“Clobber” implies violence, which is somehow even less elegant than the standard phrase that the haphazard “cobble” implies. Given the shitshow of X so far, clobber probably works better even if it’s not the usual way to phrase this at all.

I don’t think the fediverse has this, but I’m a bit confused why so many of these comments are puzzled at why you would want it. We have fediverse twitter, fediverse insta, fediverse reddit, fediverse discord, etc – why not fediverse facebook/myspace/carrd? Where users could just have small personal (or corporate) pages about themselves that aren’t as blog/news focused on the main(user) page.

I don’t even think it would be a huge stretch to implement: a big focus on user page customization with a small microblog interface taking up a portion of the screen would do it. (Disclaimer: not saying easy to create, just not that far out of reach vs everything else the fediverse has).

THEY ARE lol, we actually kept it because we couldn’t believe it. No intention to ever look at the thing, just a “how funny is this” moment.

(Disclaimer: Canada)

We actually just got our yellow pages in the mailbox last week or the week before, I think. I was baffled. I was like they still MAKE these?

Shit was no thicker than an old GamePro magazine. Just the businesses who are still buying ads I guess.

You said you want good faith discussions, but you preemptively dismissed one of the biggest answers because you don’t think it’s a good solution. Then you have people here disagreeing with you, explaining why, and pointing to examples of it being done successfully, and you continue to completely dismiss a donation as nothing more than a “thank you” - how is this in any way a good faith discussion if any opposing viewpoint is immediately met with this kind of “YOU’RE the problem” response?

I do understand your frustration in those cases in which donations fail, but it seems like you’re not willing to meet us halfway and acknowledge that sometimes, donations succeed, and not by accident or luck. There’s data there - test cases we could be picking apart and seeing what critical mass needs to be reached before an instance can reliably secure donations and what we can do for admins until their instances reach that threshold. But you’re just dismissing it as nonviable even though it clearly works for a lot of places.

That is not good faith.

Analogies are tools to assist understanding, and having opposition debate the analogies themselves instead of the actual points they’re used to make is a sign of a weak rebuttal.

So let’s ignore all the haggling over the analogy and bring it back to the broader point: People should not be in jobs which their personal beliefs prevent doing significant or important aspects of. And equality between genders is objectively an important aspect of health care. These “professionals” should not be in the health care field at all, save perhaps male-focused care fields like prostate or testicular health.

I don’t understand why this is even allowed. If someone had a religious opposition to consuming or enabling the consumption (cooking, serving, etc) of certain foods – shellfish, pork, sweets during lent, meat in general, whatever – that person could not reasonably expect to get a job in a restaurant where that food is regularly served. Like, if a waiter showed up for work at a steakhouse one day and refused to touch any plate with meat on it on religious grounds, no one would be on that waiter’s side when there are vegan restaurants that waiter could have applied to instead.

Doctors are held to a different standard because… the mental gymnastics say it’s totally fine when it’s a woman being denied service I guess?

If these healthcare “professionals” only want to treat men like they deserve humane care, they should be in a field more suited to their preferences.

Failing that, yes, I agree with your comment entirely.

You’ll be okay. We all have our pet peeves, and none of us can expect the world to abide by them.

It’s really not my problem that you viewed me pointing out 53 < 60 as “unloading.”

And “normalizing” having a serious disorder is dangerous. This is not behavior that should be applauded. It dilutes the experience of those who do have it and saps the available resources. Again, not “unloading,” just facts that can be verified with any professional in the field. None of this is coming from emotion.

Going to therapy is good. Absolutely, yes, 90% should go. At no point did I shame therapy, I just pointed out the numbers don’t line up and it proves there is definitely self-diagnosis going on.

I’m aware. That was the point of me pointing out that you’d have to assume all 53% had been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. It’s incredibly unrealistic. And yet 60% have a disorder? There is absolutely self-diagnosis happening.

I was only discussing the definition of a disorder. But if you want to get into sophistry and impotent political venting, sure. If 60% of people can’t make connections with others or hold down a job because of their mental health, I question anyone who would call that anything but a disordered society, and that includes you saying it’s “the order of things.”

That said, this is an informal self-reported poll with a possibly exaggerated headline. It’s entirely possible the actual disorder most of GenZ has is self-diagnosis and identity culture, in which if one doesn’t have a disorder or three, one becomes the weirdo in a group.

I found this line from the article especially telling:

The survey also showed that 2 out of 5 go to therapy and 53 percent have gotten professional help for mental health at some point.

Notice how 53% is less than 60? And we’d have to assume each and every one of the 53% was diagnosed with an anxiety disorder on those “at some point” visits to come close to supporting the headline’s claim.

I think if measurable socioeconomic markers supported the 60% number, it would be bigger news. Are they more anxious, sure. But again… anxiety does not imply anxiety disorder. As it stands, publishing inaccurate headlines like this makes people take the real issues – and there ARE a lot of big, pervasive societal issues at play – less seriously.

(And because I know y’all need to hear it: if you, dear reader, have a professional diagnosis, none of this is talking about you.)

You interpreted the word “prevent” more strictly than I meant it I think, but you’re not wrong.

The key word is “disorder” though.

Everyone experiences anxiety from time to time, just like everyone has minor bouts of depression or invasive compulsions. Some non-disordered might even still experience them often.

Not everyone experiences these feelings pervasively to a degree it prevents them from socioeconomic success (making friends, going outside, finding and keeping a job, etc).