Chan-type sites very, very strongly encourage right-wing social behaviors by nature; it's a constant struggle for social dominance on a post-by-post basis. Survival of the wittiest. All interactions are throwaways, and there is no reputation to maintain. So of course as soon as anyone gets frustrated, the filter goes off and the prejudices come out. Ad hominem after slur after flamebait. It's a feedback loop from there. Heavy-handed moderation can make it slightly less bad, but only by so much.
That's a whole separate topic: Americans are like "just drive" and a large chunk of them just hate the poor for not having enough money to have and maintain a car.
But what about the people who actually can't drive? Epilepsy, vision, etc. There are a ton of reasons. But like what do these people do? There are so few places you can live without a car in the US compared to any other country on Earth.
> So perhaps charging much more for food over 2,000 kCal/day per person makes a lot of sense.
Why financially penalize exercise? Even physical activity aside, why do you think everybody needs exactly 2,000 kCal/day to maintain their weight?
What about tall people or people with abnormal metabolisms? I require more than 2,000 kCal/day to maintain a normal weight, even when completely sedentary. Why should I suddenly have to start paying more per calorie past 2,000 kCal?
It kind of sounded like it was a good idea your opinion, or some kind of proposal. Incentivizing physical activity is what we want for a healthy society, no? There are better ways to discourage getting fat than engraving a 2,000 kCal/day threshold into stone.
We are obviously not talking about being born into wealth. Middle-class people still need to accumulate capital first, generally by working, something that's not always possible (for an extreme example, take e.g. ~90% unemployment rate for autistic college grads).
Even if we were talking about wealthy families, that doesn't count out being disowned, etc. for being gay or transgender.
Transgender people are a tiny percentage of LGBT people, so using them to characterize all LGBT is intentionally misleading.
Also, this law was actually about requiring that any non-white or LGBT person be on the board; the LGBT part being highlighted is part of Newsweek's anti-gay agenda.
The US has a recent history of racial discrimination that prevented a lot of people from building wealth in their communities or generational wealth. Not that there aren't a shit ton of white people living in trailer parks, but no one was denying them home loans because of the color of their skin.
So, if owning your own home is a big part of your wealth over a life time, and your parents and their parents were discriminated against and prevented from accessing those mechanisms, it makes it much less likely that you will today be born in a wealthy or a poor family.
Look up redlining on wikipedia if you want specifics.
You're reading it wrong. They weren't saying that there's an equal chance for anyone to be born poor as to be born wealthy, they were saying the chances are the same for a straight person to be born either poor or wealthy as for a LGBT person to be born either poor or wealthy.
This is not always true for other minorities. A random black American isn't as likely to have been born into wealth as a random white American.
What a horrible place you immediately jumped to. Historically and systemically disadvantaged does not mean or imply intrinsically disadvantaged. Jesus.
> It's important to state this because businesses exist primarily to create profits, not promote social movements.
Those at the top will often prioritize their feelings over profit potential. Corporations are not true profit maximizers, that's a total myth. It's one of the reasons why WFH wasn't more popular earlier, and why some companies are trying to force back-to-office to the point it causes some of their employees to quit.
Do people not go to work and see their managers in action? What makes them think that after just enough career steps a switch happens and people just magically become soulless profit driven AIs?
> Especially as repeating "but there are Ukrainian Nazis!" only helps Russia, and why the fuck would you want to help Russia?
It's a fact. Saying "but stating the fact only helps the enemy!" doesn't change that it's a fact. You're suggesting we subscribe to a falsehood because you think the truth rhetorically helps the enemy.
It's not mentally performance-enhancing in any significant way if don't have ADHD. If you have a "normal" brain, you get a psychological illusion of increased productivity.
As long as you're at least 21, you should have a right to put whatever you want in your body. The current system locks these performance enhancing drugs behind extremely expensive medical appointments.
Slap a warning label on it, like we slap a warning label on cigarettes and alcohol, and let adults do what they want.
Of course you can still have a doctor suggest you take these dangerous stimulants, like you can have a doctor suggest you get more exercise, or suggest that you cut back down on your alcohol consumption.
If the test of who has ADHD is checking who is more productive and focused after they take stimulants… then a very, very large percent of the population would quality.
>New research finds ADHD medications like Adderall don’t improve cognition in healthy college students and may even impair the memory of those who abuse the drugs.
...
>But how do these drugs respond differently to the brains of people with and without ADHD? Weyandt said that she believes the human brain might need to be at a deficit of some kind for drugs like these to work. If not, they could have a detrimental effect.
>She said that neuroimaging research with people who have ADHD has found reduced activity — think blood flow — in parts of the brain associated with the condition’s symptoms when off medication.
>Once given the proper medication, the activity increases in these regions of the brain, and ADHD symptoms go down. So a person with ADHD has an improved ability to pay attention, and shows improved memory, planning, and response inhibition, she said.
>“Since we found the drug did not improve neurocognition and may negatively influence working memory, this may suggest a deficit is needed to benefit from the medication,” she added. “Furthermore, we have found in other studies that students who report significant ADHD symptoms are more likely to misuse stimulants.”
The test for ADHD, at least in Uk, is figuring out how much your life has been impacted by your executive function disorder. Whether your anxiety and depression are a result of being chronically unable to direct your mind to your goals. If that's the case, you might have ADHD.
It's not a productivity test. It's a disability test.
> I have personally witnessed psychedelics enlightening minds, but also destroying them.
As with any drug. Any drug that can heal can also hurt. All drugs are a risk. Compare the rare side effects of psychedelics to the horrible (and also rare) side effects like Stevens-Johnson syndrome that you'll see in pharmaceuticals, the same ones that save people's lives.
I don't know if we have enough scientific data to say how rare they are. My anecdotal experience (including my own as an individual afflicted by HPPD) makes me believe they are not as rare as is often suggested.
Methamphetamine is perfectly safe when used correctly. The problem, obviously, is trust and self-control. Because it's so potent and crosses the blood-brain barrier easier, IIRC it has less intense physical side effects compared to the equivalent (in terms of mental effects) D-amphetamine dose.
How exactly do you go about asking your doctor to try meth?
Even asking for D-amphetamine (superior to Adderall imo, because Adderall contains L-amphetamine which has unpleasant physical effects) is already a tall order. I've read of doctors getting "flagged" for prescribing it.
You don't go in asking for a specific med. You go in for ADHD symptoms and work with your doctor from there trying different medications and dosages to find one that fits you.
