colon_capital_D

Why not both? We have the capacity to replace outdated/useless words and make the situation better for others. In fact, one does not prevent the other whatsoever

Could you explain how you don't think mental health therapy is a science? We have psychology as a major in most universities, unlike chiropractic studies which are usually offered in different or specialized institutions. We have doctors of psychiatry that are actual doctors that can prescribe medications, just like general practice doctors. Therapy in different fields, whether it is in individual mental health or couple's therapy are active areas of research in academia with published works you can read up on. So I'm not sure how you're equating Mental health with Chiropractic practice.

It isn't a placebo effect, as you mentioned. Therapy isn't a cure/medication like drugs or a surgery for some diseases, therapy is more akin to exercising your mind so that you can face stress/fears/ any kind of emotional turbulence without losing it. Or as an avenue for personal growth or reducing effects of mental trauma. Saying it's a placebo effect without backing it up could be actively harmful for people who might be considering it and actually need it. Yes, it's not for everyone, and every therapists is different and every patient may or may not be willing to put in the work for it, but that doesn't make it ineffective or a placebo effect. But how is that different from, say, how the covid vaccine affects one person vs the other (some experience more protection and/or suffer from mild symptoms for a couple of days, etc.) or how chemotherapy may work for some patients but not for others?

So it has to be a death sentence before anything should be done about it?

Yes, other groups and communities might have similar suicide rates and life is hard for them too, but this isn't about them? So what is their relevance in this argument exactly? They should be helped too not seemingly pitted against the LGBTQ community like this is a them or us thing.

Agree, those other issues are legitimate as well, and access to those should be improved. But that can be accomplished along with allowing better access to gender affirming medication.

Damn, you hate homeless people so much, you're using pregnancy and disabled people as an excuse. Just say you don't like homeless people, it's easier

That's a nice way of minimizing an entire cuisine and culture based on one or two dishes. Regardless of the fact that the Philippines is made up of thousand of islands, with variations on the same dishes based on local taste and ingredients, or the influence of the many people that we have traded with and/or been invaded by. Oh and how poverty plays a role in how the people try to source their ingredients. But sure, yeah, kids and their cooking or whatever.

Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace. It's been a while and I don't quite remember a lot of details, but I'm proud I was able to read it and did enjoy the process of reading it.

I will try to understand the point you're trying to make here, but I'd like to interject with some questions and propositions of my own.

"...everything turns to lava at 14 miles down."

-I would like some source on the claim that everything turns to lava at 14 miles down, where are you getting that information from? From what I've, briefly, read - the answer is more nuanced. The Earth's crust is fairly thin at parts, like at the bottom of the ocean, but also denser. The mantle isn't fully magma either, so I don't think it's fair to claim "everything turns to lava at 14 miles down." The more nuanced take would be to say it depends on the material, temperature, depth, etc. before something may or may not turn into lava (actually magma, lava is when it comes out of the surface of the Earth).

"This leaves us with a very small livable zone on a massive lava ball."

-For a bit of levity: Objection! Relevance?

"I propose the earth core is superheating and the real cause of the either real or perceived climate change bc a lot of data seems to be bullshit."

-Ah, got it. It seems, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you do not believe in man made climate change at all? Not even as an addition to your proposed superheating core proposal? Hence your point above about small livable zone, correct?

-But also, like @[email protected] asked, what about climate data seems bullshit to you? And how would you justify that? You made a claim, and I will now ask you for data for that claim. Seeing as you see things in a nuanced way, this shouldn't be an issue.

"I also propose we deal with pollution only as it solves climate change at the same time"

-Might be a bit of a tangent since it's not directly about climate change, but are you then proposing we don't try to lower pollution even for health and safety reasons because solving it does not actually solve climate change, according to your claims?

"Question is, do humans want to backtrack progress, live more in tune with nature, or are we going to keep doubling down and hoping for an actual green energy so we can live in some sort of dystopian future?"

-Specifically, what do you mean by progress? Societal? Technological? Scientific? And why would backtracking mean we live more in tune with nature and that progressing won't? Is wind or hydro or solar power not more environmentally friendly than coal? Isn't deriving insulin in a synthetic way kinder to animals, and nature, rather than having to harvest tons of organs from cows and pigs?

-Why is having "actual green energy" leading us to a dystopian future? Is that not an overt claim as opposed to a nuanced one?

Ok, i'll bite. Can you elaborate on these many variations of beliefs you mentioned and what that particular take would look like if it was compared to a strictly left and/or right opinion? You're making a statement, so I'll ask you to prove it. What's the centrist take on, oh I don't know, climate change?

I'm not quite sure how you can say you don't use identity politics when you called yourself a centrist. A centrist opinion may contain nuance, but a nuanced opinion does not make it, or someone, a centrist.

I am reading The Dungeon Anarchist's Cookbook by Matt Dinniman, book 3 of the Dungeon Crawler Carl book series.

Whoa, sorry this is a late reply. I don't get notified if I get responses to my comments. Anyway, I can't find it, but there's a good resource on a subreddit I found before about book recommendations and reading order. In lieu of that, I can tell you what I remember: the setting, timeline, characters and lore are too many and varied to jump into, so focus on something smaller and more localized. A standalone series, or even a single novel, that's more relatable and more focused can introduce you to the setting and themes of warhammer 40k (or 30k, if it's related to the timeline around the Horus Heresy) better than some of the ones focusing on the bigger conflicts. All that to say, start with the Eisenhorn series of books.

Also, read up a bit on some articles about the lore for 40k available online, there's a few wikis dedicated to Warhammer 40k/30k. There's going to be spoilers, of course, but maybe focus on something you'd like to particularly know about the world of warhammer 40k, e.g spacemarines, the imperium, the other alien species, something more related to the tabletop game itself, etc. Then see if it's to your liking, and you can branch off from there and read books about topics that interest you. Hope that helps a bit!

This is definitely an opinion, and definitely unpopular, so kudos on staying on topic. But I have to ask, why do you care about what the media says and not the science? Also, did I miss scientific studies being published about this? What are the other species of humans called?