What really pisses you off? please no posts about nexus lol

[King-Crimson]

On 5/4/2019 at 4:48 AM, RitualClarity said:

WTF Firefox!

I just read that they will be removing some "questionable" plugins... just today.

I come home and all my extensions are blocked. Funny how they are all extensions that block ad revenue, tracking, and other profitable avenues for businesses and web sites... Extensions that have been highly advised for use for security and protection reasons from many tech sites. Don't work with them.. just block them.

 

Every time they do this.. I move more and more to Chrome.

I'Ve moved from Firefox 1 year ago. If you're interested in a better Chrome version (without tracking and full support of every Chrome extension) you should try out Vivaldi (Win, Mac, Linux) https://vivaldi.com/download/

[Voldearag]

2 hours ago, Daedric_Cat said:

If you have seen Elf Prince's earlier posts, the folks in his country value dogs more than they do the poor and others who need help. Did they see that the old lady need help? Did they bother to find out if there was a way to help her take care of the dog? Championing the dog is all well and good, but not at the expense of people.

I haven't seen his earlier posts, tell me which country he lives in? I might fit right in.

[Daedric_Cat]

23 minutes ago, Voldearag said:

I haven't seen his earlier posts, tell me which country he lives in? I might fit right in.

He doesn't say which country, just that there are too many seagulls and the politicians and media focuses more on dogs than they do people who need help.

[Psalam]

Quote

2 minutes ago, Daedric_Cat said:

He doesn't say which country, just that there are too many seagulls and the politicians and media focuses more on dogs than they do people who need help.

 

IIRC he resides in Croatia.

[Ernest Lemmingway]

Spoiler

 

This I'm ambivalent about. On the one hand it has so much potential to be abused and make things worse for those of who have real issues. OTOH it's such a crock of shit that it's likely to blow up in its supporters' faces. It's going to make that anti-loot box bill easier to pass, which I'm also ambivalent about.

 

Mostly it just makes me...::chortles:: ?

[FauxFurry]

I can't say that it 'pisses me off' but consider me at least mildly miffed that Brave browser suddenly quit working for this site a few minutes ago. I had to switch over to Opera, a browser which I hadn't even accessed in possibly years now. 

[Deso561PL]

What piss off my brain cells? Everything around me lately.

[Reginald_001]

Pretty pissed off by a rapist-killer complaining about 'inhuman treatment' by the authorities, when all he deserves is a a group of mobsters going medieval on his ass...

[GrimReaper]

On 5/26/2019 at 10:01 PM, Ernest Lemmingway said:

  Hide contents

 

This I'm ambivalent about. On the one hand it has so much potential to be abused and make things worse for those of who have real issues. OTOH it's such a crock of shit that it's likely to blow up in its supporters' faces. It's going to make that anti-loot box bill easier to pass, which I'm also ambivalent about.

 

Mostly it just makes me...::chortles:: ?

What is gaming disorder?

Gaming disorder is defined in the 11th Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) as a pattern of gaming behavior (“digital-gaming” or “video-gaming”) characterized by impaired control over gaming, increasing priority given to gaming over other activities to the extent that gaming takes precedence over other interests and daily activities, and continuation or escalation of gaming despite the occurrence of negative consequences.

For gaming disorder to be diagnosed, the behaviour pattern must be of sufficient severity to result in significant impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational or other important areas of functioning and would normally have been evident for at least 12 months.

 

Should all people who engage in gaming be concerned about developing gaming disorder?

Studies suggest that gaming disorder affects only a small proportion of people who engage in digital- or video-gaming activities. However, people who partake in gaming should be alert to the amount of time they spend on gaming activities, particularly when it is to the exclusion of other daily activities, as well as to any changes in their physical or psychological health and social functioning that could be attributed to their pattern of gaming behaviour.

 

To no one's surprise, outrage youtubers clickbait their way into the masses by purposefully misrepresenting what the WHO is actually doing.

 

[porkybork]

19 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

What is gaming disorder?

Gaming disorder is defined in the 11th Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) as a pattern of gaming behavior (“digital-gaming” or “video-gaming”) characterized by impaired control over gaming, increasing priority given to gaming over other activities to the extent that gaming takes precedence over other interests and daily activities, and continuation or escalation of gaming despite the occurrence of negative consequences.

For gaming disorder to be diagnosed, the behaviour pattern must be of sufficient severity to result in significant impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational or other important areas of functioning and would normally have been evident for at least 12 months.

 

Should all people who engage in gaming be concerned about developing gaming disorder?

Studies suggest that gaming disorder affects only a small proportion of people who engage in digital- or video-gaming activities. However, people who partake in gaming should be alert to the amount of time they spend on gaming activities, particularly when it is to the exclusion of other daily activities, as well as to any changes in their physical or psychological health and social functioning that could be attributed to their pattern of gaming behaviour.

So it's basically like any other addiction? Yeah, video games are fun, just make sure it doesn't lower your quality of life.

It's like alcohol. You can drink alcohol on a daily basis without being addicted to it. If it starts negatively affecting your health, job performance, and/or relationships and you feel anxious or uncomfortable when you aren't drinking, then you have a problem. Anything can be an addiction, video games included.

36 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

To no one's surprise, outrage youtubers clickbait their way into the masses by purposefully misrepresenting what the WHO is actually doing.

Manufactured outrage is a business. If people weren't able to make a profit off of ads or Patreon donations, videos like these would be far less common.

[GrimReaper]

The psychology of addiction is rather complicated and there's no definitive answer to all the questions iirc. People often differentiate between substance induced addiction and pure psychological addiction but the problem is, they're all related to reward circuits in your brain that shouldn't be there. No matter what you're addicted to, it all dials back to dopamine being released. Of course there are differences in withdrawal and how hard or easy it is to quit - sometimes withdrawal symptoms can simply kill you outright if you quit right here and now.

 

But if we want to take smoking as an example, the reward circuit itself is the problem, not that not smoking will cause heavy withdrawal symptoms. Everything you do or think before you have a smoke gets linked to that specific circuit. Having a smoke after a meal, a coffee, when you wait for something, hell, even thinking 'I should probably quit smoking', all this reinforces that circuit. So if you stop, you'll get a trigger after each of these activities which makes it hard to stop. But the same is also true for a gambling addiction. The habits reinforce the addiction and vice versa.

[Ernest Lemmingway]

Psychological addiction is psychological addiction. The WHO didn't need to create a whole new classification for video game addiction, though. And it opens up the door to people abusing the idea as Jeremy sarcastically stated in the video. Hell, I'm shocked it took the WHO this long to recognize that video games can be psychologically addictive. How long will it take them to realize that social media is psychologically addictive and can--and has--lead to dire consequences? That TV shows can be addictive and lead to people doing insane things? Movies? Anything can be addictive to the wrong people?

 

It's pointless to just say "we recognize this as a serious problem" when there are no plans to address the core causes or deal with people who will use it as an excuse. They're just trying to placate the masses.

 

On a different note, YouTube's recommendation algorithm is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. They keep trying to recommend artist videos and channels I've already told them repeatedly I'm not interested in. If they would just allow us to opt out of recommendations...

 

EDIT: Clarified my first line.

[Psalam]

Quote

1 hour ago, Ernest Lemmingway said:

Addiction is addiction. The WHO didn't need to create a whole new classification for video game addiction, though. And it opens up the door to people abusing the idea as Jeremy sarcastically stated in the video. Hell, I'm shocked it took the WHO this long to recognize that video games can be psychologically addictive. How long will it take them to realize that social media is psychologically addictive and can--and has--lead to dire consequences? That TV shows can be addictive and lead to people doing insane things? Movies? Anything can be addictive to the wrong people?

 

It's pointless to just say "we recognize this as a serious problem" when there are no plans to address the core causes or deal with people who will use it as an excuse. They're just trying to placate the masses.

 

On a different note, YouTube's recommendation algorithm is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. They keep trying to recommend artist videos and channels I've already told them repeatedly I'm not interested in. If they would just allow us to opt out of recommendations...

 

While I generally agree with you I feel I have to take exception here. If you want to specify, a psychological addiction (or the psychological aspect of an addiction) is a psychological addiction, then I can get behind you. However, addictive chemicals are another story. If a gambler stops gambling they aren't going to risk their life by going into Delirium Tremens (DTs). If a shopaholic or video game addict stops they will not suffer the nausea, cold sweats, insomnia, etc. that an opioid addict does.While the psychological treatment remains roughly the same the physical treatment is much different. Treating a chemical addiction (including nicotine, as already mentioned) adds layers of complexity to treating an addiction.

[Ernest Lemmingway]

22 minutes ago, Psalam said:

<snip>

I phrased my first line improperly. It should have said "psychological addiction is psychological addiction." That's what "Gaming Disorder" is: a severe psychological addiction. I'm not downplaying how serious it can be but the decision by the WHO to make it a whole new thing seems asinine when there already protocols in place for recognizing and treating such. Documented cases date back as far as the early-Seventies when there were only text-based games. To do so now, just when Hawley introduces his anti-loot box bill and other countries have already regulated them, reeks of politics rather than medicine.

[GrimReaper]

The WHO has been looking at gaming related disorders since June last year, I doubt the lootbox bill has anything to do with it. If anything, it's weird that this causes such an uproar since it was my impression that the de-stigmatization of mental health issues was something the WHO was concerned about. On a related note, removing transgenderism from the mental health issues list might have negative implications in the long run for transpeople, I seriously can't think why it's been heralded by the LGBT movement as the next big step towards acceptance. Having a mental health issue doesn't make you less of a human being for fuck's sake. If gender dysphoria isn't recognized as something that needs medical intervention, well, have fun paying the bills I guess.

 

That the progressive movement has a regressive view on mental health issues is baffling.

[AKM]

1 hour ago, GrimReaper said:

On a related note, removing transgenderism from the mental health issues list might have negative implications in the long run for transpeople, I seriously can't think why it's been heralded by the LGBT movement as the next big step towards acceptance.

Having a mental health issue doesn't make you less of a human being for fuck's sake. 

 

And that's where I suspect your getting it wrong.  I don't know, as I'm not involved in it, but from what I've seen from the outside, and given the statements of the last few posts, it's pretty clear that the queer/trans/etc. crowd DO indeed see mental health in the same light as most others in this country - as something to be ridiculed, and swept under the carpet (ignored) should it be an issue.

 

"That the progressive movement has a regressive view on mental health issues is baffling." 

 

Eh, I chalk it up to wanting to fit in.  There's very little acceptance by anyone in this country for other groups, and particularly individuals who lean a particular way, but don't follow the demanded actions/beliefs of the group to the letter.  Even within particular groups, there are raging arguments as to what makes you a "true" 'fill-in-the-blank'.  Even under conditions where the name and stated aim of the "group" is to be an individual, and follow your own beliefs, they still debate and demand following the "true" way, whatever that is (as they continue to argue and debate the specifics).  Despite the fact that by its very nature, there IS no single, specific way of doing what the supposed group is doing, which is, of course, being individuals.  It's idiotic.

[Daedric_Cat]

1 hour ago, AKM said:

 

And that's where I suspect your getting it wrong.  I don't know, as I'm not involved in it, but from what I've seen from the outside, and given the statements of the last few posts, it's pretty clear that the queer/trans/etc. crowd DO indeed see mental health in the same light as most others in this country - as something to be ridiculed, and swept under the carpet (ignored) should it be an issue.

 

"That the progressive movement has a regressive view on mental health issues is baffling." 

 

Eh, I chalk it up to wanting to fit in.  There's very little acceptance by anyone in this country for other groups, and particularly individuals who lean a particular way, but don't follow the demanded actions/beliefs of the group to the letter.  Even within particular groups, there are raging arguments as to what makes you a "true" 'fill-in-the-blank'.  Even under conditions where the name and stated aim of the "group" is to be an individual, and follow your own beliefs, they still debate and demand following the "true" way, whatever that is (as they continue to argue and debate the specifics).  Despite the fact that by its very nature, there IS no single, specific way of doing what the supposed group is doing, which is, of course, being individuals.  It's idiotic.

I don't have any real knowledge myself but I have seen posts by some trans people saying that they would rather have transgenderism remain on the list so they can have access to the appropriate care. That was a few years ago, however, so things might have changed, and, of course, that doesn't mean that was, or is, the prevailing view of that community.

[GrimReaper]

2 hours ago, AKM said:

 

And that's where I suspect your getting it wrong.  I don't know, as I'm not involved in it, but from what I've seen from the outside, and given the statements of the last few posts, it's pretty clear that the queer/trans/etc. crowd DO indeed see mental health in the same light as most others in this country - as something to be ridiculed, and swept under the carpet (ignored) should it be an issue.

 

"That the progressive movement has a regressive view on mental health issues is baffling." 

 

Eh, I chalk it up to wanting to fit in.  There's very little acceptance by anyone in this country for other groups, and particularly individuals who lean a particular way, but don't follow the demanded actions/beliefs of the group to the letter.  Even within particular groups, there are raging arguments as to what makes you a "true" 'fill-in-the-blank'.  Even under conditions where the name and stated aim of the "group" is to be an individual, and follow your own beliefs, they still debate and demand following the "true" way, whatever that is (as they continue to argue and debate the specifics).  Despite the fact that by its very nature, there IS no single, specific way of doing what the supposed group is doing, which is, of course, being individuals.  It's idiotic.

I don't think mental health issues form an identity, at least they shouldn't. Just like catching the flu doesn't put you into the 'flu people' category. The stigma from mental health comes from two sources:

First, there isn't anything visibly wrong with you. If you have the flu, people see that you're sick. If you have some broken bones in your body, people see that you're disabled. With mental health it isn't that obvious, if at all. But still, your brain is an organ like any other and can develop problems over time, whether they're genetic, acquired from circumstances / life-experiences, substance induced or age related. But even people who suffer from mental health issues feel guilty because 'there's nothing REALLY wrong with me, there's people that have it worse than me yet I feel like shit and I can't explain why'. This of course feeds into whatever ails this person, because our brain is a very complex and delicate, barely working when at peak perfomance lump of neurons that somehow managed to evolve far beyond its original purpose.

 

Second, I think mental health issues have been severly overdiagnosed. Or maybe not overdiagnosed, but certainly oversimplified. A depressive episode that's caused through a shitty life situation isn't the same thing as a chronic brain chemistry imbalance that exists entirely independent of external factors, yet doctors often simply diagnose 'depression' and hand out the same pills to everyone. It has certainly been somewhat 'trendy' for a lack of a better word to say that you have depression or what have you. A few years ago everyone had depression, burn-out and anxiety. It's certainly better to be open about it, but if you try to make a point about how brave and proud you are that you're living with depression, you've missed the point and are most likely not depressive. Because depression sucks the life right out of you. Andrew Solomon once said that the opposite of depression isn't happiness, it's vitality.

 

That being said, it should be the progressive point of view to take the stigma away from mental healh issues, not reinforce it. Why exactly does it make something more acceptable if it isn't considered a mental health issue? If we declare depression a lifestyle choice or a chosen state of mind, will it make depression and all the bad things associated with it go away? No, it instead reinforces the notion that 'one should just snap out of it'. Which, again, causes the downward spiral that is already present in people that suffer from those issues. There's nothing REALLY wrong with you, after all.

[FauxFurry]

34 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

 

If we declare depression a lifestyle choice or a chosen state of mind, will it make depression and all the bad things associated with it go away?

The folks who run Burger King seem to think so. 

[Darkpig]

45 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

I don't think mental health issues form an identity, at least they shouldn't. Just like catching the flu doesn't put you into the 'flu people' category. The stigma from mental health comes from two sources:

First, there isn't anything visibly wrong with you. If you have the flu, people see that you're sick. If you have some broken bones in your body, people see that you're disabled. With mental health it isn't that obvious, if at all. But still, your brain is an organ like any other and can develop problems over time, whether they're genetic, acquired from circumstances / life-experiences, substance induced or age related. But even people who suffer from mental health issues feel guilty because 'there's nothing REALLY wrong with me, there's people that have it worse than me yet I feel like shit and I can't explain why'. This of course feeds into whatever ails this person, because our brain is a very complex and delicate, barely working when at peak perfomance lump of neurons that somehow managed to evolve far beyond its original purpose.

 

Second, I think mental health issues have been severly overdiagnosed. Or maybe not overdiagnosed, but certainly oversimplified. A depressive episode that's caused through a shitty life situation isn't the same thing as a chronic brain chemistry imbalance that exists entirely independent of external factors, yet doctors often simply diagnose 'depression' and hand out the same pills to everyone. It has certainly been somewhat 'trendy' for a lack of a better word to say that you have depression or what have you. A few years ago everyone had depression, burn-out and anxiety. It's certainly better to be open about it, but if you try to make a point about how brave and proud you are that you're living with depression, you've missed the point and are most likely not depressive. Because depression sucks the life right out of you. Andrew Solomon once said that the opposite of depression isn't happiness, it's vitality.

 

That being said, it should be the progressive point of view to take the stigma away from mental healh issues, not reinforce it. Why exactly does it make something more acceptable if it isn't considered a mental health issue? If we declare depression a lifestyle choice or a chosen state of mind, will it make depression and all the bad things associated with it go away? No, it instead reinforces the notion that 'one should just snap out of it'. Which, again, causes the downward spiral that is already present in people that suffer from those issues. There's nothing REALLY wrong with you, after all.

It would be much simpler to say people b stupid. You can't have piercings and you can't have tattoos because the moment you do you cease to be a person cause people b stupid. In fact the moment you do anything to your body you are ridiculed. There are two kinds of people that hate trans-gendered folk.

1. The people who think your body is a temple even in this day and age (can you believe it?)
2. The people that think there are some gangsters or lizard men around with tattoos and piercings out to kill them.

I somewhat get the second one but get over it you big babies! You are more likely to die from falling down in your goddamn living room than you are getting mugged by an inked person. How about instead of having a medical condition for people who just want to be themselves, we add a medical condition for the people listed above. For example the people of category one will have something called the Antivaccer Disorder. For category two we'll call this condition Fear of the Unknown Disorder. The treatment for both categories will just be to have them stay home with the hopes that the lizard men don't invade. They may also need a security blanket and a tinfoil hat for comfort.

[27X]

1 hour ago, FauxFurry said:

The folks who run Burger King seem to think so. 

ugh. I had forgotten about that.

[Distortedrealms]

When every google search for anything Skyrim LE related is almost always either Special Edition results, or shitty results from 2011. And SSE only has a fraction of the players, what the heck?

[Evaloves4]

The final GOT episode. Disappointing, illogical and unfair.

[AKM]

4 hours ago, Daedric_Cat said:

...some trans people saying that they would rather have transgenderism remain on the list so they can have access to the appropriate care...

That's about my take.  Why, if you just happen to have legal protections, would you willingly throw them away?  It doesn't make much sense.

 

3 hours ago, GrimReaper said:

I don't think mental health issues form an identity, at least they shouldn't. Just like catching the flu doesn't put you into the 'flu people' category. The stigma from mental health comes from two sources:

 

First, there isn't anything visibly wrong with you.

 

Second, I think mental health issues have been severly overdiagnosed. It has certainly been somewhat 'trendy' for a lack of a better word to say that you have depression or what have you.

 

Why exactly does it make something more acceptable if it isn't considered a mental health issue?

I can tell you from my previous life in medicine that the non-physical ailments (that is, traumas) are the hardest to treat, because, as you said, you can't see it.  It was really bad, at the time, because we practiced trauma to the ends of the earth, but not so much the other side, which, of course, was what we needed the most experience at.  Sigh.

 

Never been a doctor, but there are an awful lot of possibilities for potential problems, an awful big number of patients, and a limited amount of time.  Often, I think, doctors simply go with the first thing that "fits", symptoms wise, and quit digging.  On the other hand, I had an old friend recently make a post about suicidal tendencies on social media.  I've seen enough of his posts and known him long enough to know that this was just par for the course for him (attention seeking), but it was all I could do not to go off on him, due to another friend who killed herself six months ago.  That bullshit is not to be joked about, yet it seems to get used constantly as an attention seeking device.

 

Due to the basic stigma of mental health issues.  Take a look at all the things you wouldn't be allowed anywhere near if you even hint at having problems keeping your mind straight.  Rather than look for a fix, this society feels it better to ostracize and generally just ignore those issues - in part because they are medically so difficult to diagnose correctly (I think..?), though medicine is getting better at fixing chemical imbalances if they're figured out correctly.  The problem is, even if it's diagnosed correctly (which isn't always the case), the patient HAS to take the medication on schedule, or they'll revert, in whole or in part.  I highly suspect that's one of the major reasons for the long list of things you wouldn't be allowed to do if you're found to have mental problems.  Even if they're treated, the question becomes: "Can you be trusted to take your medications on schedule?"  A good example would be manic-depressives, who, when they're feeling good, decide that they don't need the medication, quit taking it, then, of course, crash hard.

 

1 hour ago, Darkpig said:

It would be much simpler to say people b stupid. You can't have piercings and you can't have tattoos because the moment you do you cease to be a person cause people b stupid. In fact the moment you do anything to your body you are ridiculed. There are two kinds of people that hate trans-gendered folk.

1. The people who think your body is a temple even in this day and age (can you believe it?)
2. The people that think there are some gangsters or lizard men around with tattoos and piercings out to kill them.

1. Yes, I can.  Thinking from a purely "How do we get people to take care of themselves physically?" standpoint, the basic statement is still a good idea, even today.  Treat your body well, as you'll be in it for the long haul.  I can't tell you the number of old people I've heard jokingly say "If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself in my younger years!"

 

2. Per piercings and tattoos, generally (not always), one finds that those who partake in such actions tend toward particular behaviors.  Of course they're not all like that.  The thing is, enough of the people who do X are of Y type (whatever the specifics are), that if you see someone who does X, it's a fair bet that they might be a Y type, and if that's not your deal, you probably want to steer clear.

 

Case in point, I once went out of my way to physically avoid someone of a particular genetic persuasion on the street.  He called me on it.  Though I did not tell him, the fact of the matter was that, in my experience, people of his genetic persuasion are more likely to do bad things.  Nothing to do with him personally, but it's a chance I'm not willing to take, especially in that situation.  Self preservation and all that takes precedence over inclusiveness.  I'm not going to put myself into a perceived potentially bad situation intentionally for the sake of rainbows, butterflies and kumbaya.  'Pardon me for trampling on your feels, sir, but I like this chance I've been given, the one called 'my life', and I intend for it to continue as long as possible, thanks.  Nothing personal.'

[AKM]

People who get so wrapped up in their own problems that they refuse help when it is offered, refuse to get help somewhere else even though they know they have problems, and, ultimately, fail to understand how decisions they make affect others, and making decisions with no regard for how such decisions affect others.