netstack
Texas is freedom land
No bio...
User ID: 647
You’re telling me that the right response to a nothingburger is to take it as evidence in favor of the next big reveal?
If RFK had better evidence, he’d have jumped on it. He’s already got the FDA, he’s got Trump in his corner. Building a “Trojan horse,” however that works, doesn’t buy him anything.
File this one with the UAP disclosures, the Epstein files, and the Second Coming. I predict you’re going to be disappointed.
You could go with the pre-2013 definition for classic autism. That’s the year in which it was merged with Asperger’s and some other developmental disorders. I don’t know that the establishment was wrong to combine them into a “spectrum disorder,” but it certainly changed the calculus for self-diagnosis.
It’s worth mentioning that the uptick in diagnoses was not, AFAICT, limited to photogenic “nerd++” autism. It also includes the 25-30% of cases which were classed as intellectually disabled. I find it much less likely that growth in this category is driven by self-diagnosis.
Imagine if we let people self-diagnose
I mean, we kind of do? At least to the same degree as ASD. No one can actually stop you from citing “anger issues” any more than they can gatekeep “depression” or “anxiety.” They have to rely on social cues to warn you if you’re about to be cringe.
Consider whether one particular cluster of personality traits might be less likely to take those hints.
Has that happened for literally any other protest fad?
If “trigger confidence” wasn’t enough to show up in mortality rates, this isn’t going to be any worse.
See also: “do you know who you’re dealing with?” and “am I being detained?”
Lots of people will do unreasonable things when they sense a dominance game.
I expected so, but I didn’t have data.
The current step on the euphemism treadmill is “profound autism.” Here’s a study on its prevalence. Figure 2 shows what looks like a doubling between 2002 and 2010; that’s slightly lower than the non-profound category. More importantly, the total sample of autistic kids was something like 25% profoundly autistic. That’s not a trivial fraction, and it doesn’t appear to have held steady as the weaker forms grew.
Considering risk of bias, I tried other studies. It was hard to find one that was both longitudinal and bothered to distinguish between severity. But according to the latter study, 38% of children with a ASD diagnosis had an intellectual disability. Again, not trivial.
I’m pretty sure that’s post hoc reasoning. It’s popular, probably because it dovetails nicely with the Trump’s general platform, but the timeline is wrong. Where was this argument during the fights over Obamacare? During the early-2000s measles resurgence? Even within Trump I, when people were suddenly deeply concerned with institutional capture, medical research was almost a non-issue.
It’s a referendum on COVID policy, plain and simple. Which really means it’s a referendum on Biden. The outcome was predetermined.
With all due respect, that’s fucking ridiculous.
Have you met someone with serious, not-the-photogenic-kind autism?
Rationalists need to fund prescription markets.
Trump and RFK blame acetaminophen for childhood autism. I couldn’t find a transcript yet, but the meandering press conference is recorded here. Was this on anyone’s bingo cards?
I’m confused. I vaguely knew that the Trump campaign had decided to fight autism at some point, but I always figured it was appeasement for the antivaxxers. Is there an untapped pool of Tylenol haters out there? Is this a stalking horse for a broader wave of FDA guidelines targeting the usual suspects?
Maybe there’s some sort of political smokescreen going on. We don’t appear to have started any new wars, and domestic hate for Trump looks more or less like it did since last week. If it’s a distraction, it’s not a very efficient one; I had a hard time finding reporting on it, and all the sites that bothered were also eagerly blasting his abuses of the Justice Department and the Supreme Court. That leaves the old-fashioned political motive of throwing meat to the base. Maybe Trump is just checking off campaign promises. But again, it’s so niche.
I suppose there could be some sort of personal beef. If Trump is trying to tank someone’s stock, uh, this is still a pretty weird way to do it.
That’s not even touching the medical case. The administration doesn’t appear to have provided much substance behind their claim. This will dissuade approximately no one. Enjoy your fresh CW battleground.
While you are certainly welcome to be annoying Catholic, you’re still supposed to follow the rules. This comment is combative enough to fall in the “more heat than light” category.
Creation myths have a pretty terrible track record for scientific scrutiny.
If you’re suggesting that being unverifiable counts as “withstanding scrutiny,” then I have a bridge to sell you.
Kazuo Ishiguro’s Remains of the Day. A weird little guy goes on a road trip through ‘50s England while reminiscing on his former employer and colleagues.
I don’t think I got it. Delightful prose, vividly drawn characters, and some excellent scenes…but I just don’t understand how it works as a novel. What was the point? Or was it some sort of metafiction where the lack thereof was, itself, the point? It just didn’t land for me. I enjoyed the process but was left unsatisfied and a little embarrassed.
Up next is C J Cherryh’s Merchanter’s Luck for a change of pace. This feels incredibly “genre” in a good way. Pretty impressed with the economy of prose so far, too. Looking forward to it.
Too combative by half.
Please review the rules on the sidebar.
It’s a world populated almost entirely by bots and scammers, sadly. “dark net pen!s pills d3fw^kg]5” or “Life Hacks for the Mindful Manager.”
On the rare occasion that someone does try to submit their abstract cosmic energy hypothesis, we tend to allow it. This happens less often than I expected.
Trump has made his opinions on pussy pretty clear.
By extension, Trump enthusiasts are more likely to think “bullying a TV channel around” is actually a good thing.
Bold of you to make a statistical argument without any statistics!
Like, I’m not expecting polling or studies. But how much support is a “deluge”? Why can’t 5% of a population generate such a “deluge,” if they’re motivated and/or influential? How many people are you counting when you say “leftists,” anyway?
I think you’re overlooking the selection bias. It’s very hard to make my case if I can’t even tell what you’re claiming.
For what it’s worth, I don’t hold Hitler’s suicide against him. Best choice he’d made in years.
I realize this is kind of rhetorical, but yes, holy shit, it’s a surprise they ended up radicalized. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t call it “radical.”
Speaking of which, most of the 9/11 hijackers were also in their twenties. It’s a natural time to recruit healthy men.
About 4%, no? All the mitigating and exacerbating factors are going to be lost in the noise. At the point someone is turning himself in for an unrelated crime, I don’t think normal reasoning about behaviors holds up.
And did it actually help the shooter escape? Setting aside the delay, I have no idea if the cops who were handcuffing this guy had any chance of chasing down a shooter from a couple hundred yards.
“___ is an ideology of losers” is one of those phrases that is basically always going to demand more effort than this.
No, it’s the marketplace of ideas (TM). As long as the socialists keep failing to deliver cheap goods and/or national prestige, their market share is going to remain low.
I’m not sure why you think colleges are so threatening. Have you been to one, recently? Nobody even gets shot by the national guard.
Our institutions were a lot better at creating revolutionaries in the 60s and 70s, back when we still had a draft. And volume alone can’t be enough, or the labor unions would have toppled the government back when America was predominantly blue-collar.
Democrats would like to distance themselves from this lunatic. Republicans successfully distanced themselves from those lunatics. Is it any more complicated than that?
And now you’ve got me confused about the “lawmaker” thing. I’m normally pretty darn skeptical of Google trends, but it’s not subtle. Wikipedia starts with legislators, though the Responses section prefers lawmakers. CBS, CNN and NPR appear to favor lawmakers, as does Fox. The Guardian was the only one I found that uses both terms, and I suspect they wouldn’t have bothered if there weren’t two uses in one sentence. Even OANN gets in on it!
This is definitely some sort of fad, and I have no idea why.
That’s an argument for choosing a different style guide, not for abandoning it when the subject is sufficiently grim.
It also assumes that the NYT does not, in fact, believe the underlying premise. I don’t think this is obvious. If it were, though, why should they break kayfabe for this? Is it somehow more compassionate?
I’m no fan of Trump, but I’d caution against generalizing from one data point. I know he was looking sharp as of a couple months ago.
Any schadenfreude from watching our userbase try to forget two years of anti-Biden rants would probably be outweighed by the potential damage. Trump is erratic enough when he’s healthy. I hope he stays that way through his term.
More options
Context Copy link