force @ force @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

458

Joined

2 yr. ago

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.

Then you have a completely different definition of "reinforcement" from a majority of other people. Reinforcement is manipulating a being using conditioning methods like emotional reward/punishment in order to get them to do a specific behaviour. You can also use "reinforcement" to mean "supporting a person", but clearly that's not what you want.

I define treatment as attempting to correct the behaviors the disorder spurs on.

What is "correcting" gender dysphoria to you? Forcing them to feel uncomfortable in their bodies and tell them they're wrong for feeling that way, despite that not working and there being actual treatment that improves wellbeing available? It is erroneous to label gender-denying ""correcting"" as "treatment", and then deny gender-affirming care being treatment, your take is an insult to real science.

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.

Buddy I hate to tell you this but that's literally what disorders and treatments for those disorders are in this society. "Most people" don't need to take bipolar meds or conscioisly think about the tone inflection of others in every conversation they have. You finding it "abnormal" does not affect the validity of the disorders and treatments, because they are inherently abnormal. That's why they're CALLED disorders, because their presence does not align well with a neurotypical society.

Those who don't or can't feel comfortable within themselves should receive treatment either through therapy

Which is what gender affirming care is, and it WORKS.

or with a solution we will one day find.

Yeah it's pretty easy for a privileged person to say "don't use the effective treatment we currently have because I personally don't like it, and hope humanity finds something I do like in the future"

The reason this frustrates me is because the attitude is now to not look for a solution,

We have solutions. And we use them.

to not look for a treatment,

We have treatments. And we use them.

but to instead normalize the disorder because the effect is generally harmless.

What in god's name are you talking about? You sound like those people who said "stop normalizing the gays, homosexuality is a mental illness and letting people be homosexual is bad and disgusting and we should just correct them and tell them to be straight". Because that IS what they said. That is also what they said about women who "defied" men and refused to be controlled by men a long time ago.

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.

Ok but there is no way to do that. And the ideal is a fantasy. We have real science supported by the real fields of psychology and psychiatry by real medical professionals. We are being realistic, doing what is shown by science to be the most effective form of treatment, and doing what gives the best outcome for everyone.

Thinking you can (or should attempt to) invalidate people with gender dysphoria rather than affirm them is a fundamental (and likely intentional in this case) misunderstanding of what gender dysphoria actually is. You are disparaging the credibility of the scientific community, and doing that as someone who doesn't know anything about pyschology, because you don't like reality. You don't care if people with gender dysphoria suffer from your proposed anti-treatment because you don't care about them, you care about society appearing how you want it to appear.

Also this, lol:

If someone who has autism becomes extremely antisocial for instance,

When people use "antisocial" against Autistic people, they generally mean it as "I don't like how you act, I think you lack empathy, and you need to be normal". ASD does not make you antisocial. It makes your socializing tendencies appear VERY different from neurotypicals', and makes it far easier to connect with other neurodivergent people, but the only people who assert it actually makes you against socializing are clowns who know nothing about having Autism.

reinforcement would be allow them to continue that behavior

ASD treatment does not involve "correcting" who and how you tend to socialize with.

as well as support it by giving them blackout curtains, better locks,

You're not aware of this, but this is what people with Autism ACTUALLY OFTEN DO and is generally something that IMPROVES QUALITY OF LIFE. Fucking insane you act like this is "crazy" or harmful behaviour.

whatever would make that antisocial behavior stronger or more frequent.

Again, you clearly don't know what Autism is or how it's treated.

Using the same example, rather than pushing the person with autism to become more antisocial (even if it's comfortable)

I like how you're using being "pushed" as a way to pretend that people with gender dysphoria are being "pushed" into wanting gender affirming care. Unbelievable.

And "being pushed to be antisocial" is not at all what people with Autism find comfortable. Your beliefs on ASD and the treatment for it are inherently extremely wrong.

to instead gradually move away from that by introducing them to people (or whatever would be appropriate for their current needs).

The people with ASD who are socially hindered by their atypical mechanisms for social interaction and emotions, who want to do programs to "introduce" themselves to others, may. But this isn't a "right" or "wrong" thing to do, this isn't central to ASD treatment and doesn't address the issues of ASD, and this is only something someone does if they want to do it or if they're pressured/forced into doing it by others (usually family). Most people with Autism don't do this as part of treatment.

You are acting like ASD is some anti-social disorder that makes you socialize wrong which needs to be corrected. This is not at all true – people with ASD are very different from neurotypicals, which causes problems, but the approach isn't to "correct the Autism" or to try to make them be "normal". It's quite literally to do what makes them the most comfortable with their life, that is the point of the treatment, if they find they don't want to mask their ASD just because our society is extremely ableist and restrict the functioning of someone with ASD, then they won't mask their ASD.

First you have to define what you mean when you say "reinforcement" and then differentiate it from "treatment". Are you "reinforcing" Autism when you avoid situations where you're likely to encounter loud sounds and bright lights, or when you avoid large groups of people, etc.? Are you "reinforcing" ADHD when you choose to work a non-traditional schedule and job because that's what allows you to work with the disorder? Why is presenting as something other than your assigned gender suddenly "reinforcement of a mental illness" and not "treatment"? Where do you draw the line between "reinforcing it" and "accepting your condition changes who you are and requires you to live differently from others, and utilizing effective strategies and medications that may improve quality of life and reduce suffering in the long term"?

You give eating disorders the treatment they get because, without it, the disorder will severely harm the person. You give gender dysphoria the treatment it gets because proper treatment for the specific person's case, whether it's transitioning via using appropriate pronouns or being more open with their non-traditional behaviours or making efforts to outwardly appear non-traditionally or going through HRT etc., is effective at reducing harm related to the dysphoria. What you call "reinforcing" eating disorders is not comparable to gender affirming care because it does not have the same effects.

I also assume it counts bots too (which over 80% of Twitter users are)

it was nice while it lasted, which was until loud conservatives and ""libertarians"" started flooding in a few months later

i was even fine with the tankies, but the alt-right kit 'n caboodle is just too much

Attract more immigrants who have years of experience in specific high-qualification professions

You can get in there as someone who's worked as an engineer for 3 years or something, but it's unlikely for someone who's not an EU citizen to be able to get employment there to drive trams.

I would believe this

A "free market" is an idealist concept for something that can not exist in the real world under capitalism. In a system where resources are distributed based on capital, and resources themselves are capital, oligopolies and monopolies are logically inevitable and the market is never a level playing field.

The reality is that many goods and services have poor elasticity or are inelastic. A "free market" completely falls apart when it meets such variables. This includes healthcare – there is no economic incentive for the owning class to keep prices as low as possible, as people need healthcare and many times people will die without it. The way to make the most profit in that situation is for businesses in an area to simply make prices as high as legally possible and bury patients in debt, or for businesses to collaborate on price, etc.

This is doubly true when considering that people often don't have a choice as to where they go to receive healthcare in many scenarios, there is no "just go to a different hospital" or "just get an ambulance from a different provider" or even "stop going to the only doctor in your area and instead drive 2 hours away whenever you want to go see one, and you have to have a car to do that". So even in the completely unrealistic fake scenario that healthcare providers would otherwise have an incentive to "compete" on lowering price, this fact alone almost completely topples that. There is little to no choice a majority of the time.

People like to think of a "free market" but in real life the most profitable thing to do often times isn't a good outcome for consumers. Just look how fucked up privatized rail caused transport in the US to be. And look at the healthcare system... which has sucked ever since it was a market. And look at the parking meters in Chicago. The complete and utter failure of those systems isn't caused by "we regulate it too much". Public services becoming private just causes them to become anti-consumer.

This isn't healthcare-exclusive, but healthcare is so important and the system is so abusable that it must be owned by the public for society to be functional. A system where basic necessities aren't commoditized is the only solution to make sure people have free access to basic necessities.

Also you fail to consider that monopolies and oligopolies come from somewhere. That somewhere is the "free market". They didn't just spontaneously pop into existence because of big government or whatever, they came into existence because of the lack of regulation and still exist because of there being extremely poor regulation. It is just a fact of the capitalist free market that people with more capital than others have the capacity to gain more capital, and people with less capital are prone to lose capital. There is no system that isn't heavily regulated that consistently prevents a minority of entities in a market from accumulating a majority of resources over time. Corporatism emerges from free markets, and there is no solution short of extreme regulation for the problem (although the ideal solution is to just publicize all necessities and services important to the general population outright)

There are a lot of things illegal in Ukraine that are weird. One is dual citizenship; I guess it was specifically targetting Russia, to make it so you can't be a Ukrainian citizen if you're a Russian citizen, which makes sense. But it's been making matters complicated for Ukraine (especially recently with all the Ukrainian refugees in Europe who may have children with EU citizens or gain EU citizenship)

I have an Italian friend who has Ukrainian citizenship from their mother, right now they (and their mother) technically hold citizenship illegally according to Ukrainian law. They had been spending a lot of time trying to sort that stuff out with the Ukrainian embassy until the latest invasion started (the embassies became a bit occupied with more urgent matters)

femicide is rad

no it wouldn't, because this is OCR reference language

run this

isn't that the jet that used human dissolving fuel

I always thought Michigan was pretty anti-Republican, in a similar way to Illinois. But I'm pretty sure Michigan has a big problem with white rural/suburban conservatives, so my guess is they've become more emboldened and riled up recently due to the Republican radicalization, and they're more "passionate" about voting now than they were in previous elections – analogous to what happened with Democrats and blacks/latinos/liberal women in Georgia in the 2020 elections.

But that's just a hypothesis, I'm not exactly knowledgeable on Michigan... I'm from Georgia and am in the process of moving to Illinois.

There is a massive difference between never existing and taking existence away from someone that already has it

Why do you think the planet can't sustain some amount of people? It's not because we don't have enough space, we have plenty of space – especially if we prioritize car-free or low-car dense urban infrastructure design. The problem is we don't have enough resources. Even if we could send a bunch of people into space, that doesn't do anything for our problem at all. In fact, it just increases the strain on our resources.

Space stations require a lot of maintanence and monitoring, we can't just make a few billion of them and then hope it'll work out. It's far too complicated and unsustainable without very hard-to-find professionals. And a few easy mistakes by this completely untrained and unprofessional crew of an unimaginable amount of people can put everyone in danger. Whatever habitat could fit hundreds of thousands to millions of people has a TON of failure points, with our current technology it is in a sense too big to not catastrophically fail in a short time period. Space is dangerous, death is easy, sabatoging the entire vessel carrying everyone is easy, and maintaining one is extremely difficult and it would have many easy-to-miss potential problems. It's not as nice as video games make it out to be, especially considering those are usually hundreds of years in the future or in a totally different universe.

We're all going to die of worldwide war before we find any use in sending a million people into space, and we're going to die before we can even feasibly do it at all, probably. I would like to see it, but it's just a massive waste of resources if we're being realistic – there is nothing to achieve with it.

bruh i do software development, i don't need "excuses". i'm pointing out your ignorance of the real world

"the corporate ladder" is a fucking hoax lol, it is almost entirely only a concept for those born privileged

me with my aphantasia

it sucked. i don't even know how you could get it wrong, but they sure as hell went above and beyond to do it

Okay then, I'll ask you this. What can you demonstrate that you have prevented extremely large corporations or the government from doing with your information by replacing some of your services with "privacy-focused" services? Do you really think that, say, the NSA and Amazon don't know you better than you know yourself regardless of your efforts? What do you think is prevented by using some isolated services while you still, no doubt, have most of your data being collected and used by other things?

Could you prove that your life would be any different if, for example, every single piece of information Meta has about you that you don't know they have were wiped off of their servers? Or that anyone here's life would be different?

The only thing I could imagine you could demonstrate is that targetted ads could be "worse". Which is a non-answer, many peoples' ads are completely inaccurate regardless, and ads aren't such a good metric to base the government's or Nvidia's or whoever's access to your data off of.

Fact of the matter is is that, unless you're mega-Amish, your efforts to prevent powerful entities from collecting your data are meaningless, they don't work well, and without strong privacy laws it will forever be that way unless everyone suddenly agrees to only use FOSS user-friendly products and all the ISPs are replaced by good guys. I guess some people here have spent thousands of dollars and hours in an attempt to keep their privacy in their own hands in spite of that, so they have to convince themselves it does work... I don't blame them, government corruption & corporatism has made me desparate before too.

Sorry what? Rust has literally been known for having some of the most useful compiler warnings imaginable. It's like, a huge selling point. Misleading warnings are far and few, and usually it'll literally point you at the exact tokens that caused an error and gives you a solution to fix it.

Are you sure that your inability to write Rust isn't caused by a lack of understanding of the language's pointer/ownership/lifetime rules, or the type system? I would be inclined to believe that someone who mainly just uses Python (or any other GC'd language really, but especially extremely high-level/"low-code" dynamically-typed languages like Python/Lua/JavaScript) wouldn't exactly be too good at those concepts, but they're pretty important in the context of languages like Rust.