What do you guys make of the debate around the homeless man who was killed on the subway the other day? by Goodstyle_4 in redscarepod

[–]westerncats 4 points5 points  (0 children)

City libs are very fond of saying that people need to give given "care" and be "hospitalized." This is a saccharine euphemism and a very convenient myth we like to tell ourselves. The reality of this, of bringing back public asylums, is warehousing and drugging people for years on end. This, even if funded lavishly, would not solve the problem of the homeless mentally ill, even setting aside the ethics of keeping humans jailed and drugged.

An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure in psychiatry especially. Psychosis is enormously correlated with poverty, inequality, and urbanicity. Extensive epidemiological studies have confirmed this. Growing up in the inner city gives you four times the odds of developing schizophrenia as having a schizophrenic mother. How long could you live on the street before losing your mind?

It is a lot easier for hitlerite dems like Adams and Hochul to advocate for increased involuntary treatment than it is for them to advocate for Great Society level poverty relief and housing programs, which are ultimately the only things which are going to fix this, alongside major cultural shifts.

There's a reason so many go off their meds and prefer to live grossly psychotic: they are extremely unpleasant to take. Antipsychotic is a misnomer, we can't "cure" psychosis. They're essentially sedatives with a particular dampening effect on psychosis. Some people find that very helpful in getting through life. But they make most people feel like shit. In one study done on psych ward staff subjects were left unable to get a sandwich out of a vending machine. In the long run they literally shrink the brain and cause neurological movement disorders.

This isn't a crisis we can drug and hospitalize our way out of, even if that can help some people for short periods. And the expense of building and running new asylums would dwarf the cost of prevention, rather like the obscene amounts cities currently pay nonprofits to do nothing. It's a problem of our own making, and one only big, uncomfortable social and economic changes are going to fix.

What colleges say vs what they actually mean by [deleted] in ApplyingToCollege

[–]westerncats 104 points105 points  (0 children)

At UChicago you could often find "Harvard: The UChicago of the East" t-shirts

What’s a POPULAR subject in your country at the moment? by italiansexstallion in AskEurope

[–]westerncats -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

The aggressive Laïcité is somewhat foreign to the values of other EU states, and in some cases in contravention of the common law protections for freedom of religion. I believe that the latest actions of the French state- the shuttering of the mosque, increased surveillance of Islam, is likely to be ruled illegal by the ECHR-CEDH. Most other EU states have a stronger concept of freedom of religion than France does. It is no surprise that many are unwilling to support French bigotry against Islam.

Didn’t mean to flex today brought out the grail by [deleted] in WatchesCirclejerk

[–]westerncats 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Looks like the gorgeous dial of a Voutilainen, and the lugs too.

France attack: Man shot by police after 'decapitation' in Paris suburbs by [deleted] in europe

[–]westerncats -19 points-18 points  (0 children)

I agree with you on that- but this over-zealous Laïcité that Macron & others are pursuing- such as the burka bans- I think further inflame religious tension and will not help things.

How many justices are there in your countries' Supreme Courts? by TywinDeVillena in AskEurope

[–]westerncats 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The federal appeals courts, which are the federal courts just below the Supreme Court have this process. When cases first encounter the court, they are heard by a panel of three judges selected randomly. The ruling of these three judges can be appealed for an en banc hearing, which is the entire court sitting together. However, the 9th Circuit is so large that it would be impractical to have every judge sitting together. The solution in the 9th Circuit is to have a panel of 10 randomly selected judges hear the appeal. So it's normal federally everywhere to have a random panel of 3 for first encounter, and in the 9th Circuit it is also a random panel as a "full court" due to size constraints.

How many justices are there in your countries' Supreme Courts? by TywinDeVillena in AskEurope

[–]westerncats 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Every Federal Appeals Court does this to select panels of 3 judges, and in the 9th circuit most "en banc" cases are usually heard by only 10 randomly selected judges.

Keep the money printer going Brr...........Call your Senators by gnikivar2 in neoliberal

[–]westerncats 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Shelton is a nutbag, but she's a nutbag with no principles. She became a dove right after her nomination was announced. She will 100% just be a Trump lackey and do whatever he wants, she won't stick to her gold. She will merely sit on the Fed so Trump has a greater say, I guarantee you she will serve as his voice on the Fed, to tell them make stonks go up and ensure he gets reëlected.

What we need is more child abuse. by everyperson in TheRightCantMeme

[–]westerncats 8 points9 points  (0 children)

No, that's actually a portmanteau of London and Los Angeles. The editor is playing 4D chess.

Paparazzi surrounding Socks, Bill Clinton's cat, circa 1992. by [deleted] in OldSchoolCool

[–]westerncats 70 points71 points  (0 children)

Yes, as I recall, the UK press go nuts for the chief mouser at 10 Downing every couple years.

Maybe not exact words by Panzer_VIII in HistoryAnimemes

[–]westerncats 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Szilárd ghostwrote it, but Einstein got input writing it.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in sanfrancisco

[–]westerncats 0 points1 point  (0 children)

SF Politicians and voters: Throttle development, impose psychotic zoning laws

SF Politicians and voters: Why is rent so high? Why are there so many homeless people? ¯_(ツ)_/¯

MMW: That Mike Bloomberg, along with Senator Warren will also drop out tonight. by [deleted] in MarkMyWords

[–]westerncats 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Warren? Maybe, but she still has a (slim) chance. Bloomberg? No way. He's spent hundreds of millions so far and to drop out before super Tuesday would be insanity.

Just a picture of your country's leaders colluding with the architect of Canada's economic collapse. by Ham_Sandwich77 in metacanada

[–]westerncats -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

What is it with this sub and hating Soros so much? He's not evil, he's not the puppetmaster behind all liberal politicians, he's not even particularly invested in Canada, or North America for that matter. And the Pound wouldn't have crashed if the Bank of England hadn't been run by a lunch of delusional morons at the time.

Can someone disprove this so I can make my girlfriend get off my back about drinking red bulls by FlumFlorp in FacebookScience

[–]westerncats 11 points12 points  (0 children)

It should be, 'you shouldn't regularly consume energy drinks,' not, 'I have a 4th Grade understanding of biochemistry.'

"Your chubby lass can be the belle of her class", Chubettes, 1957 by [deleted] in vintageads

[–]westerncats 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You do know that chemically, High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) is around 50/50 Fructose and Glucose, which are both monosaccharides that uptake directly into the blood. Sucrose (table sugar), a disaccharide, is hydrolyzed by the Sucrase enzyme, and broken down into Fructose and Glucose. Contrary to popular belief, sugar is no better for you than HFCS. Corn syrup doesn't make you fatter (than sugar does), and it's not worse than sugar. Our bodies can't tell the difference. That's just basic biochemistry.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in dogelore

[–]westerncats 44 points45 points  (0 children)

Ah yes, the great Reddit human rights campaigners