ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
Casual student of continental philosophy and psychoanalysis. My views aren't real. I'm almost certainly on my lunch break.
User ID: 4030
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
1d ago
I think it would be incumbent on Trump to make Greenland useful if he wants this not to happen. If Trump actually does something important with Greenland, like establishing a valuable mining operation or clarifying its military importance, this introduces friction that may prevent anti-Trump operatives from giving it up so easily. There will be blowback in taking Greenland, and there will be blowback in any event of returning it. It will be much harder for the territory to be a lasting part of Trump's impact if its only utility is "yeah Trump got us Trump land for some reason."
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
1d ago
Denmark would probably take it back if they were offered - Greenland is practically self-governing and requires minimal resources out of Denmark to maintain. I think the likely scenario - if Trump takes it - is that Greenland is offered some degree of independence, if not complete national independence. There is an appetite for it in the territory, though they vastly prefer Denmark's rule to a hypothetical American occupation.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
1d ago
I am inclined to agree with this characterization, though I think there are still many unknowns. The direction of the wheels is likely the clearest circumstantial indicator of her intent. It's where she wanted to "go." At the time of acceleration, her wheels were in the process of turning right, seemingly to escape the stop. In my view, this was to complete the K-turn motion that she began with her short reverse, and leave the scene. Simultaneously, the officer was crossing in front of the vehicle, to her left. If she wanted to ram the officer, you would expect her to begin turning left at some point to track the officer's movement, but there is no indication of this. Thus, I'm inclined to believe that she had minimal intent to harm, and any harm was accidental or hasty. There's even a moment earlier in the footage where the officer stands right in front of her car, and she opts not to drive into him. Hardly some Democrat wet-dream vigilante crime. She would have to be basically brain dead to try and harm an officer with passengers and a pet in the car, and even the most antisocial irrational people I know would never put their pets in harm's way. I blame the folks egging her on.
Whether or not the shooting was legal or justified based on the officer's perception, that's a different question. But I think this detail in particular exonerates Good from the charge of wanting to injure the officer.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
1d ago
This does not mean her intent was to kill or injure the officer. I disagree with your assessment of her affect, but even if I accepted it to be true, that's not sufficient to establish intent to harm. I could just as easily suggest that her expression comes from the rebellious thrill of evading the officer or is an idiosyncratic stress response. Regardless, these questions are long distant from the question of if the shot was justified.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
4d ago
What, I can't use my right hand by myself in a relationship?
Sure, you can. I would just expect you to be on the same page with your partner about it, in terms of what counts as cheating etc. Hence my use of the term "expectations." It's up to the expectations that you and your partner would set. There is no such thing as an overreach if you both agree to it. I don't see any problem with you similarly hoping your partner stop reading smut.
I won't deny that hypocrites exist, but I've known plenty of women are fairly principled about it. Just depends on the circles, I suppose. To be fair, I am sympathetic to the idea that smut is qualitatively different than video porn on a psychological level, but they're close enough we can treat them the same socially.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
4d ago
I think there exist plenty of women who would not like it if their partner consumed and masturbated to porn but have little issue with its existence as a whole, particularly when used by single people or in relationships where its use is agreed to. Plenty of women I know have articulated this in addition to concerns about giving men a confused view of sex. It is not hypocritical to support the existence of porn and not want it to be misused in a partnered relationship with expectations of sexual exclusivity. Nor do I think it's a women-only phenomenon: plenty of men don't want their girlfriends looking at porn for similar reasons despite having used it in their past or sharing similar hesitation. I think the only problematic view would be expecting your partner to refuse it while continuing to use it yourself.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
4d ago
If the public image of these prediction market companies becomes rife with stories of insider trading, anyone who doesn't insider trade is going to be understandably pissed. Because prediction markets are zero-sum, if a standard user spends time and mental energy placing a well-thought investment in a prediction market and some inside trader swoops in and capitalizes, that's going to leave a sour taste and disincentivize them from using the site. I'd guess that there are a whole lot more standard users than inside traders, so this could lead to some serious problems retaining their user-base. Perhaps this is a bit far-out, but eventually these sites could become dominated by inside traders seeking to effectively launder money with minimal involvement from anyone who doesn't insider trade.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
4d ago
That first Ariel Winter quote doesn't seem to be anti-sexualization, rather that she has received criticism/hate/thermonuclear online bile as a result of posting in a sexualized way. The "sexism" she points out is that people tell her to stop sexualizing herself or are mean about it. Even in that case, I don't see the issue with her being upset that others sexualize her. Obviously, sexualizing oneself is likely to produce an outsized degree of sexual attention and criticism. However, that doesn't automatically imply she's a hypocrite or stupid or what-not. To analogize: most famous people have to live with a security detail for the rest of their life, deal with stalkers, etc. I think it would be unreasonable to tell a celebrity that they should just stop being famous (even if that's a valid "solution" to the problem), otherwise they're a hypocrite. In an ideal world, they could be famous without those issues, but the whackos have to ruin it. The same goes for sexualization. People are allowed to complain about the negative consequences or risks of an act while still engaging in said act - there is nothing logically compromising in doing so, in my view.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
4d ago
I've seen a number of comments below discussing porn. I initially planned to respond to these comments individually, but it's a substantial enough line of thinking that I figured a second-level comment on my part was appropriate.
It seems the commentariat here is fixated on the apparent contradiction between feminism and porn use - that porn clearly produces negative outcomes so it is ludicrous that modern feminists support it. How could pornography be "empowering" when it makes men sloppy lovers at best and dangerous sex pests at worst? I spent an inordinate amount of time with well-educated feminist women while at college, so I feel decently qualified to paraphrase what they've told me.
I'll preface with an important premise: pornography is not a single stimulus, but rather a diverse palette of erotic visuals that are lumped together under the umbrella term porn. The gap between studio produced porn and amateur content is as vast as the latest Marvel blockbuster and a limited run Criterion release. In high production porn, much like many professions, it is not uncommon to work under a domineering, unrealistic boss that overworks you and underpays you. These pornographic outlets are also the epicenter for most of the abuse in the industry. On the other hand, OF and amateur porn has a significantly flattened authority structure, and the performers no longer need to engage in unrealistic and demeaning sex acts to mold themselves into a male-gazey superstimulus. At least not to the degree of studio porn. This distinction is important: many of the women I spoke to advocated that studio content be eradicated, as the industry has problems. That does not implicate porn in general. This is also where the idea of empowerment begins to creep in. It is not empowering to be tossed around like a commodity by a profiteering pseudo-pimp. However, it is empowering in some sense to create your own erotic content because it represents a kind of authentic choice, especially when compared to traditional sexual norms and the prevailing idea that men can be sexually open with fewer social consequences. It is empowering precisely because of this contrast. In a world where men were not sowing their wild oats, I'm unsure if notions of empowerment would have really taken off.
Second, porn is not the be-all end all of sexual depiction. The thinking was that porn, much like alcohol, is clearly a vice that can be enjoyed responsibly when it is consumed in the appropriate quantity and with the appropriate precautions. Yes, alcohol (porn) can cause problems. Yes, alcohol (porn) is probably bad for you in excess. But the alternative of banning it is paternalistic and likely to produce its own crop of negative outcomes. This is another part of the empowerment angle: freedom to consume and choose. You could probably track down a gallon of Everclear and chug it, and few would come clamoring to ban alcohol. The relationship one has with alcohol is on them - some are teetotalers, some are social drinkers, some probably flirt a little close with alcoholism, but it's still a conclusion they came to. The same can be said with porn. It was often suggested that if porn was illegal, it would drive the industry underground and prompt even more abuse toward the women performing in it, as their employers would no longer be accountable to the legal system, per se. So porn ought to be at least tolerated. Bonnie Blue and those like her were considered unrepresentative morally questionable aberrations, more a product of our outrage-driven media landscape rather than exemplars of feminism in practice.
The last prong of this argument involves sex education. Some of the negative behavioral outcomes in porn, particularly the way it "teaches" men to have unhealthy sex, can be prevented by appropriate, candid sex ed. Their idea of sex ed wasn't simply putting a condom on a banana, but discussions about consent, love, and intimacy. Further, if porn use and sexuality in general are made to be more "normal," young adults could feel more comfortable discussing these topics with parents and trusted adults. I'm reminded of the perennial toaster-fucker greentext. I can imagine a world where /r/ToasterFuckers exists and a parent successfully guides their child away from it with the appropriate support. The mere existence of /r/ToasterFuckers is not the problem. While porn may be particularly tempting, I don't see how it is entirely immune to guidance. This is the classic "if you're going to drink, you're going to do it in my house." Is it effective? It's hard to say, and it's certainly a tall order compared to the status quo. But on its face it is at least logically coherent.
And, of course, there were plenty of discussions about age restrictions. It seems trivially true to me that a 21-year-old can handle porn better than a 12-year-old. Is there such a thing as an effective age restriction online? I'm not sure.
I think there are still problems with this argument - namely, that women choosing to make porn are often compelled to do so out of financial need which makes it unempowering at times. It also doesn't address moral arguments about porn's existence, like if porn is fundamentally immoral or disrespectful to human sexuality. It addresses most of the consequentialist points well, though, and I wanted to provide it the best I could to flesh out some of the positions that may not be as well-represented on this forum.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
5d ago
This feels like a strong contributor. Despite his earnest attempt at stealing the party's heart (and no doubt with few loyalists, he succeeded), it seems the Dems have not positioned him as a party leader in any respect. The scandals may be hurting him now, yes, but we can't underestimate the role that embarrassment is playing here.
After that debate performance and general Kamala of it all, his political career is pretty much dead. I don't think there's anywhere else for him to climb: he can either retire to the speaking circuit or tread water as the governor. No shame in choosing the former.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
8d ago
The examples I provided are not 1:1 analogues to sexuality but moreso illustrations of consent in practice. I don't believe there needs to be specific recompense in these situations for the interference of an outside actor to affect consent. In the case of a secret, you're correct that the victim has little to do other than not trust the person again. I think that's tangential, though: the secret-spreader has still committed a violation of some sort. The release of sexual explicit photos is similar. All that can be done is have them taken down, but it would be hard to argue that some principle of consent/agency wasn't violated in spite of this lack of direct recourse.
Taking a photo of someone is less of a violation than rape, sure, but a lesser violation is still a violation. Petty theft is less of a violation than grand larceny, and they're both prosecuted.
I'm not sure I totally follow your point about money. If I'm restating you correctly, you're saying that modern ideas about the acceptability of these things hinge on whether or not the woman gets paid, not the reaction of the viewer. My response to that would be: who cares about what the viewer thinks? Money is a useful moral fiat that people bend their preferences for all the time: they're employed. If someone forced me to work, that would be loathsome, but I do it for money. It is "reasonable" that many women bend their sexuality in this way, even if I find it socially problematic. I don't think it's somehow hypocritical or irrational for money to play a role in moderating peoples moral preferences. There's decades of social psychology research to support that idea. I'm not sure what your ideal outcome in that scenario would be.
The situation you paint is a bit too specific for me to argue in detail but overall I would say: if the woman sends an image accidentally and requests it be removed, doing so is basic common courtesy and respects her right to privacy. Of course, there is no mechanism whereby the recipient is obligated to do so, but it seems straightforward to me that he should do it. Perhaps in an appeal to the social contract, perhaps in respect for her autonomy - I can't argue it in great depth right now but I think you understand my point. He shouldn't be shamed if he finds it attractive - that's arguably involuntary - but doing anything to further exacerbate the uncomfortable situation is clearly morally dubious.
Yes, it is objectionable in my view to imagine someone naked without their consent. It's not a tremendous violation because it has minimal social consequences and effectively doesn't exist unless it's talked about, so I would never consider legislating it or even shaming anyone for doing it on occasion. We are human and we fantasize. That said, if I heard that someone was imagining the women passing them on the street as naked all day, I'd think less of them - a mental gooner is still a gooner. It's a matter of degree.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
8d ago
But if they publish those exact same images themselves, it is not demeaning?
Yes. Consent and agency are necessary considerations in plenty of moral decisions/outcomes, sexuality included. It seems intuitive to me that the proactive decision to publish sexual content is a vastly different experience than having someone do it under your nose. Money need not apply.
A few (admittedly imperfect) analogies involving consent to illustrate my point:
- A billionaire choosing to donate his fortune to a developing country vs. his funds being seized by a government and donated against his will.
- You choose to donate a kidney vs. the ambulance coming to your house and taking it from you.
- You choose to tell a secret to your friends vs. a loose-lipped confidant broadcasting it to the masses despite your wishes.
In all these cases, the former option is fine when done at one's own volition, but become a problem when another actor steps in. There are almost certainly philosophical papers that provide the premise-by-premise reasoning for this sort of argument, but hopefully you get the picture.
In a way, the body, particularly the sexualized body, is something of a possession. It can be given and taken away, shown and hidden. In some sense, it is a commodity that we have "ownership" of and many consider it the sacred domain of the individual. Sexual acts are high stakes, which is why it is so terrible when they are done against one's will and why it is considered a statement when someone takes bold public action with their body, for better or worse. You could argue that it is demeaning to publish sexual content under some sort of moralist (i.e. public sexuality is inherently debasing) or consequentialist (i.e. public sexuality leads to negative behavioral outcomes), but these arguments are complementary rather than overriding to ideas of agency and consent, in my opinion.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
8d ago
Very strong comment. I work in healthcare, and your last paragraph is especially relevant and, at least anecdotally, accurate. Working with chronically mentally ill patients, I sometimes try and follow the paper trail to see how these services are getting paid for. Occasionally there is talk of Medicare or Medicaid when it comes to specific practices, but generally, no one bats an eye at giving a homeless man a full head CT. For the worst patients who need long term care, the eye-watering cost of a 6-month bed is rounded down to a zero because they simply cannot and could never pay. I respect individual doctors who want to do no harm, but systemically it's a baffling injustice that some folks go bankrupt trying to pay for things that are doled out like Halloween candy to the underclass under the pretense of the Hippocratic oath. I have some logistical concerns with single-payer, but it should be instituted for this reason alone: as you said, insurance doesn't work when more ships are sinking than should be.
Physicians can cry about it, they'll still be a well-paid and well respected profession even with a pay cut.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
8d ago
Lots of great responses here. I think another overlooked factor is that the generation with the most time and zeal to organize right now, Gen Z, are politically idiosyncratic. They identify much less with mainstream partisan labels, which means the usual groundswell of membership in these groups has been cannibalized by increasingly smaller factions. A twentysomething social democrat isn't joining the Young Democrats, they're joining the DSA or going to a theory reading group. A twentysomething God-and-guns conservative isn't joining the Young Republicans, they're joining TPUSA or diving down the Yarvin pipeline. No one wants to join a big tent, especially when there exist countless enclaves of online spaces where you can be surrounded by exceptionally like-minded people at all times, assuring you of the veracity and righteousness of your exact ideas. What's the draw of the YR/YD in comparison?
Further, if people want to make change and become politicians themselves, I feel like local organizing isn't the place where that's done anymore. I'm not sure where exactly it is being done, but hydroacetylene's evaluation that these groups are more like social clubs sounds about right. They're vestigial.
Organization is just a tough thing in general. With time preferences getting shorter and the continued trend of Putnamian community decline, it doesn't surprise me that these websites are poorly maintained. WordPress power users aren't exactly abundant among the political striver crowd, either. I wonder if these groups have a secondary chat, like a Slack or Discord, where the "real" planning takes place. I'm reminded of my time in college when most clubs had some decrepit website but were thriving otherwise in another chat. Submitting to the Google Form might get you an invite there, where you can participate in earnest. Best of luck and props to you for trying to get involved.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
17d ago
Gotcha, thanks for the extra detail. Interesting to hear consumer spending has had some gains despite the "vibecession."
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
17d ago
I don't have a sophisticated enough opinion on how GDP figures are collected and controlled to speak on them directly, but I agree that as an indicator they don't mean a whole lot for me as an individual citizen. Sure, overall the economy may be trending up, but it's clear that it's a tale of two cities. As far as I can tell, some sectors, mainly tech (AI) and finserv, are carrying the rest, and recent economic gains haven't been felt by most consumers. This year, the only sector to really gain jobs has been healthcare, which is hardly an economic engine more than it is an indicator of our aging population. Time will tell if these GDP gains are sustainable across sectors or just reverberations of the continued siren song of AI.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
17d ago
Very much agreed with your latter point, it would've saved everyone involved a whole lot of trouble.
As the OP from last time, I think after all the discussion my view has settled alongside yours. This case represents a failure on multiple levels and puts serious egg on OUs face. I don't blame them for acting swiftly and I think canning the instructor, while perhaps disproportionate, was advantageous for them optics-wise instead of admitting their academic standards have withered into dust. Especially as their funding is controlled by a Red legislature and Red constituents.
It goes without saying that Fulnecky is not a figure that I think should be venerated in any regard, much less as a martyr. As you said, recent interviews have been quite revealing. She happened to submit a garbage paper to an overzealous instructor and capitalized as she saw fit.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
30d ago
Thanks for doing the homework. It'll be fascinating to see how Mangione's lawyers try to thread the needle.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
30d ago
Varies tremendously from locale to locale. Federal sentencing guidelines are a bit complex but it seems unlikely he will get life in prison considering his lack of criminal history and the potential legal issues with the investigation. From a cursory reading, it seems a lot hinges on it his actions are deemed terrorism.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
30d ago
Ah, I forgot about The Man. That's a sensible explanation.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
1mo ago
It's quite strange the extent to which people on Reddit believe he legitimately didn't do it. I've seen people go as far as to suggest that Luigi is a doppelganger/look-alike for the actual suspect, which strikes me as ridiculous considering all the circumstantial evidence. I can imagine not wanting him to go to jail, but if he didn't do it then what's all the excitement about? Perhaps if he's locked up then that dashes the hopes of the terminally online spinsters who are attracted to him.
What is more reasonable is the hopes that he'll get off on some sort of mistrial due to the large amounts of law enforcement tomfoolery. I wouldn't be surprised if his sentence is shockingly short (say, 20 years).
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
1mo ago
For sure - the claim "women are innately driven toward XYZ," is not one I take tremendous issue with. However, the metaphysics implied in the specific statement "God gave women womanly desires" is then used throughout the rest of Fulnecky's response to justify the argument that deviating from gender norms is detrimental because it defies God's will, to negative spiritual and social consequences. That does not seem to me to be easily or responsibly "translated" into academically validated psych-speak.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
1mo ago
I see. I get the sense that we might not see eye to eye but I'll give it one more go. Please give me some charity here with my phrasing - I'm in a rush.
You are concerned about improper application of authority and the negative consequences involved when applying rules selectively, arbitrarily, or in the case that the rules have been not stated. I agree with this, believe it or not.
My response was that the rule of "do not appeal solely to Scripture to support a truth-claim in psychology" is not explicitly stated because it is widely understood. A text may exist somewhere that states it, but that text is not commonly assigned or propagated because the rule is the sum total of hundreds of years of epistemology and philosophy. It is foundational to the methods of psychology. I'm sure it exists but I can't easily locate it because it's such a widely held but diffuse belief. While it would be nice for this rule to be explicitly stated often, it usually isn't because doing so would be seen as unnecessary. At most, the APA encourages "evidence-based" practice and responsible data standards, which are usually hammered in during a research methods course. Fulnecky likely took this course, as she is a junior. She would have known. There is room for Scripture in psychology, but it would be more palatable if it was accompanied by appropriate argumentation.
For Fulnecky to have made it to her junior year and not understand this represents a significant failure in some way. So significant, in fact, I am suspicious of her immediate choice to run to the media. I reject your framing of abuser-abised, as there is no evidence Fulnecky had a compromised relationship with the school. Again, if she tried the usual channels and was met with a corrupt response, then it would be more prudent to go to the media. I just think the school should have been given the benefit of the doubt.
I respect your passion and commitment to standards of rigor.
I think engaging in hypotheticals like this is ultimately unproductive. You have taken a political attitude that Good may have held ("ICE bad") and generalized it to an attitude toward violence ("Therefore ICE agents are not deserving of, or at least need little consideration regarding, safety"). These two claims are, in fact, a grand canyon apart - not simply p therefore q. There is nothing to suggest Good was a longtime agitator or rallied behind violent acts.
I don't disagree that she was reckless, but I don't think we need to engage in broad speculation about why. I don't believe the reason behind that recklessness (or even the recklessness itself) really affects the moral calculus here.
More options
Context Copy link