What made you go WTF today?

[Hazir]

Enoch is correct. I was given more credit because I had just added nearly $30k to my balance sheet. It makes me have a higher credit score. It's absurd.

I was honestly ready to pay for the item in cash, but if they dangle 0% financing and I know it'll improve my credit for a future mortgage... it's a no brainer. But it's deeply illogical that going into debt for $30k makes people more willing to loan you money.

I had the exact opposite. I needed around €5k because of a cash flow problem. There was no way for me to get the loan from a high street. Basically because I had no debts at all.

[Aimless]

I want to go back to a time before I found out about this dumb as shit video:

Twitter Link

[Hazir]

I'm drinking my morning coffee. On TV there's a German news bulletin. Then as illustration with an item of the lifting of restrictions in The Netherlands I see my own street on German television.

[Aimless]

Twitter Link

[RandBlade]

America, I don't think we can be friends anymore.

Twitter Link

[Kazuha Vinland]

Twitter Link

Just will throw in a torch here. I am familiar with a psychiatrist that works with heavily disabled children here, where one of the methods is physically restraining them when they hurt themselves, just like a dog therapy where the dog is forced down and immobilized when having a serious fit. While this might seem incredibly inhumane, the effects this has on dogs, and likewise human with certain kinds of mental disabilities, appeared to be remarkably positive compared to other treatments. They had in common that the parents of these children, also supported this kind of behavioral treatment, even though doing so to a functionally well human, would be seen as literal torture. But the thing is, there has so far not in these few cases, not been alternative treatment for these kind of mental illnesses, other than strong sedatives that largely impede the life quality of the patients. The parents have spent their ENTIRE lives, many of them with "children" well into adulthood, where they are simply miserable. After having such treatment, although an extreme form, they see the near immediate positive effects on behavior and their happiness generally being improved by a lot. Yes, none of the patients enjoy their pain there and then, but that is sort of also the point - that you have brain modulation, that after a short while, rewires them to stop self hurting for instance. I do not for a second believe that the people at this facility, consider themselves heartless or evil. I believe they really think they are in the right, and just maybe, they are. The controversial episodes they mentioned, were very obviously malpractice of the episode, which they also fully acknowledged - and had made adjustments and changes thereby. And the one patient that reflected back on his own treatment, might not have been actually mentally ill enough, to warrant such a treatment plan.

I generally think that unless you have worked specifically with that kind of mental illness, one should not be so quick to judge, what would normally be seen as shocking (pun not intended) treatment. For some rare cases, it very well might be the only effective treatment that has made a change, as signed by all those parents who've tried literally everything.

[Aimless]

Just will throw in a torch here. I am familiar with a psychiatrist that works with heavily disabled children here, where one of the methods is physically restraining them when they hurt themselves, just like a dog therapy where the dog is forced down and immobilized when having a serious fit. While this might seem incredibly inhumane, the effects this has on dogs, and likewise human with certain kinds of mental disabilities, appeared to be remarkably positive compared to other treatments. They had in common that the parents of these children, also supported this kind of behavioral treatment, even though doing so to a functionally well human, would be seen as literal torture. But the thing is, there has so far not in these few cases, not been alternative treatment for these kind of mental illnesses, other than strong sedatives that largely impede the life quality of the patients. The parents have spent their ENTIRE lives, many of them with "children" well into adulthood, where they are simply miserable. After having such treatment, although an extreme form, they see the near immediate positive effects on behavior and their happiness generally being improved by a lot. Yes, none of the patients enjoy their pain there and then, but that is sort of also the point - that you have brain modulation, that after a short while, rewires them to stop self hurting for instance. I do not for a second believe that the people at this facility, consider themselves heartless or evil. I believe they really think they are in the right, and just maybe, they are. The controversial episodes they mentioned, were very obviously malpractice of the episode, which they also fully acknowledged - and had made adjustments and changes thereby. And the one patient that reflected back on his own treatment, might not have been actually mentally ill enough, to warrant such a treatment plan.

I generally think that unless you have worked specifically with that kind of mental illness, one should not be so quick to judge, what would normally be seen as shocking (pun not intended) treatment. For some rare cases, it very well might be the only effective treatment that has made a change, as signed by all those parents who've tried literally everything.

This is not about restraining people for short periods of time to stop them from harming themselves—it's about quackery that has been condemned as torture, using a device that was recently banned by the FDA. You can read a brief overview here, and obv. look at the underlying reports if you'd like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_...ational_Center

I have indeed worked with patients who have various disorders that come with fits that can be very physical and difficult to manage. What I've seen—and what my mentors have taught me—is that, as a rule, if they are in an environment where they feel safe, and if they're well, and surrounded by competent and caring people who understand them, almost none of these children and adults need to be outright sedated into submission 24/7. To me, when a patient exhibits this sort of behavior more often, it's a fairly reliable sign that something's not right in their environment or in their bodies—not a sign that they need to be sedated, or restrained, or zapped. I understand that parents can reach a point where they become desperate, but, even when people say they've "tried everything", I suspect something has been lacking in the support they've gotten. I don't think there's any scientific support for beneficial "brain modulation" resulting from aversion therapy; the methods may temporarily solve the caregivers' problems with the patient, but not the patients' problems with the world.

[Kazuha Vinland]

But that's kinda the point. It did not just solve the caregivers' problems with the patient, but many of the patients themselves seemed to be dealing with the world in better terms after the treatment as well. The patients do not have these fits, because they deem it rational, but because there is some part of their brain that instinctively turns them to do that. Hit themselves, cut themselves etc. If the restraining therapy (coupled with A LOT of other therapy, for the record) shows that these episodes happens much less frequently, and the patients show signs of joy and happiness more actively afterwards, then the cause might warrant the method.

As for this specific shock therapy, it's not something I will be very stubborn about. I am in no way qualified to deem whether it works or not. The FDA has most likely banned it for good reasons, outside of it being an extremely controversial treatment in the eyes of bystanders. I am just saying that in terms of mental illness, you cannot always look at it as you would with a sane person. Sometimes mercy comes from such apparently cruel treatment plans. If the outcome is predominantly positive, and more so than the alternatives, then it should be at least a viable plan of treatment. Shock therapy or other kinds.

[Aimless]

Twitter Link

wtaf

someone had to onion the tweet so that it'd make sense

[Kazuha Vinland]

That on the other hand is beyond bizarre.

[RandBlade]

Four years on and none of the accusations have gone to court, which is a bit odd.

At which point does innocent until proven guilty get an airing?

[Aimless]

That on the other hand is beyond bizarre.

Especially given the lawsuit hasn't been settled yet. Either Spacey is trolling everyone, or someone is trying to torture Spacey.

[Hazir]

Twitter Link

wtaf

someone had to onion the tweet so that it'd make sense

The movie appears to be Italian.

[Loki]

I don't get the "Free Britney" movement. The fact she wants to go off her medication despite having a severe mental illness shows she's clearly not capable of making rational decisions. And if not being able to go off her meds is a major reason for disliking the current arrangement, that says more about her than about the arrangement.

[Aimless]

I don't get the "Free Britney" movement. The fact she wants to go off her medication despite having a severe mental illness shows she's clearly not capable of making rational decisions. And if not being able to go off her meds is a major reason for disliking the current arrangement, that says more about her than about the arrangement.

Conservatorship arrangements of these kinds tend to be extremely restrictive as it is, and hers seems to have been particularly nuts (although it's possible that it only seems that way because of her celebrity status and the high profile campaign calling for the termination or significant alternation of her conservatorship). Wanting to go off your medications is not—in and of itself—sufficient justification for indefinitely prolonging conservatorship. Wrt whether or not it's a rational desire, consider her conflicting desire to have a child with her partner; several of the psychiatric medications that may have been prescribed to her are such that many patients as well as physicians would prefer they not be used during pregnancy—if it's at all avoidable. On top of this, she has claimed that the conservatorship has been used to deny her the right to try to have a child with her current partner. Under the auspices of this arrangement, her life seems to have been inordinately restricted. Restricting a free person's autonomy wrt their own body and their own life is always a big deal—it must never be taken lightly, and the state's authority to impose such restrictions must be tightly regulated. I don't think this situation is clear-cut, but I'm leaning towards the view that the restrictions have been excessive—and that her rights have been violated by those who were tasked with safeguarding those very rights.

[Loki]

I would be more sympathetic to her claims if she accepted she had a mental disorder in need of treatment. Perhaps she's not allowed to have a child because she wouldn't be able to raise it.

[Aimless]

I would be more sympathetic to her claims if she accepted she had a mental disorder in need of treatment. Perhaps she's not allowed to have a child because she wouldn't be able to raise it.

She's been pretty open about her psychiatric issues in the past. Receiving a psychiatric diagnosis does not in and of itself mean that you must subject yourself to any specific treatment modality or regimen indefinitely; with almost all otherwise well-functioning patients, there is a lot of room for tailoring the therapeutic approach to the patient's wishes and circumstances. For example, it's possible to change the therapeutic approach to make it easier and more safe to go through pregnancy, and then change to something else afterwards.

Having a psychiatric diagnosis doesn't mean you give up your rights eg. to basic autonomy and dignity; all infringements of those rights must be very well justified and critically examined. In this case, there is some evidence to suggest that several of the people involved with her conservatorship had failed in that regard—perhaps to the point of being legally culpable. So it's not just a question of sympathy but also a question of legality.

There are extremely many people who are not apparently capable of raising a child, but our states have neither the authority nor the desire to prevent all those people from having children—not anymore, at least, because, as you well know, it's been tried before. Britney's future children will have a significant advantage compared to the children of many people who might struggle with raising a child, because, unlike many of them, she will have access to a lot more support, assistance, and resources.

One somewhat common reason for strongly advising some patients against having children is that they're on a treatment that substantially increases the likelihood of giving birth to a child with congenital disorders. Usually, these treatments are avoided in women of childbearing age—but far from always. Just this year, I've had to help two patients switch from such a drug to a safer one because they were planning to have children. There are risks involved with the switch, but they are not so great that they justify denying people one of the most treasured human rights.

[Steely Glint]

Must suck to be exactly mentally ill enough to not be able to control your own life and fiances, but still well enough to be able to record records, perform and tour and make millions for the record industry.

I imagine it's like when you feel exactly as unwell as it possible to be while still being well enough that you feel you should go to work.

[Loki]

She's been pretty open about her psychiatric issues in the past. Receiving a psychiatric diagnosis does not in and of itself mean that you must subject yourself to any specific treatment modality or regimen indefinitely; with almost all otherwise well-functioning patients, there is a lot of room for tailoring the therapeutic approach to the patient's wishes and circumstances. For example, it's possible to change the therapeutic approach to make it easier and more safe to go through pregnancy, and then change to something else afterwards.

Having a psychiatric diagnosis doesn't mean you give up your rights eg. to basic autonomy and dignity; all infringements of those rights must be very well justified and critically examined. In this case, there is some evidence to suggest that several of the people involved with her conservatorship had failed in that regard—perhaps to the point of being legally culpable. So it's not just a question of sympathy but also a question of legality.

There are extremely many people who are not apparently capable of raising a child, but our states have neither the authority nor the desire to prevent all those people from having children—not anymore, at least, because, as you well know, it's been tried before. Britney's future children will have a significant advantage compared to the children of many people who might struggle with raising a child, because, unlike many of them, she will have access to a lot more support, assistance, and resources.

One somewhat common reason for strongly advising some patients against having children is that they're on a treatment that substantially increases the likelihood of giving birth to a child with congenital disorders. Usually, these treatments are avoided in women of childbearing age—but far from always. Just this year, I've had to help two patients switch from such a drug to a safer one because they were planning to have children. There are risks involved with the switch, but they are not so great that they justify denying people one of the most treasured human rights.

This is precisely why I don't believe she's kept from having a child because of her medication. I assume her father and the judge aren't idiots. There are clearly many types of medications and many types of treatment.

And this is also why I don't believe this is simply a question of having bipolar. She wouldn't be in this situation if that was the case. My guess is there are multiple psychological and personality disorders, which prevent rational decision-making. She might be very good in some areas (as Steely mentions) but terrible in others.

[Steely Glint]

Twitter Link

60,000.

Sixty. Thousand.

[Aimless]

Twitter Link

60,000.

Sixty. Thousand.

Over 90 thousand claims filed. Unbelievable that parents would choose to continue exposing their children to this risk for so long.

[Hazir]

Over 90 thousand claims filed. Unbelievable that parents would choose to continue exposing their children to this risk for so long.

You can't seriously believe all those parents made a conscious decision to put their children at risk.

[Aimless]

You can't seriously believe all those parents made a conscious decision to put their children at risk.

I don't; I'm referring to those who continued to enroll their children once these abuses began to come to light, irrespective of whether or not their own children were subjected to abuse. The vast majority of parents enrolling their children in this organization for the past decade or more should have known about the sex abuse scandal—as well as about the organization's inadequate response.

[Ominous Gamer]

I was in scouts during these abuses. Nothing (as far as I'm aware) came to light until well after I made eagle scout, left the organization and was in college. I even remember writing an essay about it for an english class at USF. A VAST majority of the claims were only filed in the last couple of years to get them in before the court ordered deadline. It was ~1700 claims before bankruptcy, and it stands around 82,000 now.

At first I didn't even understand the scope of it cause it was never something I ever considered as possible. Even at jamborees and summer camps, ZERO warning signs. I can't help but question how many of the ~80,000 that were only filed after the bankruptcy court set a deadline for compensation are legitimate.

[Hazir]

I don't; I'm referring to those who continued to enroll their children once these abuses began to come to light, irrespective of whether or not their own children were subjected to abuse. The vast majority of parents enrolling their children in this organization for the past decade or more should have known about the sex abuse scandal—as well as about the organization's inadequate response.

I think you underestimate the sheer size of the organization. Huge parts of it will have been free of abuse and/or not aware.

[littlelolligagged]

I think you underestimate the sheer size of the organization. Huge parts of it will have been free of abuse and/or not aware.

Since school systems allowed them into schools to recruit victims, it's not surprising that parents were burying their heads in the sand.

[Aimless]

Twitter Link

This thread was a very surprising and surreal reminder of just how fucking weird the US is. I encourage people from less weird countries to read the replies. It's bizarre

[GGT]

I don't; I'm referring to those who continued to enroll their children once these abuses began to come to light, irrespective of whether or not their own children were subjected to abuse. The vast majority of parents enrolling their children in this organization for the past decade or more should have known about the sex abuse scandal—as well as about the organization's inadequate response.

I don't think you're being fair to the parents. The same could be said about enrolling kids in CYO (Catholic Youth Org) sports, despite all the reports *and law suits* surrounding pedophile Catholic priests.

edit: or supporting their endeavor in a team sport like football....and attending Penn State. Or gymnastics, which is rife with sexual abuse.

For all I know, my son's rape happened during his time with BSA. (That might explain why he left abruptly, weeks short of getting his Eagle rank! ) We used to argue about the BSA's organizing "principles" when they made it clear that homosexuals were not welcomed, and whether atheists/agnostics or any non-Christians had a place, either.

I'd already left the Lutheran church even tho they sponsored his troop. But I was a newly divorced mom, raising 2 sons basically on my own, and wanted to provide them with structure and skills, in a group setting, that would *enhance* their lives. Having male role models was a plus. Gimme a break. And please get off your high horse.

[GGT]

Since school systems allowed them into schools to recruit victims, it's not surprising that parents were burying their heads in the sand.

I missed this post. Do you really think public schools (or churches) are trying to "recruit victims" when they agree to sponsor scout troops? Or that parents are burying their heads in the sand when they sign their kids up for ANY group activity? Didn't you send your own kids to summer camp?

You don't post very often, Lolli. But when you do, you make very judgemental statements, then disappear. WTF!

[Flixy]

They really seem to try to make optical/radiometric units as confusing as possible, it seems:

Spectral quantities given per unit frequency are denoted with suffix "ν" (Greek)—not to be confused with suffix "v" (for "visual") indicating a photometric quantity.

Yeah, hard to see how anyone could confuse a ν with a v...

Heh, in this font they appear to be exactly the same.