I already knew that. I don’t want to ban bicycles or scooters, just cars.

Billionaires and consumers worked together to burn all that oil. That’s why we need to eat the rich AND ban cars.

I think it should be counted an extra time for every entity involved. Everyone gets the blame. Everyone did bad stuff.

Centurii Chan is oddly focused on being allowed to say the N word

Without the oil and motor lobby, normal people wouldn’t drive a car every day.

https://www.statnews.com/2017/09/06/donald-trump-mental-illness-diagnosis/

I helped write the manual for diagnosing mental illness. Donald Trump doesn’t meet the criteria

My long experience with psychiatric diagnosis has taught me a recurring and painful lesson: Anything that can be misused in the DSM will be misused, especially when there is an external, nonclinical reward for doing so. We decided to include narcissistic personality disorder in the DSM-III 40 years ago purely for clinical reasons. We never imagined it would be used as ammunition in today’s political warfare.

To qualify for narcissistic personality disorder, an individual’s selfish, unempathetic preening must be accompanied by significant distress or impairment. Trump certainly causes severe distress and impairment in others, but his narcissism doesn’t seem to affect him that way.

Buried in the noisy debate about Trump’s mental health is the misinformed and noxious assumption that mental illness somehow automatically disqualifies someone for high leadership position. If this were policy, Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill both would have been lost to history due to their battles with depression.

deleted by creator

Finch, E. F., & Mellen, E. J. (2025). “Labeled, Criticized, Looked Down On”: Characterizing the Stigma of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Personality and Mental Health, 19(2), e70015-n/a. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.70015

The term “narcissist” has become a widely used pejorative in the common lexicon […] Yet many of these cultural characterizations of “narcissists” are, at best, reductionist and, at worst, harmfully inaccurate. In reality, narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a highly heterogeneous and complex psychiatric illness, and people who are diagnosed with NPD struggle with a plethora of challenging symptoms

Participants (N = 9) were mental health clinicians who have experience treating patients with NPD

General consensus among participants was that people with NPD internalize stigma, conceal their diagnosis, and anticipate future stigma. Participants reported that at the individual level stigma can intersect with and exacerbate existing vulnerabilities related to NPD, such as a tendency toward shame and low self-esteem.

Honestly, given the misgivings around narcissism, I’m also not recommending that [my patients] talk about it much.

I think that [disclosing one’s NPD diagnosis] is perceived as a path of being basically invalidated, not being taken seriously, not being heard, people wanting to get away from them because it’s a way to easily pre-reject someone…who would want to be close to a narcissist?

Participants agreed that patients often internalize negative stereotypes about NPD, such as the belief that people with NPD are “bad” or “dangerous,” leading them to experience shame and hopelessness in relation to their NPD diagnosis. Notably, participants highlighted that shame is a feature of NPD independent from stigma; however, internalized stigma about having NPD often compounds that shame.

In terms of labeling, participants repeatedly reported that the word “narcissist” has become synonymous with an insult. This reality can make it difficult for patients to accept their diagnosis. One participant reported that a patient told them: “I’m not saying I do not have these traits but I just cannot get past the label. It just does not feel like me.”

Multiple providers noted that the degree to which clinicians hold stigmatizing attitudes against patients with NPD varies substantially by treatment setting. In general, stigma is lower among providers who have received education about NPD and are supported in its diagnosis and treatment, such as providers who work in specialized personality disorder treatment centers. In contrast, there may be more stigma among generalist providers who are not trained or resourced to treat NPD.

Although our participants acknowledged that there are potential risks to treating patients with NPD—as is the case with any serious mental illness—there was also a typical consensus that many clinicians believe working with a patient with NPD will be more risky than it is in reality, often assuming that all NPD patients will be highly aggressive and/or motivated to victimize others.

Participants identified more research on NPD as a critical step toward reducing stigma

Increasing psychoeducation among clinicians was also identified as an important tool for stigma reduction. This includes both adding information about NPD into clinician curricula and facilitating psychoeducation of clinicians later on in their careers. Participants noted that a critical aspect of this psychoeducation may be increasing awareness of NPD complexity and heterogeneity, particularly pertaining to the presence of narcissistic vulnerability. This would combat some of the harmful stereotypes about NPD rooted in grandiosity. Multiple participants mentioned the NPD Basic (Ronningstam 2016), a booklet that reviews identifying, diagnosing, and treating NPD, as a valuable resource for the psychoeducation of clinicians.

Another potential avenue for stigma reduction, according to our interviews, may be transitioning to a dimensional conceptualization of NPD, which places narcissistic traits on a spectrum instead of applying categorical labels. This finding aligns with recent empirical work, which observes that stronger “continuum” beliefs about mental illness (e.g., that mental illness exists on the continuum of life experience and is not categorically distinct) are associated with lower stigma toward mental illness stigma (Peter et al. 2021). Similar findings have been established for personality disorders

The creator of the DSM-IV NPD diagnosis is on record as saying he doesn’t have NPD. There’s a lot of professional disagreement, both over whether he has it, and whether it’s appropriate for doctors to say a celebrity has a disorder. It’s called the Goldwater rule. A lot of doctors have broken the Goldwater rule to spout their uneducated opinions, but if you look at NPD specialists, they’ll generally have much more professional integrity than the generalists because they’re aware of the stigma their patients face, and they can clearly see Trump doesn’t have it.

Yeah, NPD is an actual disability and causes great suffering and social impairment to the patient.

That’s why Trump doesn’t have NPD. He’s not suffering. He’s not impaired.

Pretty narcissistic of you to decide mental health diagnoses are for your personal use as insults.

Horse and Sparrow economics: the horse eats the food and the sparrow picks undigested seeds out of its poo

Epstein Ballroom

If you go to university and do any kind of field that involves essay writing, you’ll learn to use a thesis statement to summarise your argument so people know what you’re arguing for. You’ve provided some evidence, but it’s entirely unclear what your position is in this conversation other than “the democrats do bad things sometimes”. If your entire position is “the democrats do bad things sometimes”, then great job! We’re all very proud of you for proving the democrats do bad things sometimes. Now go do your fucking job developing the Lemmy software, because this software is full of issues and the grownups are talking about important issues that actually have a point.

Karl Marx said:

The relationship of the revolutionary workers’ party to the petty-bourgeois democrats is this: it cooperates with them against the party which they aim to overthrow; it opposes them wherever they wish to secure their own position.

What that means in the American system is we vote against liberals in the primaries, and we vote for them against the fascists. America doesn’t have ranked choice voting, but voting socialist in the primaries and left (out of the two candidates presented) in the generals is the closest approximation. This is the Karl Marx approved strategy, as you can see from his speech to the Communist League.

Now let’s talk about this meme. It’s fake news. There was no Alligator Auschwitz under the Democrats. Guantanamo Bay wasn’t a concentration camp for immigrants under the Democrats. I submit that the Democrats are at least 1% better than the Republicans, and that this proves the meme is fake news. And if anyone replies to this comment and says well 1% isn’t good enough, I’m going to accuse you of moving the goalposts, because this meme says colour is the only difference. The meme doesn’t say 1% less people get run over by the trolley, and I think there are at least 1% fewer state caused deaths under the Democrats.

The relationship of the revolutionary workers’ party to the petty-bourgeois democrats is this: it cooperates with them against the party which they aim to overthrow; it opposes them wherever they wish to secure their own position.

the workers, and above all the League, must work for the creation of an independent organization of the workers’ party, both secret and open, and alongside the official democrats

Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention.

- Karl Marx, address to the Communist League

Lmao I read that whole entire comment, and it wasn’t easy, and it’s all frantic backpedaling.

For the record I think the study you’re citing makes a methodological mistake by applying an issues based measurement framework in a representative democracy, but I have no intention of elaborating because you’re not arguing in good faith and you’re just going to waste everyone’s time.

Anyway next time post the version of the study that actually passed peer review and got published, not a draft.

Closer than my attempt at nuance? I didn’t know I made an attempt at nuance yet. I thought I just vaguely gestured towards the nuance and said it exists. Can you please explain what my position is on how much I think voting can accomplish so I’m all caught up with the conversation?

The socialist alliance party is working with Israel? Wowzers, I didn’t know that! Can you provide a source, or are you making things up?

See, the problem with Dessalines’ meme is that it uses “work” as a binary category. As in, something either has no effect or it completely restructures society. It is absolutely true that electoralism can’t completely restructure society, and there are many valid explanations for why that is in communist theory. However, Dessalines reveals his lack of understanding by equating completely restructuring society with “working”.

If we were to construct a true binary between working and not working, it would be between having zero effect, and having any effect, no matter how small. The beating of a butterfly’s wings has some effect on the world, and could theoretically contribute towards a tornado that sucks up all the bourgeoisie and allows the workers to democratise the means of production. So obviously voting has some tiny effect, since it’s stronger than a butterfly’s wings. Voting works, in other words. But that’s a virtually meaningless statement if we’re constructing a binary as Dessalines did.

The correct approach is to ask “how much can voting accomplish”, and with that question we can actually arrive at an answer with some nuance and a justification from within the theory. But the binary question Dessalines asks can afford no nuance, and is obviously not supported by theory or anything else. Which proves that even if Dessalines read theory, he didn’t understand much of it.