Gaywallet (they/it) @ Gaywallet @beehaw.org

I'm gay

---

Read more

Posts

213

Comments

763

Joined

3 yr. ago

Moderating

---

Honestly I would argue we need to expand our definition of what a mental illness is, in order to help these folks get treatment before they go and shoot a bunch of people.

With that being said I think it's important to call out this distinction for two major reasons. For one, it shines a light on the fact that someone having any mental illness does not mean they are going to go on a mass shooting. For two, it also shines a light on the fact that the people who do break in this way aren't understood well - if they don't classify neatly into the existing mental illnesses we have, we by definition do not have good research on the subject. Do patterns exist among this population of mass shooters that we can identify? Are there specific ways that they think which are maladjusted and can be corrected through existing education and mental health offerings? Might they belong to a larger group of illness which also includes other folks who are suffering in other ways, where studying this group might shed light on other folks who need help?

If ur bbq doesn't have vegetables you're gonna be strugglin on the toilet later, but hey chase your bliss I guess

Thank you for the kind words. Not updating is not a decision we have taken lightly. I can't speak to the specifics because I'm not tech enough to fully understand them, but I believe part of the reason for updating has to do with that migration off Lemmy - that it changes the way data is stored and organized and because of such the migration process (moving comments, threads, etc. to sublinks) would need to be entirely redesigned.

I just want to say that @TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org did a great job explaining some of the issues with your reply, but there's a few things that I want to focus on in your reply.

• It's easy to make the claim that you don't care about skin color, but it simply doesn't pan out. Here's a fairly long but comprehensive review on implicit bias training, which talks a bit about the prevalence and need for the training in the first place. In short, the literature proves that everyone has implicit biases - it's simply how our brains work. While some issues suffer from stronger biases than others, and the bias varies from person to person, it's always there.
• The idea of "not seeing" race may be an appealing one to state, but it's an over-correction. Try telling someone in a wheelchair that you "don't see disability" and see how they react. They're not going to be happy. You absolutely see their identity. What you mean to say is that their identity doesn't factor into your decision, which as I just stated in the last point is objectively incorrect. At best we can work to minimize how one's identity shapes our decisions.
• Racism can only have certain victims. Racism is the interaction between prejudice and power. The reason it's defined like this is the same reason we talk about the paradox of tolerance. Punching a Nazi is technically violence, but there's a difference between hateful violence and defensive violence. While you can classify people being prejudiced against white folks as racism, there's a similar distinction between prejudice and racism that applies here. To be clear, I do want you to be reporting any kind of prejudice that occurs on Beehaw, but we need to define and describe the differences because the inclusion of power and minority status are important here.
• Just because you don't think something is a problem doesn't mean it's not a problem. Someone who has a different identity than you, or who spends time in spaces you don't is sharing something. Telling them they are wrong or that they are imagining things is not a nice thing to do - if you don't think it's an issue, then don't reply. If you do think it's an issue, frame it differently - rather than accusing them of trying to shame white people, how about simply framing things through your own eyes. Don't say that they are trying to shame people, instead say this is making you feel ashamed or angry.

Everytime discussions like this pop up, I can't help but ponder upon how other people view language. Words are not universal. Perhaps it's my neurodivergence or the fact that I've studied language, but I've always found it odd that others can prescribe such meaning to a single word, or for a word to have a strict definition absent context. I don't know a single word in any language which only has a single definition- nearly every word has multiple definitions because it's a reflection of how language is abstract. We create words to convey ideas, which are often ethereal in nature- they often lack clear boundaries.

But more than that, we internalize definitions much more often than we look them up. We use language based on how the people around us use language. We pick up their sayings, the slang they use, the way they structure grammar, the things they emphasize and minimize, and the words they borrow from other languages. Any slur that's been used on you is something you will carry with you and will hold more weight that slurs which are used on others because the experience is tied to an emotional state. But it goes further than that, happy words which are tied to happy memories will have a different connotation than happy words which you've never used or never been exposed to. Language is inherently human and therefore inherently emotionally charged and socially defined.

Unfortunately you can never control how others use language. How you view a word cannot be the same as everyone else, because they haven't lived your life. For some, weird may be empowering - a way to step into and own their eccentricity and difference; a celebration of diversity. Some may have never heard it used in the contexts you've mentioned. Others still may have experienced both othering and reclamation. Ultimately language will continue to be used whether you are comfortable with it or not. I've personally found that leaning into language which has been used against me negatively has helped to disempower it and the more I reclaim that language the less it bothers me and the more I view it as a source of pride.

Fantastic article, thanks!

This is blatant doublespeak, and has been removed because of such.

The author touches on this near the beginning-

Winamp skins are actually just zip files with a different file extension

So they're treating them like archives and extracting them

I'm going to treat you with good faith and assume you were using "cool man" in the same way someone might say "that's just like your opinion man", as a saying, but I will remind you that this person has their pronouns in their display name and you need to respect them.

But they do exist, and while it's great to be optimistic about a future in which they don't exist, it's also counterproductive to advocate against a better future which is much more likely to exist.

How about, in addition to attempting to publish null results in existing journals, you also publish them in free online federated databases? Or better yet, work to establish a federated database which focuses on publishing null results to serve as a repository for articles which seem to struggle with getting published, so that scientists can draw upon it as a useful resource.

I can't imagine who possibly lobbied for this and why it's focused only on artists and journalists

this poll is homophobic, gays are not good enough at math to know the difference between countably and uncountably infinite /s

duplicate of https://beehaw.org/post/15113153?scrollToComments=true

I'm not sure why there's the need to rebrand confidence to the term dominance, but I generally agree with the author. With that being said, I'm not sure I fully understand what dominance means or where the data comes from. It feels like there might be some cherry-picking here, because upon reflection I think even many centrist dems do draw hard lines in the sand on certain issues. In general I agree with the praise for MLK and for being more uncompromising on the issues that matter, and I also agree strongly with how important a positive uplifting message (It's how AOC and many of the true progressives got elected) is and how very few democrats actually execute on this.

Your first sentence was passive aggressive. You suggested that the person is not worthy to judge, based on your own judgement of the show, and you suggested that they don't have a basis to form a judgement based on their lack of watch history. Here it is, for posterity-

You need to watch more shows if you think Fallout was worth awards.

Also, welcome to Beehaw! We tend to be a bit more hands on when it comes to moderation. A reminder to be nice is just a reminder. It's not a warning. I'm not going to ban you. This is about setting the tone for discussion and helping ensure that posts don't go off the rails or that fights don't start. If that's not your vibe, that's okay too! You don't have to participate here 💜

Being passive aggressive about taste of all things, is not nice. This is your reminder to be(e) nice on this instance.

Great thought process! Yes, fMRI imaging is very vulnerable to p-hacking, which is more or less what the dead fish paper is pointing out (even when properly calibrated, it's a problem with how noisy the raw data is in the first place). By classifying broad patterns, however, you eliminate some of the noise that the dead fish paper is showing can be problematic by abstracting away from whether micro structures meet statistical probability for being activation and move that to the more macro. While the dead fish paper may have shown activity in specific areas, if you were then to look at activity across larger portions or the entire brain, you would detect no statistical difference with rest (or dead fish, in this case).

Furthermore, this study doesn't stop there- it asks the question of whether these groupings tell us anything about these groups with regards to treatment. Each group is split up into subgroups based on treatment modality. These different treatments (therapy, drugs, etc.) are compared from group to group to see if any of these broad groupings by the fMRI machine make any kind of clinical sense. If the fMRI grouping was complete bogus and p-hacked, the treatment groups would show no difference between each other. This two step process ensures that bogus groups and groups which do not have any difference in clinical treatment outcomes are lost along the way via statistical rigor.

Completely agreed, which is why it's promising that they're looking for patterns rather than specific areas of activation and they are pairing up findings with treatment and using statistics to see if certain treatment modalities work better for certain broad patterns.

If you can’t show sympathy, are you different to him?

I understand what you are getting at, but he doesn't deserve sympathy. This man has directly made the world significantly worse, by inflicting and inciting violence on others. If you do not wish to get involved in a violent act in order to decrease the total amount of violence in the world, that's perfectly reasonable. I also think it's fine to decide that violence is not for you, and wish to have no part in it while also recognizing that violence happens in the world and sometimes the outcome of that violence is for the better or for the worse.

I personally strive to commit as little violence as possible in the world. I'm a peaceful person who wishes to uplift and care for others. But I also have very little sympathy for folks who are violent towards others, because they are actively making the world worse. In a perfect society, we could rehabilitate or humanely control/prevent this violence, but we do not live in a perfect society. I cannot be tolerant of the intolerant because it feels better to hope for their salvation. This world demands that we be intolerant of those who advocate for violence because the outcomes when we tolerate them are horrific and result in much more violence and tragedy in the world.

This is just a reminder to be nice on our instance - this could be read as hostile or not extending good faith to the other user.