Tarnstellung
No bio...
User ID: 553
Tarnstellung
2mo ago
As a final note, in a sane society these remote Middle-Eastern squabbles should not have been a major issue in the domestic politics of various Western countries. But we are now well past that point in Europe.
The UK chose to get involved in this particular conflict a hundred years ago. Don't blame this on Muslim immigrants.
Tarnstellung
2mo ago
I was not trying to create any kind of general debate about the history of the conflict. I was only making a very narrow point: that "remote Middle-Eastern squabbles" have been causing political controversy in the UK since long before any significant Muslim immigration.
Tarnstellung
2mo ago
The fate of the newly liberated Arab lands after World War I was most certainly a political issue in the UK. There was much debate both among politicians and in the public. The British public was apparently very sympathetic due to the Arabs' contribution to the victory so official British support for Zionism was in fact very controversial, as was the Anglo-French partition and occupation. All this with the number of Muslims actually living in the UK being a rounding error.
Tarnstellung
3mo ago
The standard response to "modern music sucks" is that it's all survivorship bias, i.e., the music from the 60s that sucked was forgotten about. This could just as easily apply to political philosophy and everything else. Have you considered this possibility?
I think that's a trend that's common with environmental regulations. Whether it's CFL bulbs, paper straws, gas stoves or low flow toilets, consumers get stuck with an inferior substitute and the alleged crisis never seems to actually get solved.
Lest someone conclude that environmental regulation never works and only serves to make people's lives worse without addressing the actual problem:
-
CFC refrigerants are banned, the ozone layer is recovering, and modern fridges are perfectly fine.
-
Leaded petrol is banned, lead is no longer being constantly spewed in people's faces, and modern petrol cars are perfectly fine.
-
SO2 and NOx emissions are restricted, acid rain has been greatly reduced, and modern vehicles are perfectly fine.
-
DDT is banned, bird populations have recovered, and food production is perfectly fine.
These aren't just random examples – these four were some of the biggest environmental problems of the 20th century, and they have all been solved with minimal harm to consumers. (The others were nuclear energy (which wasn't a problem at all, the only problem with nuclear powerplants is that we don't build enough of them) and anthropogenic climate change (which hasn't been solved because no laws that would actually solve it have been enacted).)
Regulators were overeager to promote CFLs which ended up not being very good, but in time LED technology was developed and incandescent lightbulbs have now been completely phased out in favour of much more efficient lighting, so the original goal has in fact been achieved. LED lighting is still not a perfect substitute due to colour problems, but this is a technical problem that will be solved eventually.
The "Communist Party of Britain" is a tiny Stalinist sect. The CPB should not be confused with the Communist Party of Great Britain. The CPB was formed as an offshoot of the slightly more mainstream CPGB in the 1980s when the leadership of the latter decided "hm, maybe totalitarianism and mass murder is bad". From the first paragraph of the CPB's Wikipedia article:
It is affiliated nationally to the Cuba Solidarity Campaign[10] and the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign. (...) After the fall of the Soviet Union, the party was one of two original British signatories to the Pyongyang Declaration.
The Pyongyang Declaration:
The Pyongyang Declaration, officially titled Let Us Defend and Advance the Cause of Socialism, was a statement signed by a number of political parties on 20 April 1992 that calls for the unity of the socialist camp and a vow to safeguard socialism. Representatives of 70 communist and socialist parties from 51 countries arrived in Pyongyang to celebrate Kim Il-sung's 80th birthday.
So you would side with (even vote for!) these Stalinists, North Korea apologists, wannabe mass murderers, these certified lunatics, because they said "trans bad"?
You will surely understand why your post doesn't make me more sympathetic to the anti-trans side.
Tarnstellung
3mo ago
The effects of the radiation etc. are perhaps somewhat exaggerated, but nuclear weapons are still incredibly destructive. A single nuke can drop on more heads than a thousand conventional artillery shells, bombs or missiles.
Tarnstellung
10mo ago
I happen to agree with your overall point, but I think your post breaks basically every rule that this website has. This is not Rdrama. Your post is almost entirely sneering without any actual arguments.
Tarnstellung
10mo ago
None of these one-liners, if posted individually, would come even close to meeting the thread's quality standards. I don't think combining them into one huge (and very unwieldy) post makes up for it. It's the same as posting them one by one sequentially, except the format makes it even harder to discuss. (After writing this, I saw that @iprayiam3 said basically the same thing.) If you didn't want any discussion here and this was just an invitation to chat with you, that belongs in the Sunday or Friday thread, not here.
Another problem with your list:
\28. “It is not possible to be a good criminal defense lawyer AND a good person.” Pro
This is just asking how you personally should feel about the lawyers. It doesn't result in any policy prescriptions. Weird to include it together with the much more concrete questions like 7 and 19.
In general, you mix strictly normative questions (28, 39, 40, 48), strictly positive, empirical questions (6, 7, 11, 19, 22) and questions that are a complicated mix of both:
-
9 requires you to define "feminist" (there are many very different definitions and settling on one, even just for the purpose of a single discussion, may not be easy) and "bad" (which requires an entire moral theory), followed by a complicated discussion of empirical questions
-
30, again, requires a moral theory to define what it means to "deserve" something and what is "fair", followed by a complicated discussion of empirical questions; for example, two people may agree that the poor deserve to be poor if equality of opportunity exists and the poor are just lazy, but they may disagree on the empirical question of whether equality of opportunity does in fact exist; or they may simply believe, as you apparently do (per 51), that equality of opportunity is morally undesirable
Dear "revisionists", where are all the Jews?
A couple of months ago, I had a discussion with the self-proclaimed "revisionist" @SecureSignals concerning the veracity of the Holocaust, always a fun topic.
There was a bit of back-and-forth on the archaeological evidence and witness testimony, which I eventually gave up on because SS (very subtle username, by the way) clearly knew much more about the subject than me, and could thus, as the saying goes, drag me down to his level and beat me with experience. Calculating the number of corpses that can fit in a given volume definitely felt like I was being dragged down a few levels.
A more fruitful line of questioning is that of where millions of Jews disappeared to. In response to SS's accusation that:
It's astounding how much nonsense you are willing to believe without any concrete physical evidence or without the claims even being remotely possible. But believing this story requires belief in the impossible, because the official narrative makes impossible claims only supported by witnesses who lack credibility and have an obvious motive to lie.
I said:
The best piece of physical evidence I have is the missing six million Jews. Where did they all go? If Treblinka was merely a transit camp, where did the Jews transit afterwards? Compare the pre-war and post-war census data in Europe, especially Eastern Europe. Even accounting for emigration, millions of Jews disappeared.
In general, I think census data is a reliable source for estimating the number of victims. I'm not familiar with the details of the Holocaust in Europe as a whole, so the best example I can provide is the Jasenovac concentration camp. Shortly after WWII, it was estimated that around 600,000 people were killed there. These estimates were widely accepted, including by the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust and the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Later claims went as high as a million or more. In the 1980s, two researchers independently arrived at much lower estimates based on demographic data. Eventually, after the end of communist censorship, a new consensus formed that the number of victims is around 100,000, an order of magnitude lower than previous estimates.
This shows that it is entirely to possible for new research to greatly lower the estimated number of victims. There is no conspiracy to suppress the truth. Indeed, despite the number six million being embedded in popular culture, some credible historians place it at closer to five million. Yad Vashem says "the number of victims was between five and six million".
SS replied with arguments as to why the "official narrative" on Treblinka is implausible, which I was unable to argue against because, as I said, I'm not familiar with all the details of every Nazi camp. It is possible that the consensus figures for a single camp are wrong. As in the Jasenovac example, this has already happened (though it should be noted that most of the victims at Jasenovac were not Jewish). Even if true, this is at most evidence that the consensus on Treblinka is incorrect. It says nothing about the other camps, where the vast majority of the murders happened. In my reply, I said:
You clearly know much more about Treblinka than I do, so I'm not sure if I can provide any good counterarguments. Let's suppose, then, for the sake of the argument, that the archaeological evidence for the "official narrative" is insufficient. That means we don't know what exactly was done with the Jews.
Other evidence exists for the claim that over 700,000 people were killed at Treblinka, such as the Höfle Telegram and the Korherr Report. But looking at them, thanks to the euphemisms used, I suppose they might also be interpreted as supporting the transit camp theory.
However, you did not address the question in my previous post: if Treblinka was merely a transit camp, where did the Jews transit from there? Where were the hundreds of thousands of eyewitnesses after the war who testified that they passed through Treblinka and were peacefully resettled?
And more broadly, demographic data has millions of Jews unaccounted for after the war. Where did they all go? Or do you accept the rest of the "official narrative" and are only sceptical with regard to Treblinka? Auschwitz had proper crematoria, with fuel and everything – do you believe that over a million people were killed there?
As far as I can tell, SS never addressed any of this. It seems some of the comments in the thread have since been deleted, which apparently hides all child comments when viewing the thread directly, though they are still visible on the profile page. This makes it hard to reconstruct the exchange, but looking at SS's profile, I can't find anything where he addressed my argument. From his post below on Holocaust education, we can infer that he does indeed believe that not just Treblinka but the entire Holocaust is fake, a position for which he has not provided any evidence.
So, to SS and any other "revisionists" who may be lurking: Where are all the Jews?
Tarnstellung
10mo ago
If you say that HRT is less harmful for children than sex with an adult, you need to be able to substantiate your claim.
Given that one is a medical treatment and the other a criminal offence, our prior should be that it is less harmful, and the burden of proof is on you to substantiate your claim.
But okay, I'll try. Google gives me the meta-analysis article Hormone Therapy, Mental Health, and Quality of Life Among Transgender People: A Systematic Review, which concludes:
This systematic review of 20 studies found evidence that gender-affirming hormone therapy may be associated with improvements in QOL scores and decreases in depression and anxiety symptoms among transgender people. Associations were similar across gender identity and age. The strength of evidence for these conclusions is low due to methodological limitations
It includes four studies on minors:
-
de Vries, 2011 reports positive outcomes, however, it only looks at puberty blockers, not cross-sex hormones
-
de Vries, 2014 looks at puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgery, and reports positive outcomes
-
Achille, 2020 looks at puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, and reports positive outcomes
-
López de Lara, 2020 looks at "cross hormonal therapy", which I assume is the same as cross-sex hormones, and reports positive outcomes
This post has a summary of the long-term effects of child sexual abuse, including "consensual" statutory rape, with an extensive list of references. It says, among other things:
There have been numerous studies examining the association between a history of CSA and mental health problems in adult life that have employed clinical samples, convenience samples (usually students), and random community samples. There is now an established body of knowledge clearly linking a history of CSA with higher rates in adult life of depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, substance abuse disorders, eating disorders and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Briere & Runtz 1988; Winfield et al. 1990; Bushnell et al. 1992; Mullen et al. 1993; Romans et al. 1995; Romans et al. 1997; Fergusson et al. 1996a; Fergusson et al. 1996b; Silverman et al. 1996; Fleming et al. 1998; Fleming et al. 1999). A more controversial literature links multiple personality disorder with CSA (Bucky & Dallenberg 1992; Spanos 1996).
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
On Thursday, the Tallahassee Democrat reported that the principal of a local charter school, the Tallahassee Classical School, was forced to resign after three parents complained about an art teacher showing a picture of Michelangelo’s 16th-century sculpture of David.
Reading the entire interview, the school board comes out looking only slightly more reasonable than was portrayed in the "mainstream media".
The chair of the school board, Barney Bishop III, insists that the David incident was only a small contributing factor, but when asked to elaborate why the board decided to pressure the principal to resign, he says:
based on counsel from our employment lawyer, I’m not going to get into the reasons.
To me, the overall tone of Bishop's statements suggests that the David incident was in fact a major reason, if not the sole reason, for the firing (sorry, "resignation under pressure"). Bishop says:
The teacher mentioned that this was a nonpornographic picture, No. 1. The teacher said, “Don’t tell your parents,” No. 2. (...) Three parents objected. Two objected simply because they weren’t told in advance. One objected because the teacher said nonpornography. Nonpornography—that’s a red flag. And of course telling the students, “Don’t tell your parents”—that’s a huge red flag!
The interview doesn't say in what context the teacher told the students not to tell their parents or that the images were not pornographic. (Maybe the original article does? I haven't read it because it's paywalled.) Out of context, it does sound suspicious. I suppose the first could have been a joke. As for the second, I'm not sure why the teacher would need to tell the students in the classroom that the images were not pornographic. In any case, my priors are that it is extremely unlikely that the teacher was a "groomer" trying to sexualize the kids.
The year before, the school had notified the parents that their children, who are 11 and 12 years old, were going to be exposed to the horror of a statue depicting a human. This year, the teacher teaching the class told the principal (the one who was later fired) to send out a similar notice, but the principal apparently forgot. This is an "egregious mistake":
98 percent of the parents didn’t have a problem with it. But that doesn’t matter, because we didn’t follow a practice. We have a practice. Last year, the school sent out an advance notice about it. Parents should know: In class, students are going to see or hear or talk about this. This year, we didn’t send out that notice. (...) This year, we made an egregious mistake. We didn’t send that notice.
Michelangelo's sculpture of David is "controversial":
Well, we’re Florida, OK? Parents will decide. Parents are the ones who are going to drive the education system here in Florida. The governor said that, and we’re with the governor. Parents don’t decide what is taught. But parents know what that curriculum is. And parents are entitled to know anytime their child is being taught a controversial topic and picture.
Parents choose this school because they want a certain kind of education. We’re not gonna have courses from the College Board. We’re not gonna teach 1619 or CRT crap. I know they do all that up in Virginia. The rights of parents, that trumps the rights of kids. Teachers are the experts? Teachers have all the knowledge? Are you kidding me? I know lots of teachers that are very good, but to suggest they are the authorities, you’re on better drugs than me.
The interview ends with the reporter saying "I just don’t think this statue is controversial", to which Bishop responds:
We’re not going to show the full statue of David to kindergartners. We’re not going to show him to second graders. Showing the entire statue of David is appropriate at some age. We’re going to figure out when that is.
And you don’t have to show the whole statue! Maybe to kindergartners we only show the head. You can appreciate that. You can show the hands, the arms, the muscles, the beautiful work Michelangelo did in marble, without showing the whole thing.
An article in the BBC relates this to the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act, AKA the "Don't Say Gay" Bill. Personally, I think it's just typical American prudishness. In other Western countries, it is perfectly normal and unremarkable for statues with exposed penises and breasts (non-pornographic, of course) to be displayed in public, where they are easily seen by children of all ages.
At one point, in describing the school, Bishop says:
We don’t use pronouns.
Obviously the sentence is false if taken literally, as critics have pointed out. But does anyone know what he might have actually meant? They don't have pronoun badges? They don't put pronouns in their email signatures? They don't use trans people's preferred pronouns? I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious as to what leads people to say nonsensical things like this, what they understand the word "pronoun" to mean.
Did anything come of /u/MaxwellHill?
For those unfamiliar, /u/MaxwellHill is a Reddit account that moderated a bunch of big subreddits and posted a lot, many of their posts being highly upvoted and widely seen. In short, it was very influential on Reddit. When Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested, the account suddenly stopped posting (and it hasn't posted since). Some people noticed this, and, speculating that Maxwell herself was behind the account, started looking through its posts. They found some more circumstantial evidence, like a mix of British and American English (Maxwell moved between the two countries), and breaks in posting lasting a few days at a time that lined up with major events in Maxwell's life, during which she would have been distracted or busy. There's much more to it than this; you can read a summary here.
The little media coverage it received at the time was of course entirely dismissive; see for example the article in Vice.
I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories – I think Epstein may well have killed himself, for example – but this one aroused my suspicion at the time, and it's strange how it suddenly fizzled out. The Vice article above mentions private messages exchanged between /u/MaxwellHill and some other moderators (there are screenshots out there, but those are trivial to fake), but if the person behind the account was still there, why did they stop posting, and why haven't they started again after over two years?
If it was Maxwell, why didn't she give the password to someone to make a post and remove any suspicion? "Hi, I'm still here and I'm not Ghislaine Maxwell, but I'm going to abandon this account because of all the harassment I've been receiving." (Whether there was any harassment is irrelevant.) Would she have been prevented from doing this? I assume she was able to communicate with her lawyer, at least.
At the time, it was speculated that Reddit wanted to cover this up, as it would be embarrassing if it was revealed that one of their most influential users was an international child trafficker. Why didn't they just take control of the account and post something? Surely the admins can do this. Or just edit the database manually, as /u/spez infamously did. To me it seems like they wanted to sweep it under the carpet, and they thought any activity would just bring more attention. If this was their strategy, it appears to have worked.
Tarnstellung
4mo ago
In fact I can't think of any instance of a nation being in favour of getting rid of a minority along with the territory they occupy, no matter how vexatious; being big and relevant is evidently one hell of a drug.
Singapore was kicked out of Malaysia due to ethnic tensions.
Also the South African Bantustans, but that was half-assed and no other country recognized them so they ultimately gave up.
Safety: The Chernobyl reactor was an ancient Soviet design. Modern designs are much safer and more resistant to human error. With a failsafe design, there is no possibility of a black swan event. A black swan event is by definition unpredictable, but for a reactor it is in fact possible to predict and account for all possible failure modes.
As for military attacks on nuclear plants, the very worst that could happen is a Chernobyl-type scenario where a city-sized area is contaminated. There is no global risk. Most likely, even in a direct strike on a reactor, the contamination wouldn't be nearly as bad. Nuclear plants have insane security, so a terrorist attack or sabotage couldn't do very much. And it should be noted that hydro plants are also vulnerable to attacks (and even random failures) that could result in large-scale destruction, including thousands of direct and immediate deaths.
Waste: The warnings for people 10,000 years in the future are in case civilization collapses and humans basically revert to the bronze age. I don't know why anyone would take this seriously.
Nuclear waste is only considered extremely dangerous because of double standards. Burning coal produces radioactive ash. If the same standards were applied to coal as are applied to nuclear energy, the ash would be classified as low-level radioactive waste and would need special procedures to dispose of it. In reality, it is mixed into cement to build roads. High-level waste, which actually is dangerous, exists, but there is so little of it that it can just be stored somewhere securely.
Tarnstellung
10mo ago
It isn't just the tens of billions spent on weapons so far, it is going to be tens of billions per year for decades.
This is nothing for the US.
The inflation, caused by this war combined with the raised interest rates to combat it, far surpasses the direct cost of the weapons.
The inflation was caused by money printing during COVID. The war has contributed very little to inflation, at least in the US.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
Aren't "autogynephile" and "gay dude" supposed to be mutually exclusive, autogynephiles being heterosexual men who like to imagine themselves as women because they like women?
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
I for one believe the shooter should not be misgendered. Misgendering is disrespectful to all trans people. I guess I am a true believer.
There was a Reddit thread, a few months ago maybe, discussing a crime committed by a trans person. It was a murder or something similarly universally condemned. Some of the commenters were misgendering the perpetrator, others were criticizing the misgenderers.
One of the arguments brought up by the latter group was that you wouldn't call a Black person a "nigger", even if they have committed a vile crime. Using the word "nigger" is offensive to all Black people. It implies that being Black is bad in and of itself. Likewise with misgendering.
This is, of course, addressed to those who believe that misgendering trans people is not otherwise acceptable. Whether it is acceptable to misgender trans people in general, whether trans people really are their identified gender, etc., is a separate discussion.
Tarnstellung
10mo ago
There are in fact many things about which I know better than all my ancestors. The safety of lead plumbing, the causes and transmission of infectious diseases – the list goes on.
Anyway, how do you know the person you are replying to has no Greek ancestors?
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
Expressing "a feeling of strong distaste for the bigotry of [a] comment" is taboo here because it doesn't actually add anything to the discussion. This is an anonymous forum; none of your friends will be outraged that you tried to engage a neo-Nazi/incel/paedo-fascist constructively instead of dismissing them without a second thought.
Realistically, a large proportion of the users and comments here are bigoted by the standards of Reddit. If you're going to post something that amounts to "yikes, sweaty" under one in every 3 or 4 comments, then you should leave, for your sake and ours. But I believe a constructive and mutually beneficial discussion can be had as long as everyone sincerely tries to "be no more antagonistic than is absolutely necessary". If you can do that, I urge you to stay. We could use more ideological diversity.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
I really don't understand the near-unanimous outrage here. Does no one believe the suffering from a psychiatric condition can be so terrible as to make the person want to die?
Another comment interpreted her two suicide attempts as calls for help or attention. If this were true, would she not have stopped short of actually killing herself in the end?
If euthanasia had been illegal, she would have just committed suicide with a different method – I mean, she clearly wanted to die – and it would have been a brief sentence or two in an article about the terrorist attack. "Shanti De Corte, who was 17 at the time of the attack, was set to testify, but committed suicide after suffering from PTSD following the bombing. She is regarded as the 33rd victim of the attack." or something to that effect.
But I know that at least some people who have survived suicide attempts have gone on to lead happy lives.
And there are others who attempted again and were successful.
Why does everyone here think they know better than the woman herself, a panel of doctors and a public prosecutor, all of whom must have known far more about the case than was shared in this one news article?
Maybe there does exist a carefully-developed and safe PED stack which could significantly enhance performance without significant side effects, but as soon as you allow any PEDs, there would be a strong incentive to disregard health and take the highest possible dose. In the end, the ranking still ends up being a combination of genetics and hard work, except all the athletes have now destroyed their hearts and livers. It's a prisoner's dilemma.
Edit: If you allow cybernetic enhancements, implants, etc., you would still need some restrictions, otherwise a shot putter could just mount a trebuchet on their back. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and "no cybernetics at all" is a very natural place to do it.
Tarnstellung
11mo ago
The growing anti-war sentiment in the US is, I think, directly related the right-coded nature of the military. The Right feels like the military are their people, and that their people are being sent out to risk their lives to line the pockets of effete sexually deviant billionaires who are the lizardy powers behind Globohomo.
But their people aren't being sent out to risk their lives! There's a tiny number of American military advisers and the like, mostly working well behind the front lines. American aid to Ukraine is mostly in the form of funding and equipment, much of it outdated and due to be scrapped soon anyway.
And how exactly does the war "line the pockets of effete sexually deviant billionaires"?
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
Recently, there was a series of studies demonstrating that ADHD medications are both much less helpful than previously thought (boost lasts for only two years or so) and with much worse side effects, including heightened risks of dementia later in life.
The first study linked, which concludes that ADHD treatment isn't very effective (after skimming the article, "boost lasts for only two years or so" seems to be an oversimplification), is from 2009. The second and third, which find a correlation between amphetamine use and Parkinson's disease, are from 2011 and 2006, respectively.
I understand that some fields move more slowly than others, and that a clinical trial by its nature must take several years (plus the time to prepare the trial before it starts, to collect enough participants, etc., and the time needed to analyse the data after the trial is done and to write up the results, and the delays related to publishing). Nevertheless, I think describing a study published 17 years ago as "recent" is a bit of a stretch.
(It could be that you just didn't see when they were published, and assumed they were recent, for some reasonable definition of "recent". This is known to happen. I've read on Snopes that stories sometimes reappear randomly: someone stumbles upon an article from years ago, assumes it's recent and shares it, other people see it and share it, and suddenly thousands of people believe something new and important has happened, when in fact it happened years ago and was unimportant and quickly forgotten. It's why The Guardian added a big bright yellow warning above older articles saying "this article is x years old".)
When I first read the quoted sentence, before any links to the actual studies were present, my interpretation was that a series of related studies (I think it's not unusual for one clinical trial to result in multiple publications) examining in detail all the long-term effects of ADHD medication had been published within, say, the past few months. In fact, the first study reports the findings from a clinical trial on the effectiveness of a certain kind of treatment for a certain subtype of ADHD, and makes no mention of dementia; the other two investigate a hypothesized correlation between amphetamine use for any reason, apparently including recreational use (the third even counts methamphetamine as a relevant type of amphetamine), and make no mention of ADHD treatment.
Meth is a known neurotoxin, not much to say there. Recreational use of amphetamine, at doses significantly higher than those used to treat ADHD, is likewise already known to cause neuropsychiatric problems, including psychosis. Your post, however, implies that treatment of ADHD with amphetamine was recently found to be dangerous, a claim not supported by the studies linked. If it had been discovered in 2006, or even in 2011, that treating ADHD with amphetamine increased the risk of dementia, this would have become widespread knowledge by now. As I noted in another comment, however, looking up "ADHD medication dementia" only returns results of ADHD medication being used to treat dementia.
In conclusion, the central premise upon which your entire post is based is false. This does not mean that "privilege theory" is correct, just that this particular argument against it is invalid.
P.S. Anyone who was treated for ADHD and became concerned after reading the original post should now relax. (Maybe with some benzos?)
Surely that should be "far right"?
More options
Context Copy link