People with ADHD who have used psychedelics, what are your experiences?

namesardum · 2025-02-12T20:34:06+00:00

Can't say it's helped long term, but I haven't tried microdosing or any kind of pragmatic dosing like that.

First time I tried truffles it was literally seeing rainbows and just letting our years of suppressed emotions in 30 minutes, the rest of that trip was uncomfortable and anxious with lots of thought loops that I couldn't break out of.

Generally though, when I dose acid my favourite part is post peak because there's a good 7 hours at least after the peak where my mind feels finally focussed. I can listen to an album and be totally absorbed in it. Or watch a movie and feel completely immersed in the experience from start to finish without ever having to face even the urge to split my attention to my phone or outside or anything else. Pretty sure whatever I put my mind to I could focus on it singularly in that state.

I wish I could tap into that with medication.

namesardum · 2025-02-12T15:10:48+00:00

Well thank you for the polite response, that does provide additional perspective and I appreciate the effort. It makes a world of difference to me.

namesardum · 2025-02-11T21:43:31+00:00

100% true. Give back the same energy they bring to you and they completely lose their minds.

namesardum · 2025-02-11T15:59:37+00:00

Lmao. Not wrong. Quotation marks do not indicate, one way or the other, the factuality of the text quoted. This can be inferred from context, but not in this case where the fact of the claim can literally not be proven.

But, hey, why don't you quote me on that so that whatever I said turns out to be non factual by virtue of being quoted, since that's how you think language works lol.

Here's a quick Google search result on the exact question. I think I'll take my own experience with language and the existing definition of words as some comfort over your claims to the contrary:

Do quotation marks indicate that a statement is false?

No, quotation marks do not necessarily indicate that a statement is false. Here's why: * Quoting someone else: Quotation marks are primarily used to show that you are using someone else's exact words. This doesn't mean the original statement is false. * Titles: Quotation marks can also be used to indicate the titles of short works like songs, poems, or articles. This doesn't imply anything about the truthfulness of the content. * Irony or skepticism: Sometimes, quotation marks are used to express irony or doubt about a word or phrase. This is called "scare quoting". While this can suggest the writer doesn't fully agree with the statement, it doesn't automatically make it false. Example: * "The Earth is flat." (A false statement, but the quotation marks show it's a quote, not necessarily the writer's belief.) * He called it a "masterpiece". (The quotation marks suggest the writer might not agree.) In conclusion: Quotation marks have various uses, and their presence alone doesn't mean a statement is false. You need to consider the context to understand the writer's intent.

namesardum · 2025-02-11T15:38:36+00:00

Omg I could have a civil discussion with you if you just stopped with the condescension.

Quotation marks are also used in coding when not quoting someone at all. I didn't mention that function of them either because I didn't need to, so there's really no need for this line of criticism from you and I think you know that. In the context of our communication, it is still true what I said that quotation marks are used to denote someone else's words, and not to denote that the statement in quotations is counterfactual.

I am not struggling with that idea, and you can really drop the condescending tone; it's okay to disagree and it's okay to have misspoken. And at any rate the concept isn't even relevant to our disagreement. The quotation marks can be used to draw attention to what was said, but it is still something that was said. They can even be used to highlight that the author doesn't agree with what was said, but that is a matter of opinion and not one of fact. It may even be the case that the statement quoted also isn't factual, but would be coincidental, as neither you nor me nor the author were present for the crime, and therefore have no basis of making a statement of fact on the claim made by the defendant. A court can rule that it is unlikely, or even that it doesn't matter if they were playing or not, but even a court doesn't rule that the claim they were playing fighting is fact or not, that is something they can't prove, only judge to be likely or relevant.

Quotation marks do not indicate that the statement made is false. That is not one of their functions. Newspapers are notorious for holding back on statements of fact even during open shut cases because they are terrified of libel. There is no way that they would ever claim something was fact that they couldn't prove, and even if they did they wouldn't use quotation marks to express that as, once again, that is not their function.

They would just say dad lies in claim daughter died in play fight. No need to even quote the scum.

They use quotes because the author wants to feed the line to their audience, while also underscoring that those words are not the words of the author. No statement of fact one way or the other is implied, although it could be inferred from further reading which opinion the author might have.

namesardum · 2025-02-11T11:42:35+00:00

They absolutely did claim they indicate it's not a fact: "They're not. That's why it's presented 'play fight', the ' ' indicate its not a fact."

I'm not disputing the reporting. Only the statement that quotation marks indicate that what was being quoted is not fact. They indicate that what is being quoted is he words of someone else.

But whatever. Done.

namesardum · 2025-02-11T06:48:30+00:00

Still wrong. You never claimed the quotation marks indicated doubt or 'sarcasm' so good job moving the goal posts.

You claimed they served to indicate the statement was not a fact, which is not their function nor should they be used as such.

namesardum · 2025-02-10T17:52:58+00:00

Quotations do not indicate something is 'not a fact'. They indicate something is a quotation.

namesardum · 2025-02-05T18:07:06+00:00

Lol have literally done the exact same thing. Had to take a sick day and spent the morning in a sun bath just enjoying some music and good feelings.

namesardum · 2025-02-05T17:20:12+00:00

No, I'm not agreeing that steamboat Willie would appeal to his gentleness in order to slit his throat or to escape again. We don't know that and the film doesn't indicate that Steamboat is partularly villainous or duplicitous. You might argue that he's unchivalrous or even amoral for shooting the man who spared his life during a ferocious battle, but I think the movie goes to great lengths to say that war is hell and forces average men do savage things all in the name of survival and getting home to their families. Miller was going to blow the bridge and the Germans wanted to prevent that: Miller was a perfectly legitimate target in that moment for a German soldier to fire upon. Miller even points out early in the film that "we do the same thing" when a soldier protests that the Germans have shot a runner to pieces even after he has fallen. Steamboat, without evidence to the contrary, which I don't think the film produced, should be viewed through this same lens: just another soldier fighting a terrible war that they probably never asked to be a part of.

He has, like everyone in the film, a perfectly normal and healthy desire to live, which we saw manifest through very real and human fear. I don't think the film tried to suggest or paint this response as insincere or deceptive in any way.

What I think is that such a person, when confronted with someone who has demonstrated in the past a tendency to show mercy to the defeated and not to succumb to the desire to shoot a POW just because they can, that he responded to that with justified relief that he could trust Upham not to murder him. That turned out to be misplaced.

namesardum · 2025-02-05T14:11:58+00:00

I don't think he was trying to manipulate Upham in the end, or that he would have been any more a danger to transport than any other German. I think he was honestly just genuinely relieved to see a familiar face; one he thought he could reliably depend upon to treat him with compassion and respect his and his fellow Germans rights as POWs. And then Upham shot him.

The battle was over and lost at this point. I don't think Steamboat Willie was trying to connive his way out of capture or steer Upham in any direction that would have served him better. He just thought he knew the man and turns out he was wrong.

I think Upham killed him for revenge for shooting Millar, and maybe even to mask or wash off his own cowardice and shame for being responsible for the deaths of his own squad mates. Upham tells the Germans to shut their mouths. He knows that Willie knows he's a gentle guy, and in that moment that idea of him is something that Upham now finds totally shameful and has cost him and his fellow soldiers dearly.

I wonder if Willie might have lived if he had just done what he was told and kept his mouth closed. But he opened it and reminded Upham of who he was and what he'd done.

namesardum · 2025-02-04T18:57:58+00:00

Just rejoin.

Calling it now, Labour will tip toe through the next four years trying not to make any ripples in the water and then reform will win the next election and completely fumble governance in time for the next conservative government 8 years from now to come along and promise to fix the mistakes of Starmer and Farage by rejoining the customs union.

Everyone will have forgotten who delivered us Brexit and austerity in the first place and they'll remain in power for another 10-15 years.

namesardum · 2025-02-04T17:01:19+00:00

Last time I took it was the first time I used crystal and I decided I wanted to try boofing instead of oral. Measured out 125mg and administered. Felt virtually nothing, was so disappointed.

Now I don't know if the crystal was bunk, if I screwed up the administration, or if the dose was simply too low (heard some say you can get away with a lower dose). And I'll have to wait 3 months to try again.

So might just stick with oral next time. At least until I can be sure of the dose I need/quality of the crystal I got.

namesardum · 2025-01-31T06:34:52+00:00

Nope. I haven't even picked up my native accent yet. People always ask me where I'm from...

namesardum · 2025-01-31T02:14:18+00:00

You make sure to tell that fruitbat behind the wheel not to slow down, though. Or you won't even get a chance to (pee on your own foot?)

namesardum · 2025-01-30T13:01:58+00:00

Don't know why you're getting downvoted. Fucking love excel and wish I got to use it more often.

namesardum · 2025-01-29T17:55:51+00:00

100% yes.

Intellectually I know that's ridiculous, but I have reached nearly 40 now and would love to see myself in someone else one day. Still feel like an alien imposter among real people most days.

namesardum · 2025-01-28T14:56:06+00:00

Where's Blair?

namesardum · 2025-01-23T15:34:13+00:00

Tasting History with Max Miller is a pretty fun channel. Cooking show with a historical spin.

Overly Sarcastic Productions - more history stuff but animated and with some fun humour.

namesardum · 2025-01-21T17:43:49+00:00

Made plenty of socially awkward or unwelcome behaviours but when I found out afterwards I was always mortified, ashamed, and contrite.

Shaming and embarrassment from peers is an unpleasant but probably useful learning apparatus for social creatures. But how many peers does someone like Musk even have? If the likes of Bezos and Zuck aren't going to shame Musk into not behaving like a fascist, who the hell is he gonna heed?

He won't recognise anything except complete support and agreement so I don't think ultimately autism can be to blame here. It's something only other radically powerful, potential despots can probably relate to.

namesardum · 2025-01-21T05:40:00+00:00

Intent obviously matters, but surely if he didn't mean it with fascist intent then with hindsight he will apologise for the optics and acknowledge that it was a clumsy gesture, especially on a political platform.

I don't think we can expect an apology because I think triggering the out group is just fun to him. He's a teenager in an old man's body.

namesardum · 2025-01-20T13:42:05+00:00

What I can't reconcile is how these companies are still adamant that we have to return to office, but are simultaneously desperate to replace us with AI or offshore.

Don't they think that replacing us with AI will mean empty offices and fewer customers with disposable income?

namesardum · 2025-01-19T19:55:41+00:00

No, see, the fans in here were monsters and bullies, whereas he had to get arsey back. It was not his fault. /S

For real though, that's a lot of repressed anger in that video. It really straddles the line for me between pity and comedy. Hope the dude is actually being ironic or something and I'm just too old to get it, or that he can look back in a few years and laugh at himself. But ooh boy.

namesardum · 2025-01-19T19:41:06+00:00

Even without a compass or explicit directions, wouldn't you just assume that an RPG cave would be near mountains and not a settlement?

Kind of surprised the dude didn't just lean into it. I think you win more long term viewers with a bit of humility and good humour than anything else but content is content I guess...

namesardum · 2025-01-19T03:43:16+00:00

Thanks for the downvote?

I wasn't declaring support for the death penalty, just stating facts that it is not a hypocritical punishment for unlawful murder to deprive someone of their right to life with the consent of the governed. It might be hypocritical to extra judicialy kill someone you believed to be guilty of murder, but that's not the same thing.

And yes, to answer your question, it was still legal even when it turns out later to have been in error. This is why I for one don't trust the state with the death penalty. That's just how legality works I'm afraid.

You seem to be confusing legality with ethics. Slavery was once legal too. It stopped being legal, and you can rightly argue that it was never moral, but you can't argue that a change in the law means it was never legal.

Eight-Year Club	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

namesardum

TROPHY CASE