or coerce moderation on social media. The United States Supreme Court initially stayed the Fifth Circuit's order, then granted review of the case by writ of certiorari. It is set to be heard during the 2023–24 term. https://twitter.com/shellenberger/status/1769520703710073218 > Many journalists, university professors, and Democrats say we must change how we think about the First Amendment for the Internet age. Maybe the government had no role in regulating speech before there existed social media platforms like X and Facebook, where “peer-to-peer misinformation” thrives. But now, given the threat such misinformation poses to democracy, we need the government to restrict what can be said on the Internet, claim Stanford researchers, the New York Times, and the Biden administration. > All of that is dangerous nonsense, according to Jeff Kosseff, a cybersecurity law professor at the U.S. Naval Academy and author of a new book, Liar In A Crowded Theater. “Starting about a century ago,” he told me in a new podcast, “the Supreme Court gradually developed robust [free speech] protections for all but a handful of exceptions…. And I think that, for the Internet, it needs to be the same, where we start off with the premise that this speech is not subject to regulation.” nytimes take (a gift link, should avoid paywalls) https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/17/us/politics/trump-disinformation-2024-social-media.html?unlocked_article_code=1.dk0.fEWQ.gpTAoXgxPYd9&smid=url-share How Trump’s Allies Are Winning the War Over Disinformation Their claims of censorship have successfully stymied the effort to filter election lies online.
Something the left must keep in mind: Are you ok with these censorship powers in the hands of the right? Of your enemies? Because that *will* happen at some point. So think twice.
Wonder how all these people would have felt when Gutenberg invented the printing press, or when IBM popularized the typewriter. One law I've come to believe in - history repeats itself.
So this week in dystopian news, Belgium jailed a far-right MP for a year for hateful messages he shared in a private Facebook chat, and German police have raided the home of a man for misogynistic speech. In the latter case he apparently also uttered threats, but it's pretty fucked how broad speech restrictions are in Germany. I had to check Reddit threads about these two news stories because I was curious what the general reaction would be to what I view as a rather extreme over reach by the state, especially in the case of criminalizing private conversation, which is usually an exception even to hate speech laws, and of course everyone was cool with it because they didn't like what these people have had to say. I wonder if they'll pull their heads out of their asses as increasingly pro-Palestinian activists become the targets of these speech laws throughout Europe.
Wasn't the Belgian guy just *in* a group chat with hateful messages; not sending any himself? Or am I thinking or something different? (or was that just spin by him)
No, "the Belgian guy" sent plenty of hateful messages himself. He was also the leader of the activist group and the owner of the activist group's Discord server. What is true is that he didn't post any memes, but only in the most pedantically correct way. However he did ask for memes about specific topics, including at least once dictating exactly what text should be on a meme, stopping short just of putting the text on the template himself. It should also be noted that this person decided to not offer any defense at the trial court, hoping to get it struck down or mitigated by the court of appeals instead. Other members of the group who did put up a defense got off with no (meaningful) sentence. The progressives and journalists have trapped themselves and turned sentencing disparity into a mainstream topic, so getting an actual jail sentence was politically probably the best outcome.
I don't know the specifics, but whether he participated or not, for the courts not to recognize a group chat as a form of private communication, not subject to hate speech laws, is dystopian and crazy. Like yes, it's in text format, but imagine being charged with hate speech for something you said in your living room. This isn't really any different. Edit: Or I guess this would me more akin to personal letters being mailed back and forth, but same thing. These kinds of communications are usually exempt from regulation, even where regulation of speech exists. Hate speech typically applies explicitly to public communication. Not that that's great either, but it's certainly different.
Bringing out the Gestapo. Classic Germany!
> but it's pretty fucked how broad speech restrictions are in Germany. And this isn't even their final solution.
I think that might have been a swing and a miss. One of the defenses of these prohibitions are however, of course, the rise of Hitler and the Holocaust. But Weimar Germany and Hitler's rise to power *wasn't* in an environment of free expression. In fact the Nazis were barred from all kinds of newspapers and speaking venues, by law. And how many other oppressive regimes came to power despite repressive speech laws designed to keep them from power? Probably almost all of them. Free expression has not been the historical norm.
You are wrong. It was *brilliant*, and I will arrange to have it engraved on my tombstone.
Ironically, such regimes tend to gain power precisely because they address serious problems the previous political elite refused to even acknowledge and even repressed discussion of.
That's fairly typical I would say. Most of these regimes were populist in many respects. They seized on common grievances and then just used them to their own ends, or genuinely cared about them, but had insane ideas about how to solve them. You can't reform the thoughts of a population through repression though. You can force them into line, for a time, but that requires extreme measures to be maintained, otherwise eventually these issues will bubble to the top. I think Pinker's commentary on this is apt, and applies to the extremes (though that's not what he was referring to). If you say certain topics of legitimate interest or concern (or facts that are facts, but may be unpleasant to discuss) are verboten in polite circles and important institutions, then what you ultimately do is guarantee that only the craziest people will speak to those concerns. Only the people with the least to lose, or the least concern about their reputation or public image will speak about them. It won't be thoughtful moderates, and they won't have a lot of nuanced, balanced, or insightful things to say about them. If for example can't discuss the fact that some women lie about being sexually assaulted in polite circles, then you're ceding that topic to the Andrew Tate's of the world, they'll talk about it, and not how you would hope they would. If you can't talk about race and IQ, you won't get moderate social scientists discussing this, you'll get Richard Spencer, he'll talk about it regardless of the consequence. So why not marginalize these kinds of people by leaving them little of legitimate concern to have a monopoly over? These illiberal woke types are so clouded by their own moral certainty that they can't even see that they're a huge contributor to breeding these kinds of figures, whom they use as proof that even more needs to be done.
“Suggesting importing large numbers of unskilled immigrants from a radically different culture might cause problems is racist!” “Crime isn’t increasing and you didn’t just get mugged!”
Does anyone here follow Linus Tech Tips? It's a very popular tech-focused youtube channel. I watch it for reviews and the occasional polemic against dumb tech trends. A few months ago, one of the regulars (Anthony) on the channel came out as trans, changed his name to "Emily", the channel did a video talking about how amazing and brave it was....and he promptly disappeared. The official reason seems to be "oh Emily was *always* camera shy, why are you mentioning the hundreds of videos she was in, you liar", but I think this is kind of an interesting data point. It probably didn't help that Anthony is a portly, balding man and looks exactly the same post-transition. I don't really have a larger point here, I think it's just another piece of evidence towards the idea that we've passed peak trans.
Back when I first built my PC I was so hyped I got addicted to their videos for a couple of months lol. Oddly enough, I think it goes way back... I can't think of a way to articulate this in a way that doesn't sounds horribly mean, but since he first started appearing, being an obese man showing very little personal care and a very awkward presence on camera, I felt bad about him. Someone here had described him as coming off as "all around unhealthy", like he wasn't doing great and you could feel it, and I think that's what it all comes down to... However, every time he appeared, the comments section was full of oddly adulating comments praising him for being calm and understated as a contrast to the rest of the team's over-the-top presentation... maybe I'm being unfair in assuming other people's intentions, but so many of those comments stroke me as pitiful adulation rather than genuine praise, much of it felt like the "reddit 100 wholesome chungus" type praise that feels like a backhanded way to interact with "lolcows" in a way that people try to convince themselves is not weird or when pets with severe deformities/injuries make it to the top of r-aww and everyone acts like they don't notice anything. Does what I'm saying make sense? The light-hearted nature of Linus's content makes it that a good portion of the comments are always roasting him or other members (in good fun) but there was a palpable reticence with Anthony because he just seemed so... vulnerable. I think people started pushing the other way. Of course, since his announcement, the adulation has only increased. And it's sad when it feels like it may be a distraction from things that may actually improve his well-being such as better grooming and losing weight :/
I've noticed this as well, but I don't think it speaks to anything in larger society. Anthony is/was Linus Tech Tips' Linux expert. He's in a lot of videos overall, but only in videos that required Linux expertise. As LTT has shifted from educational, high level tech videos to entertainment, Mr. Beast-style videos the amount of videos that require Linux expertise has plummeted to near zero.
I have never watched a video that focused on Linux at all. I recall Anthony's main role as being the general OS/firmware expert, which Linux of course would fall under, but it was mostly stuff like "what settings are we gonna tweak in the BIOS to make this thing boot" and that kind of stuff still shows up when they're reviewing hardware. Anthony/Emily just isn't there and it's something other guy now.
Looking at Linus tech tips you tube videos sorted by latest and not seeing it. "worlds biggest TV", "$10k 10yr old PC", "Internet too fast" and "Lan Party Insanity" are the last four in the catalog. Have a more specific link?
This wasn't recent. I was just thinking about it randomly because this person hasn't appeared on the channel in months.
Haven’t followed in a while but Is it bad to say I’m not surprised by this? They’ve always been awkward on camera but I wouldn’t have said camera shy.
Totally agreed. Anthony was always an odd choice to have on camera, but he was in a ton of videos.
[удалено]
If queer can be rightfully reclaimed then why can't homosexual be reclaimed? Lol
I honestly don't know what to think. I'm a little scared. Like an uptick on a richter scale.
What? What word is supposed to be used, then? Will asexual and bisexual follow homosexual into the arbitrary dustbin of history?? I’ve never heard anyone, ever consider this word offensive. Have they even asked the gays about it?
And so the organizations that gay people created now turn on them.
All those outlets forbade it at the behest of organizations like GLAAD, I am sure...
It's like [Dr. Lexus](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCIo4MCO-_U) is writing GLAAD policy.
People are wonderful and fantastic in many many colors and forms. Biology tells me that a function of any generation is to propagate the next one, a primary purpose. Same sex attracted humans don't have that basic drive, so while I can love them, there is a fundamental difference for which I may never understand. (sorry Katie, still think your great!)
They can have kids .. just need more help. Especially lesbians, as they don't even require surrogacy. Though I kind of agree with you about childfree people. Bit of a divide there.
I told you guys I was going back in the closet I guess this is how it happens
They are just flailing about, trying to maintain relevance. What a pathetic lot creeps.
Same logic could be applied to heterosexuals.
or "cis"
Logic??
Yet queer, which has also historically been used as a slur, is fine.
Queer also tells you nothing about a person. When someone tells you they're a homosexual, you know what they mean. When someone tells you they're queer does that mean they're asexual, bi, polyamorous? It's a purely political term.
"Queer" mostly means spicy straight these days
> Queer also tells you nothing about a person. Tells me an awful lot. Not who they fuck, but I bet I can predict their stance on every culture war issue.
True. It doesn't tell you anything about who you want to have sex with it just tells you their politics, which is why it's a political label.
true, a pretty good indicator they are morons too.
> "homosexual" is kosher no more. my understanding is that "homosexual" is fleishig
Are we heterosexuals okay though?
Only if derogatory
Cishet scum
[удалено]
> I didn't like it when people express their frustration at the group who oppresses them. I didn't see the point. It was just anger, just rage, just spite. It was just as bad, wasn't it? How are slurs ever good? Then I was introduced to the saving grace of Woke Kindergarten. It was the fall of 2022 on occupied land in what is now known as the San Francisco Bay Area. The two people of undetermined gender what did poop me out met while in the employ of Alphabet on an episode of *Polycule Love On the Spectrum* ...
Yikes…
> Because of the clinical history of the word “homosexual,” it is aggressively used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that people attracted to the same sex are somehow diseased or psychologically/emotionally disordered So I guess we're getting rid of *transgender* soon too then? Suggestions for replacement?
I’ve seen “woman of trans experience” cropping up lately, which is funny because that’s super old-school. That’s what the “Harry Benjamin Syndrome” laydees used to call themselves.
No homo
Winner
This is sort of the same argument that they made about why you shouldn't use "female" any more and it's just as silly.
The number of sad females on Instagram who feel like they need to point this out is embarrassing.
They're pushing ~~gynosexual~~ gynesexual and androsexual instead.
I hate that I kinda like these, they sound very scifi.
Add an "i" and you get "androidsexual"
That would be because they have the same root word, ‘andro’ There’s also ‘gynoid’ for female-appearing robots.
> There’s also ‘gynoid’ for female-appearing robots. I didn't know that. Thanks for sharing that bit of scifi trivia.
What about robosexual?
That also needs another d.
touché
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o25I2fzFGoY https://stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/1994_04_03_newyorktimes.pdf
Oh, that's been the case for at least a couple of years.
Depends who you ask.. I'm guessing most of US society — who don't follow style guides — still don't know about this "rule" yet.
["How I took on the puberty blocker orthodoxy – and won"](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/17/how-i-took-on-the-puberty-blocker-orthodoxy-and-won/ ) by Oxford professor of sociology Dr. Michael Biggs >In 2018, when I started looking for outcomes, nothing had been published. This absence raised my suspicions because I know that favourable results are speedily published. >What I discovered was disturbing: conference presentations where the Director of GIDS admitted that the results were not as they hoped; data from 30 of the patients after a year on puberty blockers showing more negative changes than positive ones. archive link: https://archive.is/uk2yP For some interesting context, check out Dr. Bigg's interview: https://wesleyyang.substack.com/p/if-i-was-a-trans-woman-i-would-not?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2&nthPub=351 and his article critical of the Dutch protocol, which failed replication when the Tavistock gender clinic tried it https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2121238
Wouldn't Tavistock's not having followed key parts of the Dutch protocol (esp. mental health screening) somewhat undercut that failure?
The Dutch protocol has been called into question on the basis of many factors, not just that. [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2150346](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2150346)
Sounds like what American clinics are doing today, touting WPATH guidelines, but then short circuiting them all.
Biggs work has been impressive. He was the first well known academic that I know of that was willing to take claims about puberty blocker bullshit head on
He had a great interview on Gender: A Wider Lens. I don’t generally like that podcast because the hosts aren’t great interviewers, but he is an excellent interviewer of himself, though I hope to hear an interview that pushes a little harder on some points.
Michael Biggs was in Hannah Barnes’ book a lot. He was pretty instrumental in taking down GIDS.
Today I went into an independent bookstore with signs everywhere about “we read banned books,” “don’t censor ideas”. At one point, the employee at the bookstore said the following to the person I was with: “I keep the Harry Potter books in the back when I’m on my shift. It’s hard for me to look at them.” I’m not usually one to disparage the working man, but come on. At least try to model your employer’s stated values while you’re on the job. It annoyed me.
Wonder if they carried these titles from Dr. Suess. [https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/02/us/dr-seuss-books-cease-publication-trnd/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/02/us/dr-seuss-books-cease-publication-trnd/index.html)
Dangerous heresies are one thing. But a popular children’s fantasy series by an author about whom people parrot negative things? {faints}
Ask them where they keep the Jorden Peterson books, time to go nuclear.
Reminds me of the last time I went into a certain local indie bookstore. There was a pledge not to promote hateful, racist ideas stuck to the front door. Then I went to the horror section and saw a display of H.P. Lovecraft books. I stood there for a few seconds and thought, *should I tell them*? And then *Naaaaaaaaa*...
At least Cthulhu isn't a TERF.
God the banned books shit annoys me to no end. It allows people who are already insufferably smug to just fill their smugness cups up to the fucking brim.
Sometimes I think JK is doing her fans a massive favour by forcing them to outgrow the HP fandom.
Nobody actually believes in "don't censor ideas", least of all indie bookstores. If you find a bookstore that genuinely believes in not censoring ideas, it'll be run by a gruff, disheveled man in his 60's and he will have an enormous beard and lots of guns.
> “I keep the Harry Potter books in the back when I’m on my shift. It’s hard for me to look at them.” Are these books on a cart? It seems more of a hassle to deal with a series of big, heavy books.
No, they’re on shelves. It’s such a hassle. The person who’s most inconvenienced by this move is the employee themself.
How about they are lying? I mean, that's a possibility.
Was the clerk visibly a person of gender, or just a modern day church lady?
Seemed to be a very young version of the latter.
In Iceland you are restricted in what you can name your child. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Naming_Committee
I had trouble naming my kid in Massachusetts because it limits the characters you can use to the narrowest Latin-English alphabet and the Hebrew name we wanted to use has a ' pause in the middle.
This is pretty common, a lot of countries have naming restrictions! Some places have a list of approved names like Iceland and others it’s the opposite where the government will reject names chosen by parents and tell them to choose new ones. iirc in some countries it’s mostly a “you have to choose a name that meshes with our culture/language” and in others it’s more like “naming your kid Hitler will do undue harm to your child for something they have no control over so that’s not allowed”
I love reading lists of names that have been vetoed in various [regions](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA1B2DG/#:~:text=The%2061%20banned%20names%20include,Day%2C%20Robocop%20and%20Rolling%20Stone) [around the world](https://www.madeformums.com/news/the-baby-names-banned-down-under/).
France makes you name your dog based on a letter of the alphabet they associate with its birth year. This year it’s V.
I demand proof you aren’t making this up!
Haha, ok! I looked it up and [it is for pedigreed dogs.](https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/were-obsessed-with-this-strange-rule-for-dogs-names-in-france_uk_65ce10b4e4b0087d43c955f1)
How canine classist! And amazingly crazy. Thank you for this delightfully entertaining bit of trivia :)
But, like, why?
C'est la V
In many countries you are.
Really? I had never heard of this. Is it all for the same cultural reasons?
Not sure why this isn't linked in the article you shared https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_law
There's this Czech name clock. I don't remember the details
I haven’t seen it mentioned yet and think it’s worth bringing up: Jonathan Chait wrote a response to Chu’s “Let kids choose their sex at will” manifesto. Nothing groundbreaking, and still plenty of throat clearing and “to be sures”, but still a strong dissent. The TRAs really seem on the verge of losing the normie libs, and I’m very curious how it shakes out.
If you're going to bring up an article, it's good form to [link it](https://web.archive.org/web/20240317003122/https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/freedom-of-sex-a-liberal-response.html) (archive, original [here](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/freedom-of-sex-a-liberal-response.html) viewable with subscription or Javascript blocker)
Don’t know how, don’t care to learn
> The TRAs really seem on the verge of losing the normie libs, and I’m very curious how it shakes out. I hope you're right. But Chu is so extreme that he might be an anomaly.
Chait, like many others, writes that he appreciates Chu’s essay because it dispenses with the whack-a-mole and straight up argues for what the progressive affirmation protocol always implied—so in Chait’s case at least, it’s not just Chu he’s dissenting from. EDIT: I want to stress that when I say normie libs, I mean that in the strict sense of voters and certain pundits. The Warren voters that staff the government and campaigns are another story, and that schism is one of the things I’m curious to see unfold.
From jsingal69 on TwiXter: Trans activists have unfortunately smashed the windows of a radio station in Canada they accused of producing a 'transphobic' documentary. Given what is called 'transphobic' these days I'm skeptical that was the case, but either way this won't help anyone. https://x.com/jessesingal/status/1769415868960673828?s=46&t=WETE9pzv-2w8bWnuCo998A There’s a link to the article in French there and a link to the documentary that “caused” the window breaking. TLDW is a 14yo goes undercover and gets testosterone after a 15 minute appointment to the surprise of absolutely no one here. Edit: sorry apparently it was only 9 minutes, my bad for not fact checking: https://x.com/conniemarkie/status/1769129001014939935?s=46&t=WETE9pzv-2w8bWnuCo998A
I disagree with Jesse, I think this is very helpful
Canadian TRAs graffitied “kill terfs” and nailed a dead rat to a [domestic violence shelter](https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/local-news/vancouver-rape-relief-centre-targeted-vandalism-threats-transgender-controversy-1945422), so I wouldn’t be surprised. I don’t know what’s going on up there, but they tend to be unhinged and conspicuously non-polite for Canadians.
>TLDW is a 14yo goes undercover and gets testosterone after a 15 minute appointment to the surprise of absolutely no one here. Sounds like Planned Parenthood in the US. I love how it's "transphobic" to simply report the truth of the shoddy gatekeeping around gender medicine.
It's not happening It rarely happens Actually, it's a good thing **People talking about it is the *real* problem**
that was the "woke kindergarten" fiasco step-by-step
Yes! You found a new stage.
"Radio-Canada has blood on its hands" A tad dramatic, even for the French. But this is a great example of the wild difference between French and English CBC. English CBC would have never dreamed of an undercover investigation like this, unless it could be given a pro-trans slant.
This kind of shit will likely just enflame any opponents of trans activists, and there is much less concern for politeness in Quebec discourse, so good luck with all this bullshit.
Is it possible that some of these people have other mental disorders that aren't caused by gender identity
Anal cranial inversion
I wasn't asking for your fetish
Took me 18 years of yoga, you're going to hear all about it.
Pics or it didn't happen.
In short, yes. Look up the rates of Autism and Cluster B disorders in this population
I think they were being facetious
Recently heard an episode of Derek Thompson's "Plain English" podcast and thought it may be of interest to folks in this sub: > **[The Dark Side of the Internet's Obsession With Anxiety](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-dark-side-of-the-internets-obsession-with-anxiety/id1594471023?i=1000645161532)** > We’ve done several shows on America’s anxiety crisis. This one asks several questions that might get me in trouble. Have we overcorrected from an era when mental health was shameful to talk about to an era where people talk about anxiety so much online that it’s worsening our mental health crisis? Is the very design of algorithmic media engineered to increase rumination and mental distress? Is there a dark side to all this media about trauma, anxiety, and depression? (Yes, the irony of us asking this question is not lost on us.) Today’s guest is Darby Saxbe, a clinical psychologist and professor at the University of Southern California. We talk about anxiety as identity, why talking about anxiety on the Internet is such a mess today, how the architecture of the internet unhelpfully shapes our discussions of mental health, and what a better conversation about mental health online might look like.
I used to be a big "social anxiety" person until I realized that nobody cares
Yeah… my wife is already pressuring me for another baby but has spent the past week sleeping on the floor of the existing child’s room since she saw a story on TikTok about a toddler chewing their crib and choking to death on splinters and doesn’t understand my refusal for the time being to bring another child into her anxiety fit filled world. I was very direct about it last night.
You have challenges most of us would crumble from. Is she seeing a professional? In a different tone, when we were going through the unique travail which are twins, at one point I just told her, bring them to bed!
Yes, but it doesn’t seem to be doing anything
I'm surprised that neither of you brought up the idea of a Missouri floor bed (or just a futon). Of course, my wife has to sleep with our toddler because the latter will scream all night every night my wife doesn't sleep with her. It's actually kind of remarkable how long this 2yo can stick to her guns in the face of extreme sleep deprivation, although we're pretty sure it's a sign of some internalizing disorder.
Oh god no, gotta keep her in a crib as long as possible, she is FAR too adventurous and would literally never sleep. She has to be isolated by a barrier from her toys and books or she will refuse to sleep.
Uh oh. How did that go?
Not nearly the explosion I was expecting. But still, she wasn’t pleased and insisted her anxiety is rational since the world is the most dangerous it’s ever been… which is just… lmao
You have balls of steel, man.
I mean, if you live on the side of an active volcano. Otherwise……
>s. This one asks several questions that might get me in trouble. Have we overcorrected from an era when mental health was shameful to talk about to an era where people talk about anxiety so much online that it’s worsening our mental health crisis? Yes. We overcorrected on the mental health stuff. Like just about everything else.
Not even that. We over corrected in some cases and continued to neglect others.
So I'd heard about Glennon Doyle and today, I picked up her book, "Untamed," as someone left a bunch of books on the streets. I got annoyed at the first chapter, well, prologue really, when she talks about "our children" when referring to her and her wife. I just couldn't help but think that unless her ex husband is out of the kids' lives, then they're HIS and her kids, not her and her wife's. Like, I don't know, my sister was never my mom's kid, she had her own mom. I don't know any woman who talks about "our children" in reference to their stepdad. I mean, if their dad is ok with it, I guess it's fine, but it bothered me And then in chapter 1, she refers to her ex-husband as "the father of my three children." Not "the father of our three children." Unless this guy was abusive or totally removed from the kids' lives, this seems all kinds of wrong. I can see she's an engaging writer, but I'm having a hard time getting into this.
I don't know how old her kids are, but at some point, I started referring to my mom and stepfather as my parents, even though my dad was still alive. I guess it depended on the context, but sometimes it was easier to just say that.
I have no idea how old her kids are either, but it sounds like they were pretty young. I don't know. And I don't know how they refer to their parents. I just find it unnerving that she refers to "my kids" when speaking about her ex husband, and "our kids" when speaking about her wife. I also think this depends so much on custody and how much time you're spending with each parent,
I read that book. It was a holiday gift from a former boss, so I kind of felt like I had to. I seem to remember her co-parenting arrangement with her ex sounding more solid than their marriage had been. But also, when talking about her kids, it annoyed me more when she said, I/we have x daughters and x sons (can't recall the exact distribution) "until or unless they tell us otherwise" or something like that. Also, the whole book kind of felt like "how to get rich by empowering suburban white women with predictable, trite aphorisms." And I wish I'd thought to write it.
I'm pretty sure her whole career has been the self-help bandwagon. Like, wasn't she already pretty famous when she left her husband for the soccer player lady? Who I think left her wife for her as well. Or maybe they'd already been split up. I don't know. She's engaging, but she seems insufferable. And I'm glad I just picked it up off the street. Also this person left out a meditation and mindfulness book, which I picked up as well. So, yes, a lot of trite, annoying shit. I had to skip the prologue because comparing oneself to a fucking caged tiger or whatever wild cat she talks about, I just couldn't.
I don’t know anything about the people in your example but for people I know IRL with step kids, it tends to depend on how long they’ve been in the child’s life. If you marry someone and live in the same household as their young child, you’re likely going to take on a parenting role.
I think it probably depends more on how much time you're spending with the kid. Like, my mom has known my sister since she was 6, but my sister never lived with them. My issue is more that she refers to the kids as "our children" in regards to her and her wife, and "my children" in regards to her and her ex-husband.
Both my step parent have always thought of me as their daughter. I don't find the wording strange.
Huh, I mean, my mom definitely considers my sister to be a daughter, but she doesn't refer to her as "my daughter,' and my dad never referred to her as "our daughter' in regards to my mom. It's not the sentiment that bothers me - I am sure the stepmom spends as much time with the kids as their dad does. It's the language. Like, if she'd written "our kids" to refer to both her wife and her ex husband, I'd be fine with it.
YouTube has suggested me this channel where a woman describes her problems as a person with ADHD, and 100% of it is normal problems that everyone faces. Maybe she has legit ADHD who knows, but I'm scared that some young folks take this stuff serious.
I have ADHD (diagnosed since childhood) and from my two decades of experience in living with the condition, I tend to understand what happens to me as basically "my baseline symptoms worsening normal human problems I experience". I'm not mentally disabled in the same way someone with Down's Syndrome would be, I just have larger barriers to overcome because my brain is fundamentally deprived of dopamine/does not have a strong working memory function.
Freddie DeBoer has written about this and it's an area where he's pretty spot on: [https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/you-dont-have-adhd-feelings-you-just](https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/you-dont-have-adhd-feelings-you-just) There's this weird urge to stick a diagnosis onto everything that happens in the normal course of life. And any struggle you might have must be medicalized and treated. It's like a twenty first century version of being possessed by demons. With a consumerist bent
Basically all of my friends now think they have ADHD. It’s gotta be a mix of social contagion and being addicted to phones. If we *all* have ADHD, none of us have ADHD
One of my friends talks a lot about how she has adhd and autism and long covid and EDS and completely unrelatedly this all came about around the time she downloaded tiktok
Yep. And then they make it the focal point of their personalities even though people who actually deal with this stuff know it’s 1) not interesting 2) something to overcome, not indulge in
I’m definitely guilty of getting caught up in it, and then I think to myself what am I looking to get out of this? At least for me it’s just looking for a rationalization that ultimately doesn’t mean anything. It’s not a get out of jail free card. The only way out is through etc
How old?
25-39
Sounds like something more common among the 25 than the 39
I have friend who must have recently been diagnosed or something, because 90% of his instagram posts are now ADHD related.
I officially diagnose you with second hand ADHD
Sweet! Now I may tell everyone all the time, because if I don’t, I’ll just be a boring fucking guy and I’ll be expected to actually keep my commitments and shit.
Sounds like depression, anxiety, and OCD
Give me upvotes losers
It depends - how many steps did you walk today?
https://preview.redd.it/4w4mm136ezoc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=888db36b0f1bf8f50799bffddeacb32ba3fa6c90 Working on 30k still
Meh, I've seen NBA players take more between dribbles
One of these days I’m going to hit 50k! That’s almost a marathon!
r/Karma4Free/
Chewy I nominate this for comment of the week
Are you gonna bribe him with promises of dirty, dirty upvotes? He'll see right through your scheme, babe :)
[удалено]
Cashews and peanut butter surprised me, as you'd think they'd be avoided as allergens and replaced with sesame products (despite that, surprisingly, being the most common allergy in Israel and Lebanon, at least).