I think the thing that can't be talked about is that there are also different levels of grief. It is hard to talk about because any suggestion that one person's grief is worse than someone else's seems to trivialize their pain.
But the truth is there are levels to this. I grieved when I lost pets. The pain I felt was very real and deep, but it didn't really compare to the pain I felt when I lost my grandparents. I was very close to them, and I was devastated when they died. That pain, however, was not even close to the level of pain I felt when I lost my daughter. That is life-changing pain that one never recovers from.
So I like the idea of shattered glass because it allows for acknowledgement that all grief shatters us. Some grief, like perhaps a pet loss, might just break us into a few big glass pieces, relatively easy to glue back together. Other loss, like that of my daughter, shatters you into a million glass pieces. No amount of time or effort will put you back together. But you can take the pieces and shape something from them. That something can still be beautiful and have a good life, but it will never be the same thing as it was before.
I don't know enough about serious psychiatric disorders to comment on if the author is right or wrong, except that I think our society treats complex issues as if they can be solved with simple answers and I suspect that it is the same here. Involuntary treatment of any sort is problematic and ripe for abuse so it very much should be regarded with suspicion. On the other hand, there are many disorders that make someone a danger to themselves or others, or just unable to live unassisted. The problem is where to draw the line.
If someone has repeatedly shown violent tendencies, then I think some level of forced care is generally agreed on. But what if they have only muttered threats? And what distinguishes their threats from the kind of vague "I'm going to get you" that gets muttered often enough? What about things like hoarding disorder? Should they be forced into treatment? Although they might be endangering their own health, people make choices that are bad for their health all the time. Beyond that, they aren't necessarily posing a danger to anyone. Yet their condition causes, at a minimum, unsafe living conditions and destruction of property. The author mentions bipolar, but I think this is even difficult. Even in a state of mania, I think most bipolar people are still capable of making rational decisions. Do we remove their autonomy simply because we might disagree with their decisions and they have a diagnosis? But if their disease is causing problems making rational decisions, maybe someone stepping in would be appropriate? It is definitely a very tricky issue.
I don't know, there's a lot of red flags on his site.
"Slowed pace of aging by 31 years": How could one possibly quantify this accurately?
Depending on his body weight, a bench press of 240lbs isn't particularly notable or impressive.
Giving leg press numbers instead of something like deadlift or squat is a bit suspicious. Leg press is easy to cheat by limiting range of motion. Plus full body movements that require more stabilization would be a better measure if one is trying to prove they haven't aged.
Comparing strength numbers to an 18 year old is probably not the best metric, given that strength takes a certain amount of time to build. Not that there are good scientific papers on this but I think general consensus is it peaks mid 20s
You can try working on the Linux kernel, perhaps with the kernel janitors project (https://code.google.com/archive/p/kernel-janitors/ ). I recommend hanging out on the mailing list a little while to get some idea of what to do, as well as reading the wikis on that page.
The sad truth is that we just don't know how to treat addiction very well. We don't even define "success" well. Is it sober after 3 months? 6? 1 year? 5 years? 10? Does that still count if one has to continue to get treatment/go to meetings/take medication/etc.? There aren't a lot of good, consistent answers. AA isn't without its faults, but it is readily available, anonymous, and free (that's a big one -- too many anti-AA people are selling something).
I think men and women just prioritize different things. Men might be willing to "marry down" in terms of finances but are probably less willing to do so in terms of attractiveness. And as a woman with a high-paying job, I would argue the problem is not entirely with women. I couldn't care less how much a guy I date makes (that's the beauty of being able to fully provide for myself and my kids, I don't have to rely on any guy's money). Without exception, though, every guy I've gotten serious has had some level of insecurity around it. They might say they are OK with it, but eventually they will have some problems with it. To be fair, this might be because of societal expectations, but it isn't because I care what they make.
It can be indirect socialization to boot. Perhaps we have agreed that men don’t have to be the breadwinner. But… what else are they supposed to bring to the relationship?
We can of course say, oh they are supposed to be funny, loving, and do their fair share of chores. But what can only they bring?
I think this could be a driver of insecurity. If not a provider role, we haven’t figured out what alternative respectable roles they could fill, which means as far as culture is concerned they feel useless.
A man who dates a woman with higher income is taking a big risk that eventually she's going to get frustrated with his lower income and end the relationship. This isn't an misguided concern, hang on on reddit dating/relationship forums and about once a month you'll see a post from a woman in this situation and frustrated by it. Inevitably the advice she gets is "break up with him".
Majority of women are not ok with men making less, no matter what they say - its often an unrevealed preference.
I can't speak towards how other people, particularly minorities or the disabled think, but, as a woman, I hate the unintentional "othering" of people trying to do the right thing. I am typically the only woman at work, and people will often correct others who use terms like "guys" with statements like "guys or girls". I understand that they are doing it with good intentions and don't get angry, but to me it just serves to drive home the point that I am different. I am not like the others.
As a "minority" I completely agree with you. IMO, the White Knights target the "others" for an opportunity to virtue signal. It got old after the first time it happened.
It's unclear if the issue is EA or how to handle misbehavior in organizations without formal structure or hierarchy. It isn't like a workplace, with reasonably well-defined boundaries, but something more akin to religion, where its influence bleeds over heavily into many aspects of ones life. As such, it is probably both more devastating when one is the victim of misconduct and also more difficult to police such misconduct. I am not really sure what the answer here is. "Believe all women" is a great slogan, but I am not a fan of a "guilty until proven innocent" (and I say this as a woman). OTOH, this isn't a criminal procedure and as such, one shouldn't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is preying on others to enforce some level of punishment. It's a tough problem.
You should be able to punish people even though there's reasonable doubt that they are culpable? Are you arguing for a "balance of probabilities" standard? Or that it's worth punishing some innocents so that the guilty are also punished?
The standard of proof required to ban someone from a once-a-month pub meetup is far lower than the standard required to, say, give someone the death penalty.
I think I am arguing for a "balance of probabilities". If (to spout off random hypothetical) the punishment is something like a banning of someone from EA conferences, then there definitely needs to be evidence of their misconduct, but that level of evidence doesn't need to be the same as if they are looking at a criminal conviction. The point is balancing the need to protect the victim while not punishing the innocent is a difficult issue outside the criminal courtroom.
As a woman who finally gave up on twoxchromosomes because I felt is was a bit too toxic I somewhat disagree on it not being toxic. It seemed determined to paint women as perpetual victims of toxic men. Ironically it also seemed determined to paint men as bad if they didn't protect women (yes, this is an exaggeration. No, not all and perhaps not even most posts/comments were this way. It just happened enough and it made me angry enough that I decided avoiding that subreddit was best for my mental health)
Really we need to start changing terminology. A great deal of these deaths are not overdoses in the sense that people took too much of a drug but poisonings in that people took something they did not intend to take. It might seem like a minor detail, but if helps drive home the point that even users who do not take opiods are at risk, it is worth doing.
But the truth is there are levels to this. I grieved when I lost pets. The pain I felt was very real and deep, but it didn't really compare to the pain I felt when I lost my grandparents. I was very close to them, and I was devastated when they died. That pain, however, was not even close to the level of pain I felt when I lost my daughter. That is life-changing pain that one never recovers from.
So I like the idea of shattered glass because it allows for acknowledgement that all grief shatters us. Some grief, like perhaps a pet loss, might just break us into a few big glass pieces, relatively easy to glue back together. Other loss, like that of my daughter, shatters you into a million glass pieces. No amount of time or effort will put you back together. But you can take the pieces and shape something from them. That something can still be beautiful and have a good life, but it will never be the same thing as it was before.