Throwaway05
6hr ago
And someone with different genetics and life experiences might be able to do so.
Throwaway05
8hr ago
Probably Dilaudid, also known in the ER as "I'm allergic to everything except for that one that starts with D."
Throwaway05
9hr ago
Follow-up question: what do you mean by the road train stuff?
Also re: headlights, lots of people have and use automatics now, do you oppose relying on that?
Throwaway05
11hr ago
I now interrupt your regularly scheduled WWIII/Nothing Ever Happens to ask a question:
So, the Bike discussion down below generated a lot of angst and heat, so I'd like to poll The Motte on our driving habits a bit (in the CW thread because I do fear we are going to get some strong feelings).
How do we feel about the following:
-
You should turn on your turn signal every time you switch lanes or otherwise would be expected to use it, even if nobody is around.
-
Stop signs and red lights need to be fully stopped at, even if nobody is around and you know there isn't a red light camera.
-
Speed limits should be followed to the letter when possible.
-
The left lane is for passing only, and also, if you are in that lane and not passing and someone cuts you off or rides your bumper, that is fine.
-
If someone does not make room for you and you need to come over (and properly signaled) you can cut them off guilt free.
-
I can break some of these rules (or others) but other drivers should not.
-
Any other possible driving scissor statements?
If you'd like to be mad at me: Yes, Yes, No, Yes with qualification, Yes, No.
Throwaway05
11hr ago
Admittedly handling this well requires some flexibility of thinking that is going to be challenging for the general population, but just like how HBD claims doesn't mean we have to treat *ethnic group * like ass, just because free will is limited doesn't mean that we can't punish people for misbehavior, arrange society in various desirable ways, and so on.
Let's start with the free will statement. The strongest form of the argument is something like this: we have good data on things like efficacy of treatments, causes of various things, outcomes given various adverse childhood experiences and so on.*
We can cobble together some genetic data and presentations, certain kinds of childhood experiences like gross sexual exploitation, family history of other mental illness, family history of substance abuse, etc and say "this kind of person is enormously unlikely to ever overcome their circumstance." Can we do this for most people? Well not right now anyway, but for certain kinds absolutely yes.
Should we allow them the chance to make their own mistakes instead of doing something first? Different question. Should we let them run roughshod over things? No, but different question.
This definitely applies to certain patterns of child abuse.
A better example is probably opioid abuse. Medication assisted treatment (this is not safe injection sites) originally started as highly stigmatized and disliked but has grown to be approved by most in medicine because what we've found is that once addicted (rarer then you might think) most people just don't recover.
Free will need not apply. The thing is too dangerous.
Look for other options.
We know that external locus of control and efforts at getting people to help themselves work for those who can, so we should try, but thought leaders should be aware that some populations and situations just aren't going to get fixed without outside intervention.
*Simplest place to start if you want to examine the research base is ACE studies.
Throwaway05
11hr ago
I see forensic patients at time and had some of my training is in a forensic setting.
Two things can be true at the same time.
-
I hate you and I am quite happy if you spend the rest of your life in prison. You deserve it.
-
I have compassion for you, will take care of your medical needs, and feel bad about the circumstances that led to your criminality.
In another setting it might be something like "I love you and I'm sorry your father abused you, but the way you treat me is not something I can tolerate and I will not have you be part of my life."
Throwaway05
1d ago
oh yeah you can say she's a fucking moron and I dont want my daughter doing that ....and at the same time, her life made her that way and you can feel bad for her.
Throwaway05
1d ago
I refuse to believe anyone would like cricket. REFUSE.
Throwaway05
1d ago
Bruh!!! Learn the foot. Or look around conspiratorially and go "secretly I like cricket more." Likely they will go "gasp, cricket, how awful" and ask no further questions.
Throwaway05
1d ago
Yeah fair, being judgmental IS probably more determined by your life history and cultural context, however thinking she is a nasty hoe (I mean, I do too...the shower thing? Eesh) is not incompatible with having empathy for her and awareness of the life history that likely brought her to the set of beliefs you find odious.
Throwaway05
1d ago
Compassion and empathy do not require acceptance or being a door mat.
While saying "nope no free will" is probably excessive, we do have a lot of evidence that things like bad childhood experiences are incredibly difficult to overcome and likely only in the most optimum of circumstances.
You can say "just get over that shit" but they rarely do, particularly with very bad or multiple bad experiences.
Throwaway05
1d ago
That's highly antagonistic given literally the next words of that sentence.
Throwaway05
1d ago
Yes from the physician perspective we want the least amount of responsibility here possible and try and be as vague as we can, send to other people when possible, and limit our level of commentary.
Unless specifically specialized in this you don't really get paid for it but accept a bunch of liability.
Classic example is potentially violent emotional support animals.
Keep us the fuck out of it.
Throwaway05
1d ago
Childhood trauma does not entitle you to a lifetime of unlimited compassion from others.
It....kinda should though?
We have good evidence to believe that free will is mostly BS at this point but even if you aren't about that line of thinking it is still true that childhood abuse ruins your life outcomes. We have some knowledge of things like the impact on your brain chemistry and psychological development, we can point to incredibly poor outcomes and paucity of truly effective treatment.
People just don't get better without a lot of good genetics, supportive nursing and lucky life events the majority of the time.
Doesn't mean you have to accept or interpersonally tolerate them, but you should have empathy and compassion.
It is in all likelihood not her fault and her brain is fundamentally broken and society does not have the tools to force her to do what is required to get better.
Throwaway05
1d ago
If you'd like me to respond please consolidate your posts, sorry it's getting a bit fractal.
Throwaway05
1d ago
The reality of the situation is that operators of two wheeled vehicles demand the rights and privileges of both cars and pedestrians while refusing to exhibit the responsibilities of either.
While aggressive drivers do exist they are significant more predictable and are much less common than insane bicyclists. Anyone who has walked through a busy city or college town and is willing to notice things can see this. The exception is probably highway speeding which is a more complicated dance but is considered socially acceptable by most. Bicycle behavior is not.
Furthermore, poor behaving automobile drivers will eventually get tickets, fines, have their license taken away and maybe even get prosecuted. This rarely happens to bicycles and is not a big problem that one of the world's great progressive powerhouses is thinking of doing something about! Which is nuts and should exhibit how extensive the problem is.
Throwaway05
2d ago
In that case maybe the reason the author got purged was because of innumeracy?
Throwaway05
2d ago
I mean it's worth considering that there are times and places where going the speed limit is just unsafe. In much of the NE (so Philly more than Pittsburgh) you see highway speeds that are set at 50 or 55 but are "safe" at 70+. This means the average person (traffic permitting) is going 65-75. If you try and go the speed limit you are at high risk of causing an accident by causing too much delta.
Most people will choose safety and convenience (especially when they go together) over abstractly following the law.
Throwaway05
2d ago
This is not equivalent to the Idaho stop. Treating a stop sign as a yield is not equivalent to violent threats.
Why not? Nobody was harmed, which was your selected criteria.
Throwaway05
2d ago
Is this a translation issue? Like how "forty days and forty nights" just means "till it's done."
Throwaway05
2d ago
A million reasons. Because it looks bad? Because it's anti-social? Because people aren't qualified to determine what is or is not safe.
If I run up to you and punch the air around your face did I cause you any harm? No.
Does it suck balls and do you want that behavior banned? Sure.
Throwaway05
2d ago
I mean the point is that lots of people have way more subjective experience of bad behavior from bicyclists. Who kills more is only tangentially related to that.
Throwaway05
2d ago
The point is if you're just angry about cyclists breaking the letter of the law, then to be consistent you should be just as angry at drivers speeding.
No I a concerned about dangerous behavior.
I see plenty. At times an Idaho stop IS dangerous behavior. People are poor at assessing this.
Throwaway05
2d ago
I also don't see cars on the sidewalk driving aggressively towards pedestrians outside of rare one off events.
Anyone who has ever been around a random cyclist in any setting for any length of time has noticed irresponsible or dangerous behavior that would get a driver pulled off the road. Cyclists are more safe because they are smaller and slower but e-bikes have changed this calculus greatly.
If you bike you may imagine that you are not one of the problematic ones and this may in fact be true, but I've seen plenty of people who are too irresponsible and poor to own an actual vehicle, or are delivery drivers imported from the third world who think they are in the thunder dome.
False equivalency with highway speeding is insufficient to neutralize this common sense understanding that can be established walking around a city.
Any day I walk in a city for a significant amount of time I see a bike nearly hit a pedestrian multiple times. It is rare to see that happen with a car. If bikes are less dangerous it is not because of a failure of effort.
Thank you!
More options
Context Copy link