politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Comparing an accepted prescription drug to a surgery that involves literally physically and permanently disfiguring the brain is nothing short of outrageous.
You are claiming I am openly portraying drugs as entirely safe to use for any purpose, which is a great insult to me and the people I am trying to help. This is a ludicrously irrational argument, and I suggest you delete your comment before you make a fool of yourself.
A lobotomy was a recognized and approved medical procedure. Within a few years in the late 1940s 10s of thousands of procedures were done.
The person who discovered the procedure won a Nobel prize for Medicine for how it helped people with psychosis.
How is it not related?
Because this is a chemical that alters brain chemistry instead?
Would you prefer I state electroshock therapy? Insulin shock? Malarial?
Those last 2 are using compounds instead of physical means.
My point stands that just because it is used in the medical field does not being and end the argument of safety and efficiency. Opiods are considered safe until you have to stop taking them and now we are pushing against the prescription and use of them.
You clearly have a specific predetermined opinion on the matter that makes you insulary from having to accept that their are differing opinions on the matter.
Your threat to my appearance does not diminsh my statement it just proves your bias.
Being open towards the use of drugs does not mean they are free of criticism and should not be used sparingly as the world may yet change on its opionion of the costs of their use yet.
This is not to say people can not take what helps but helping is not always good or an answer long term.
1.618033989...
You've chosen.. poorly.
I don't even know why I'm bothering typing this. It won't change your opinion. You are a troll, and I'm speaking to a phantom. I haven't even heard of some of these medical procedures, but whatever. Fine. School day it is, then.
This is true. Combined with how slavery was only just recently abolished, and segregation is still the norm, it goes to show how incredibly innovative the United States was throughout its history.
I don't know, why is vitamin B12 not related? I just discovered that large doses treat dissociation.
Yes.
No, I'd prefer you state something relevant. Speaking of, here's the two other operations mentioned in the history section of the lobotomy Wikipedia page that you looked at, that involve a compound.
Insulin. Insulin. That is a fucking hormone. Insulin is a hormone. Granted, that is a compound, and comparing a hormone to a narcotic is insane, but fine. At least we aren't slandering HRT because of insulin shock.
Here's one I've definitely never heard of. A quick read reveals it's the process of using plasmodium to cause malaria, which causes a rise in body temperature, which then, in turn, mitigates other diseases. The malaria is then given treatment. I've never heard of something so stupid in all my years, but I'm still trying to find the compound invo--no. No, that's impossible. The compound involved isn't..
FUCKING EUKARYOTES!?
Since I've already lost so many brain cells, why not add some gasoline to the mix? Let me go sniff some real quick...done.
Objection--you do not have a point, you have a mouth.
Strawman.
Opiods [sic] is a weird way to spell benzodiazepines. Now, I've already torn your incorrect "opinion" to shreds, and now I'm literally giving you an argument against me, over a point that was never made.
That implies I was never anti-drug. I was. I supported banning all of them, and incarcerating all who ever used them. I was a Trump supporter. I vocally defended the cop that murdered George Floyd, blaming the fentanyl as everyone did. Point is, my mind has already changed, and what you're doing is actually trying to unchange my mind.
The only one with a predetermined opinion on the matter is you, you Nixonite.
My parents said the same thing when I warned them that voting for Trump was a stupid idea. Your strawman arguments don't diminsh [sic] my statement, it only proves your bias.
I still don't know why this is being said, because I never said drugs are free of criticism. You are replying to a thread that is literally me replying to a comment mentioning ketamine's dangers with frequent use, saying "correct". What was that about bias, again?
This is your first correct statement. Right at the end, too! A broken clock is right once a day. I use 24-hour time, sorry. Short end of the stick, sometimes.
All in all, I have had more intelligent debates on Reddit. I highly recommend you work for the Trump administration, they could use your mindset, conflating rationality and brazen emotional-esque response. And, like I said before:
Delete your comment, before you make a (further) fool of yourself.
I'm the troll and yet you won't engage in an actual discussion? You are moment to moment demanding that everything you have said is correct or not understanding my point and yet you are wrong about so much, but won't engage to find out so.
You are acting with blatant superiority and pedantry on each individual word I say. You don't respond as if it's a conversation just a stomping ground for your ego.
Look at how you communicate and how you process to act like a singular source of truth in this world. It's appalling and yet you act as if it's correct because you are the one doing it.
Yes, slaver y and lots of things would later go on to be considered a bad method for accomplishing goals. That is my point on overly relying on drugs when especially there is already evidence as with Ketamine that it's damaging to the body.
Insulin shock was a way of treating psychosis and so was giving people malaria to give them a fever strong enough to damage the brain. You don't understand the points being made so you act like you are better informed when you respond with nonsense. Look at all your own smarmy interjections as if they validate you more.
You aren't as informed as you think you are and you aren't solo in deciding what is good in this world. Other people can have opinions and knowledge you don't.
My mother took ketamine on a medical prescription and it ruined her body. She had to get physical therapy to use her hands again to be able to pick up objects.
Stop being a jerk that thinks they are superior and swaps to whatever opinion let's them talk down to others.
You may have changed your mind but you clearly haven't stopped being rude and dismissive of others.
I don't care about who you were and it's unnecessary in this conversation you bring it up as a shield to deflect that you are being a jerk here and now.
You are putting so many words in my mouth.
So are you. Engage in a conversation then to avoid it and actually speak to the other person instead of over them.
I grow weary of this. We want the same thing--for people to be safe--and you've routinely implied otherwise.
From the very start, you twist and contort my (and, therefore, every other commenter on this post) opinion.
From the start, I say "occasional use" at most. That is a week between doses, minimum. This is safe, and this is a matter of fact.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02761.x
You're actually making yourself a big fat target by comparing chemicals to living organisms. You are acting with blatant superiority by conveniently inventing my opinion, so you can object. I say three times a month at most. You claim that's a free endorsement of daily heavy use. You simply want to win a debate in which the other side is logically devoid.
I'm not. I hold the same opinion that everyone else here does. You are simply being wrong in this case by making outlandish claims about my own opinions (and everyone else here by extension), and justifying objecting to a point I never made by making even more outlandish claims.
You're acting as if I don't know that ketamine is damaging to the body. I literally made a reply to a person saying that ketamine is dangerous with frequent use, and saying this is CORRECT.
I am not trying to bring up the point that ketamine is a very safe drug, and at no point did I do this. You are just a contrarian, and need a point to object to--so you invent it.
Insulin is a hormone, and malaria is a LITERAL DISEASE. Apart from the fact that I never said ketamine is safe to use daily, you are trying to compare the danger of ketamine to quite literally injecting a parasite into the body, and causing an infection. This is a ludicrous argument, and it is disinformation. Confirmation bias will not change the fact that you stand alone.
I am very well informed, as this has been my focus for the greater part of five years by now, as I intend to be a leader in reform for how drugs are marketed. This is merely the start. It is necessary for my goal that I am well informed. I study drugs hours a day, and I'm writing an encyclopaedia dedicated to promoting clear, concise safety information, with accurate sources, so people don't have to play the guessing game any more. You don't think it's an insult to practically say I'm intentionally trying to get people hurt?
Do you not think that is exactly what I stand against? I'm tired of this type of point, like I don't recognise victims of the very same system I oppose. I started by saying occasional (infrequent) use, and a prescription is the opposite of that. The fact is that frequent use is unsafe, and this information is easy to find (and it should be extremely obvious that a substance has harm potential). Yet, prescriptions remain common, because this is the United States, and the government never cared about public safety. It's all about that precious money. It is people like me who call for rigorous testing of drugs, so that prescriptions don't become popular for unhealthy drugs.
The original point was about antidepressive drugs. I said ketamine was rather dangerous, and psychedelics are better. We have substantial proof that psychedelics are extremely safe, and we should opt for that. End of story.
Stop being inflammatory. You compared drugs to viral infections and slandered me by claiming I'm openly advertising that people should abuse drugs. This echoes the behaviour of a Fox News anchor.
I don't normally interact with people calling eukaryotes a chemical compound. I am not being dismissive, you've failed to bring an argument to the table.
It is necessary to bring up because you are the one claiming that I'm unwilling to change my opinion, ever. I am. I simply stand against contorting words, as you have done. I am defending myself, and you don't like the fact I'm allowed to do that.
God help us all.
Original comment: Remember the history behind the war on drugs, and don't let Musk own ketamine. The meaning of this statement is to not let Musk's behaviour surrounding ketamine discount the fact that there exists a fine line you can walk where ketamine is helpful. That is using it, once, for a depressive episode.
A reply from another commenter that frequent use is dangerous. Plus, a well-known and excepted source for evidence of this. I don't believe evidence is necessary to prove ketamine is toxic when used frequently, but a paper is good.
Me replying to the comment saying that KETAMINE BEING USED FREQUENTLY IS TOXIC, but its infrequent use (less than three times per month) is, indeed, safe, hence my original point.
Then, you come in, slander me with accusations that I'm openly calling for people to use drugs frequently. You started this. There were no unreasonable claims made until you came along. I was having an actual discussion, and now I have to prove that I somehow didn't say that people should use meth every hour of every day.
Unbelievable. I have never seen a more fundamentally broken point in my life, and I mean it.
You've put so many words in my mouth, and I haven't put any in yours. You stated I made a point that I never did. You compared a point that was never made to archaic medical procedures. I respond to the rest of the comment as is, without saying you're claiming that people should never use drugs, which is a point you never made.
I do not get it. This is the only argument I've ever seen of this sort, and it's clear why--it's logically devoid. A hundred and twenty people agree with my original point, and this post is filled with people, in good nature, making similar points. This is heartwarming as it means that people are listening and are understanding. In comes you, inflating my words seemingly just to get a ruse out of me. Well, congratulations--you did it.
I will engage in actual discussion, but I want an actual argument, and to not have my words twisted. When you do, you will agree with me, because you will see that I am making a fair and reasonable point, the same that everyone else is, and not whatever ghost you're fighting against. That only happens when you read my point, and not the point that was never made.
I knew this was a waste of time.
No this is a conversation between us on your words. You insist that you have the backing of everyone when that is an absolute that is disproven by my very nature of being here and disagreeing. Don't use a bias to cover your own logic.
You didn't specify what occasional is and it is not a matter of fact.
You insist I am a target instead of a person conversing. It's rude. And by comparing medical procedures. A point you insist on making.
You have just said that now. Not previously when given a chance to specify. You act indignant while ignoring that you don't specify because you feel safe in your generalized statements that everyone will agree with you. Well I don't on all that you said and pushed back and here you are doing this show as if you have always been right and said everything correctly.
There is no correct and you can try to editorialize this conversation but it will not work as you can not edit me so easily. This tactic of breaking down everything to prove you are right about every point is awful and a rather bad tactic for talking to people. You very specifically are putting words in my mouth by trying to edit each thing I say from your perspective alone.
I don't think you realize, but you are absolutely the one with a bad tactic and a rude know-it-all attitude here as this continues on and on with you. You can defend yourself all you want but it doesn't yet change that you misunderstand and insist your correctness before any conversation has happened.
You easily make others the villain and some target for you to look down and squash from your place of (let me check) upvotes. Congrats. I truly don't care about it and it does not work to make your point for you. You are still the unreasonable person here immediately jumping to tactics that are best seen by those that want to be right rather be actually informed.
Yeah you grow weary cause you don't know how to talk to people.
This is a terrible response.
I have not implied otherwise by the way I just disagree on the methods and specifics which you refuse to accept. You twist my meaning the same way you insist I twist yours by responding to your actual words instead of your ego. Referring to your upvotes proves you take the wrong opionions and are swayed by whatever gives you confirmation.
It is by your actions that you are responding this way. And insiting that I agree with you and no other option. You can also chose to try a different tactic at any point. Do not blame me for yourself and how you continue to respond.
Like I said, this was a pointless discussion.
Blocked.
As if it was ever a discussion with you.