E-waste is growing 5x faster than it's recycled, says UN
Not sure which one you mean but I have a feeling it's a lot like the resin identification code where it looks like the recycling symbol but isn't. It's to make you think it can be recycled so you don't feel as bad about buying it and throwing it away.
Thanks for confirming my statement that you losers can't keep politics out of this and that you're more interested in keeping your protected, victimized class of people than getting sick people actual help. So much so you'd rather enable mental disorders than seek actual treatment to make them comfortable in the bodies they have rather than change their bodies to suit the disorder.
You're a fucking monster, no different from the Christians with their shock therapy.
Are you volunteering your basement as storage location for nuclear waste?
Yes, absolutely. Kyle hill has many videos. One where he's kissing a barrel of nuclear waste. You have a very outdated idea of what modern nuclear energy is and I highly suggest actually clicking the link I provided.
It's funny how the people who rally the hardest against nuclear have no fucking idea what it is beyond the disasters.
Snazzy. Let us hope he can't even afford the $175m.
No you just don't like the terminology I use which is standard for people who mistake pretention for virtues. You know what I mean when I say 'normal' but insist on extrapolating it so you can wiggle in your bias so it fits. Never said "force people to be more 'normal'" so that's some cool quotes you pulled out of your ass, curious how you got them past your head like that.
Allowing someone with a mental disorder to undergo surgery which can be potentially irreversible isn't comparable to the self harm that often accompanies anorexics? Last I checked we don't allow anyone with body dysmorphia to change their bodies to be closer to that dysmorphic view but maybe that's an 'outdated' look on mental disorders.
When you get tired of fighting a strawman, positions I never took, feel free to reply again. I never at any point said anyone with a disorder should be forced into anything. I expressed that treatments should be sought after and not disregarded because 'reinforcing them gives a more fulfilling life' as opposed to what? Not having the disorder? I would rather us find a way to make us comfortable in our own bodies than give up looking because "well we can't force people with mental disorders to be 'normal'! They're fine just the way they are!"
What of those with the disorder who transition and regret it? Were we in the right for pushing them to 'give them the most fulfilling life they can have'? To now be forced to live with a body that's forever scarred, to live with the pain they'll never be who they were again. I'm sick of those like you who are so eager to foster a new marginalized class that they fail to see these people need fucking help. Actual assistance. They aren't just your buddies to be given flags, symbols, and marketed as your lost, victimized pets. But I guess it's way too late for that.
Then according to you, satire is dead. Time to hold a vigil.
A large majority of the internet is dumb and unnecessary.
Jokes often rely on you being able to figure them out without explicit explanation, giving room for misinterpretation.
Removing the potential for misinterpretation is not always a good thing.
I've met people who say things that should have a sarcastic inflection - without the inflection.
Yes, it's very hard to understand if they're joking and yes, we sometimes have to ask them if they're kidding, but not all the time. Some things are so absurd, so outlandish, phrased in such a way that explicitly explaining it was a joke can ruin the joke. Yes, clear communication in some instances should take priority over the joke in cases where being misunderstood as serious would have consequences, social or otherwise.
But I really don't think anyone here reasonably believed OP valued a phone with a ten year lifespan over the life of a child, nor that we should be using a foreign country as a waste dump until they're 'at capacity'. I think at some point you have to make the determination that something is so absurd that even if you can't tell it's sarcasm, you should be able to tell they're not serious.
If it was a realistic, affordable solution we’d be doing it.
No, if it wasn't lobbied against and fearmongered by oil and coal, public sentiment would support it and funding would go along with it. If you think it's cheaper to throw massive solar panels into every open field and that we'd get anywhere approaching the energy a nuclear power plant could produce then you've lost the plot.
it isn’t just paranoia about nuclear accidents.
Yes it is.
Building a nuclear plant takes ten years minimum and it’s incredibly expensive,
The energy output offsets the cost faster than alternatives and if we started ten years ago we'd have them by now. Not starting right now because you think it's too late is the reason they weren't built a decade ago. Some kind of fuckin reverse sunk cost fallacy with you people. Also, ten years minimum? Some have been built in three years.
The issue of waste from solar is real, but the fact is even with that waste it’s done far more to reduce emissions than nuclear ever has or ever could.
Dumbest shit you've said in this post so I'm glad you left it till last. Since 1971 Nuclear Power is estimated to have prevented 64 trillion gigatons of carbon emissions. To put it into perspective, that's the amount the United States would generate if we powered ourselves completely with coal for 35 years. The positive climate impact of nuclear is so incomprehensibly superior to renewables that your stance against it isn't just stupid - it's costing lives.
But the point of sarcasm is to be an undertone, using /s makes it a strong overtone to the point you may as well just say "I'm being sarcastic" after you finish.
It's about as bad as explaining a joke, which is not a good thing.
While I definitely get that it's becoming harder to distinguish sarcasm from the truly insane, I think he sufficiently crossed the chasm of doubt by implying Ghana should continue to be the dumping ground for the West and again when he equated the value of a Ghanaian child's life to a phone.
People who actually believe that stuff try to hide it a little better. For now.
Well, the 'nuclear fanatics' are probably the best bet for actually saving the climate. The energy to waste ratio makes renewable energy look like a squirt gun compared to a fire hose. Even including the nuclear disasters of Chernobyl and Fukushima, renewable energy is more dangerous to human life.
If you care to learn in video format, Kyle Hill has done an invaluable service illustrating very important things about nuclear energy.
I know we left reddit but https://www.reddit.com/r/FuckTheS/
"Come on guys, solar panels don't make that much waste. Besides, it's renewable!"
"Nuclear Fission is dangerous, we shouldn't make more power plants, invest in things like solar!"
Don't mind me, just waving my tiny "I was right" flag as we drown in our own hubris.
I didn't think I had to define basic words but if I have to, sure. I define reinforcement as supporting behaviors that are symptoms of the disorder. If someone who has autism becomes extremely antisocial for instance, reinforcement would be allow them to continue that behavior as well as support it by giving them blackout curtains, better locks, whatever would make that antisocial behavior stronger or more frequent. I define treatment as attempting to correct the behaviors the disorder spurs on. Using the same example, rather than pushing the person with autism to become more antisocial (even if it's comfortable) to instead gradually move away from that by introducing them to people (or whatever would be appropriate for their current needs).
Why is presenting as something other than your assigned gender suddenly “reinforcement of a mental illness” and not “treatment”?
Because the vast majority of people do not feel the need to present as something other than their assigned gender. Most people, nearly all of them, are comfortable in their own body with the gender they are and the thought of changing that never crosses their mind. Those who don't or can't feel comfortable within themselves should receive treatment either through therapy or with a solution we will one day find.
The reason this frustrates me is because the attitude is now to not look for a solution, to not look for a treatment, but to instead normalize the disorder because the effect is generally harmless. Ideally, I'd like everyone to feel comfortable in their body from the day they're born to the day they die and I think it's worth looking for a way to do that.
Gender dysphoria is to my knowledge still in the DSM
There was a brief period it was removed from a revision, then reapplied in the next with added stipulations such as "A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and natal gender of at least 6 months in duration" which didn't exist previously.
[citation needed]
Do you not understand the basis for gender affirming care? When someone changes their sex through surgery, takes hormone blockers, or makes some other physical alteration to their body it stands to reason it's because they're dissatisfied with how their body currently is. So much so it becomes an overwhelming preoccupation out of a perceived flaw that needs to be corrected. Otherwise why do it at all? Why undergo surgery if you're satisfied and comfortable with how you are presently?
Because gender affirming care is a successful treatment and works for reducing the distress, as opposed to stuff like conversion therapy, which does not.
Affirming a mental illness, while it can successfully reduce stress, usually isn't permitted because of what you say right after this.
Affirming
eating disorders orbody dysmorphic disorders does not help treat them.
All other types of body dysmorphic disorders are treated as illnesses which should be corrected and cured, not reinforced and supported. So either gender dysphoria (which can be accompanied by body dysmorphia) is just very very special or we've taken this approach because feeding into the illness is easier than curing it. Slap on a layer of politics about how they're a marginalized group that should be protected and now any level of critique is hate or a phobia.
I'm not interested in placating mental disorders. Your political talking points are worn out.
I should probably also make it crystal clear I don't support conversion 'therapy' in the slightest - just want us to actually look for a cure or treatment rather than just shrug our shoulders and say 'yeah reinforce it, it's not a big deal.' and move on.
Well sure we have millions who actually voted for a dehydrated mango who tried to overthrow the government to become God emperor. Many of whom still support him afterwards. Trust me I get it.
Yet it was removed from the DSM-5 due to pressure from people outside the science community insisting that gender dysphoria isn't a mental illness and that it should be reinforced through gender affirming care. That gender affirming care often coming hand in hand with body dysmorphia.
My point is I can't figure out why this is the only mental illness that is reinforced and supported rather than treated. For instance we dont let anorexics make themselves skinny so their dysmorphia goes away, we use corrective therapy.
The only thing I can reason as to why the former is the way it is, is politics.
Sitting on 18k in debt. I'd actually have a car instead of half a degree and a thumbs up from ECPI. Casino would be good too.
I can't literally put them in my basement, Fred. They're in my state already and I support them existing. What do you want from me?