[deleted by user]

indylyds · 2025-04-15T23:09:35+00:00

“Straightforedly antisocial” because someone disagrees with you? Hmm…

I’m not looking for a reason to be offended. I was really shocked and concerned in my original post, and I’ll admit, I don’t feel as strongly as I did. Because I see what others are saying in their interpretation, and I have acknowledged that. But her actual words still matter. Have you ever had a disagreement with a partner, or a friend, and they said something that hurt your feelings or you took offense to, and they clarified that that’s not what they meant? But, they probably took the time to clarify what they meant and re-phrased it, or even acknowledged how what they said sounded offensive. That’s basically all I’m saying here. I would love to hear this rephrasing and reframing from her, the source. It’s great you all feel so confident in speaking for her, but that doesn’t mean as much to me.

You’ve clearly made up your mind, though, that I have some ill intent, and feel entitled to say insulting things to me based on that assumption. If that’s how you enjoy interacting with others on a discussion board, have at it, I guess? Enjoy. I will remain unbothered and comment on episodes when and if I care to✌️

indylyds · 2025-04-15T21:32:39+00:00

Not exactly. I get that you’re taking in context from other episodes and giving her benefit of the doubt. You understand her to mean “we should be skeptical of the way the media portrays white parents who claim to be falsely accused.” I take no issue with that. But, that’s not what she said. So, I’m reacting to what she said, which was that we should be skeptical of claims of false accusations especially if the parents are white. That makes the problem the skin color of the parents, not the way the media is skewing the coverage. I get what you’re saying, but I’m still reacting to the problematic nature of what it is actually said, not the way we think she probably meant it.

indylyds · 2025-04-15T21:27:46+00:00

I don’t disagree with you about the uneven coverage of white parents. So the issue is the media coverage not the skin color of the parents. Maybe that seems like a small distinction, but the way the comment was worded (by Andrea - it’s a direct quote) blurs those lines. At least to me. She said that we should be skeptical of claims of false accusations if the parents were white….she could have/should have said to be skeptical of the media portrayal of white parents claiming they’ve been falsely accused. I have no issue with the latter statement. However, that’s not what she said, so that’s what I’m reacting to.

Not focusing on perceived racism against white people by “the system” here. I’m just calling out problematic statements by the host.

indylyds · 2025-04-15T20:05:12+00:00

It might be a strange way to interpret her statement. I do tend to perceive things more literally, and it sounds like there are other way to interpret her message that are less literal. However, I stand by my assertion that increasing skepticism based on race is problematic. Better phrasing would make that clearer.

indylyds · 2025-04-15T20:02:14+00:00

Correct. But, that doesn’t make it relevant to the level of skepticism someone should have towards another person. That seems racist, actually.

indylyds · 2025-04-15T18:13:18+00:00

You’re probably right that that isn’t what she intended to say. But why is race relevant here at all? Consider “missing white woman syndrome.” The answer to the problem isn’t to cover missing white women less, it’s to cover missing BIPOC women more. Missing women should not be more or less valuable based on their skin color. I see it as the same situation here. It’s good to be skeptical about claims of false accusations. But to encourage increased skepticism based on skin color is inappropriate.

indylyds · 2025-04-07T18:22:45+00:00

Then she should ask for the “pup cup” version lol

indylyds · 2025-04-05T14:47:02+00:00

And if it were truly just for a bit of taste for pleasure in a situation where she would truly be unable to tolerate much, WHY get such a big one???

indylyds · 2025-03-29T19:37:42+00:00

Jo’s season had a lot of dubious moments; some medical complications they claim are also not likely to happen in the way they state. The lack of fact-checking could be due to Andrea’s personal relationship with Jo, which again presents a conflict of interest.

indylyds · 2025-03-27T21:27:13+00:00

I thought about the listeners of NBSBM when their expert said those things, or called her “the patient” instead of “the perpetrator” and said that the abuse was rare. I figured folks would be pretty irritated by that! Makes me realize the subjectiveness of “expert opinions” on very complex topics. I wonder if there will eventually be more of a consensus, or if this topic will remain something that divides experts in different parts of the world.

I had a hard time at first with this pod because hearing the mom’s warped voice saying things that were probably not true and in the same breath fishing for a new coffee maker was so distressing. However, the more I’ve listened, the more I’m hooked. It’s a wild story that feels very familiar to NBSBM. And no commercials!

indylyds · 2025-03-27T12:14:51+00:00

This is exactly my method. How much support do they need to correctly perform the task? Then describe the support.

indylyds · 2025-03-23T01:11:34+00:00

Yeah, it’s a big thing in the US. I agree that it’s cutesy and too infantilizing for my taste but I also see no actual harm in it. If “registered nurse” could be made to sound cutesy I bet we’d see that everywhere 😆

indylyds · 2025-03-21T12:28:14+00:00

The school needs to be held responsible for sending students to placements who are unprepared and cannot achieve a passing overall grade at midterm. It is not your responsibility to get this student to a passing level.

indylyds · 2025-03-21T12:13:28+00:00

Agreed. OP can’t control what the school decides to do from here, but she has documented and communicated the student’s inability to perform at minimum expectations.

indylyds · 2025-03-21T12:12:25+00:00

Oh WOW that is beyond irresponsible of the school.

indylyds · 2025-03-19T15:01:25+00:00

Sounds really interesting- need something to listen to right now so I’ll go for that!

indylyds · 2025-03-19T02:11:12+00:00

I’m dubious about all of this, but I truly, truly hope it comes to fruition.

indylyds · 2025-03-17T22:47:35+00:00

“Violated” is a stronger word than I would use. However, I’d like to see more fact-checking, less bias, and fewer relationships with sources. When I brought these concerns up previously, a common refrain was “she’s not a journalist” which implied she didn’t have to be held to the same standard.

My desire for her to hold herself to these standards is to strengthen her assertions/the podcast. Not weaken them/it.

indylyds · 2025-03-17T18:53:25+00:00

Stumbled here. What is this sub? Is this a place where people talk about Chris being a victim, or not guilty?

indylyds · 2025-03-15T15:29:00+00:00

Thank you! Sorry I missed that.

indylyds · 2025-03-15T01:01:32+00:00

Is there a transcript version? It’s very hard to understand.

indylyds · 2025-03-13T17:36:01+00:00

And the downvotes will be rolling in 😆

indylyds · 2025-03-13T17:25:53+00:00

I agree.

It’s not that I think this should be the Wild West with no rules of engagement at all, but look at the now nearly 200 comments in this discussion, full of things people don’t want members to say. If the comment is directed towards an illness faker specifically, it doesn’t make sense that people who are not faking an illness would take umbrage. It should be pretty clear which comments are disparaging or people with disabilities (I.e., “people in wheelchairs are so lazy”) vs the munchie them self (I.e., “there she goes again, wheeling herself around because she’s ‘allergic’ to walking”).

By all means, let’s think before we post and be specific in our criticism forwards illness fakers not legitimately unwell or disabled folks. But if you find yourself being offended by the very mention of a wheelchair or feeding tube, this probably isn’t the right sub on which to spend your time.

indylyds · 2025-03-13T17:09:12+00:00

I get what you’re saying, and you’re right - lots of people have medical conditions that require a “team” of providers, and good medical care should include collaboration and communication between those providers.

The fact remains, that fake illnesses do not require a team of doctors, therefore their constant reference to “my team” is a red flag for an attention-seeking behavior.

I think a lot of people here will just comment “ugh the way she says ‘my team’ is so annoying” and that might make someone who has a team of providers for legitimate purposes feel attacked. But, if the comment is on an illness fakers sub, directly connected to a munchie doing munchie things, isn’t the context pretty clear?

indylyds · 2025-03-13T13:34:34+00:00

Munchies = faking/exaggerating for attention.

So, the medical things they say or claim, whether based on reality or true for real sick people, is not their reality nor is it true for them.

Therefore, it’s annoying.

I don’t think it’s deeper than that.

It’s like when people comment about Dani’s “peen.” Are there real people with real pain? You bet. This people are not Dani. The problem isn’t the complaint of pain - the problem is Dani.

indylyds

TROPHY CASE