My Face When posted:

These popped up on my facebook.

LeJackal posted:

Watch out, that girl is going to grow up to be an architect.

seiferguy posted:

Welp guess my cousin is racist:

seiferguy posted:

Welp guess my cousin is racist:

seiferguy posted:

Welp guess my cousin is racist:

Strudel Man posted:

The kind of self-reliance that's actively detrimental to one's success as a member of society, perhaps.

I'm a little skeptical of the extent to which such messages are internalized, but teaching boys that physical violence is what solves conflicts probably isn't doing them any favors.

seiferguy posted:

Welp guess my cousin is racist:

Guilty Spork posted:

Except a big chunk of Mexicans--especially the ones who want to move out of Mexico to seek more prosperity--are at least partly of native descent? And if you want to talk about robbing, murdering, and killing (murdering AND killing! ), America isn't exactly looking great either.

Wikipedia posted:

The large majority of Mexicans can be classified as "mestizos", meaning in modern Mexican usage that they identify fully neither with any indigenous culture nor with a particular non-Mexican heritage, but rather identify as having cultural traits and heritage incorporating both indigenous and European elements. By the deliberate efforts of post-revolutionary governments the "Mestizo identity" was constructed as the base of the modern Mexican national identity, through a process of cultural synthesis referred to as mestizaje ([mes.tiˈsa.xe]). Mexican politicians and reformers such as José Vasconcelos and Manuel Gamio were instrumental in building a Mexican national identity on the concept of mestizaje.[15][16]

Cultural policies in early post-revolutionary Mexico were paternalistic towards the indigenous people, with efforts designed to "help" indigenous peoples achieve the same level of progress as the rest of society, eventually assimilating indigenous peoples completely to mainstream Mexican culture, working toward the goal of eventually solving the "Indian problem" by transforming indigenous communities into mestizo communities.[17]

The term "Mestizo" is not in wide use in Mexican society today and has been dropped as a category in population censuses; it is, however, still used in social and cultural studies when referring to the non-indigenous part of the Mexican population. The word has somewhat pejorative connotations and most of the Mexican citizens who would be defined as mestizos in the sociological literature would probably self-identify primarily as Mexicans. In the Yucatán peninsula the word mestizo is even used about Maya-speaking populations living in traditional communities, because during the caste war of the late 19th century those Maya who did not join the rebellion were classified as mestizos.[18] In Chiapas the word ladino is used instead of mestizo.[19]
Sometimes, particularly outside of Mexico, the word "mestizo" is used with the meaning of Mexican persons with mixed Indigenous and European blood. This usage does not conform to the Mexican social reality where a person of pure indigenous genetic heritage would be considered mestizo either by rejecting his indigenous culture or by not speaking an indigenous language,[18] and a person with a very low percentage of indigenous genetic heritage would be considered fully indigenous either by speaking an indigenous language or by identifying with a particular indigenous cultural heritage.[20]

seiferguy posted:

Welp guess my cousin is racist:

seiferguy posted:

Welp guess my cousin is racist:

My Face When posted:

These popped up on my facebook.

seiferguy posted:

Welp guess my cousin is racist:

EightBit posted:

I know that it's full of dogwhistles for poor/black, but all I see is "gently caress the rich".

EightBit posted:

EightBit posted:

I know that it's full of dogwhistles for poor/black, but all I see is "gently caress the rich".

JohnClark posted:

Every single person in this conversation is an EMT-B or a paramedic, and I know all of them have treated multiple heroin over doses.




I feel like a broken record on this, but how in the world do you have such a lack of empathy that you would deliberately withhold a live-saving medication in order keep from "facilitating their poor choices"?

Crain posted:

It's the same argument as "giving kids access to condoms will make them have more sex". It's blatantly ignoring a problem that will exist no matter what in favor of pursuing "the real problem". However they won't actually try to solve "the real problem". Because "the real problem" is being poor, a minority, or uneducated.

Discendo Vox posted:

So, reading about this substance, am I correct in understanding it has no known tendency to produce dependence or addiction?

andrew smash posted:

What loving difference would it make if it did? If epinephrine was addictive would you advocate taking it away from people with bee venom allergies?

andrew smash posted:

What loving difference would it make if it did? If epinephrine was addictive would you advocate taking it away from people with bee venom allergies?

Discendo Vox posted:

Well, for the sake of argument let's pretend this was a purely externalized synthetic product and not also a substance released directly in the body by things like vigorous exercise. The analysis would be a balancing test comparing medical benefit and the limited availability of alternatives versus prospective information on the anticipated rate of addiction, known secondary health effects, and the predicted likelihood of the emergence of a black market, with all the consequences that could have. We don't have good alternatives for anaphylaxis that I'm aware of, so I'd probably schedule it and implement a registry system, then push for funding for a derived product without addictive properties- much as we do with other scheduled substances.

In other words, if Narcan were addictive all on its own that would make a massive difference from a policy perspective- widespread availability could produce a whole new addicted population. If it doesn't have that effect, then the people going all "they made their choice" seem to just want all addicts to die for no reason.

Discendo Vox posted:

In other words, if Narcan were addictive all on its own that would make a massive difference from a policy perspective- widespread availability could produce a whole new addicted population. If it doesn't have that effect, then the people going all "they made their choice" seem to just want all addicts to die for no reason.

Discendo Vox posted:

So, reading about this substance, am I correct in understanding it has no known tendency to produce dependence or addiction? The objection is literally just that it saves addicts' lives? I mean, I'm massively antidrug, but I'm not that insanely vindictive.

LeJackal posted:

Oh, they've got a good reason for it. The wages of sin are death, or so they say.

Discendo Vox posted:

In other words, if Narcan were addictive all on its own that would make a massive difference from a policy perspective- widespread availability could produce a whole new addicted population. If it doesn't have that effect, then the people going all "they made their choice" seem to just want all addicts to die for no reason.

JohnClark posted:

Sorry, should've explained it better. Narcan (naloxone is the generic name) is an opiate-receptor antagonist, that is to say that it blocks the receptors that opiates (heroin, morphine, etc.) bind to, thus reversing the effects of those drugs. It's incredibly safe, with no potential for abuse and a very very limited side-effect profile. Giving it to users would have basically one effect; fewer of them would die from overdoses.

Popular Thug Drink posted:

Of all people to have this attitude, EMTs are probably the worst. Would any of them refuse to treat a critically injured drunk driver? What about someone with alcohol poisoning? These people are pricks, plain and simple.

JohnClark posted:

I feel like a broken record on this, but how in the world do you have such a lack of empathy that you would deliberately withhold a live-saving medication in order keep from "facilitating their poor choices"?

andrew smash posted:

That's twice now you've implied that the lives of addicts are something to be considered worth spending vs the possibility of creating an addiction to a different substance. As in "well that person is dead now but at least we didn't get him hooked on something else."

How much longer before you slink off for another week to once again hope everyone forgets what a piece of poo poo you are?

Discendo Vox posted:

I think you're much more outraged by my position on this than other folks in the thread are- you really seem to want me to be some sort of horrible monster. I don't get it. Just so we're clear here, you do understand I'm not agreeing with the anti-Narcan people, right? I was saying that their position was unthinkably terrible.

darthbob88 posted:

Plus that image is slightly racist; its depiction of "dude who votes for a living" appears to be young, black, urban, rather than the more common old, white, rural.

JohnClark posted:

Every single person in this conversation is an EMT-B or a paramedic, and I know all of them have treated multiple heroin over doses.

I feel like a broken record on this, but how in the world do you have such a lack of empathy that you would deliberately withhold a live-saving medication in order keep from "facilitating their poor choices"?

Xombie posted:

Also, Anna Stesia does not sound like they've thought the argument through and is just kind of throwing poo poo at the wall because they don't want to admit they're wrong. Airbags as a "preventative measure"? Overdose kits as a "morning after solution"?

JohnClark posted:

Every single person in this conversation is an EMT-B or a paramedic, and I know all of them have treated multiple heroin over doses.
I feel like a broken record on this, but how in the world do you have such a lack of empathy that you would deliberately withhold a live-saving medication in order keep from "facilitating their poor choices"?

andrew smash posted:

My problem with you is pretty simple; you're an armchair intellectual who is comfortable espousing pointlessly hypothetical positions that require the deaths of entire groups of people to which you conveniently don't belong. This isn't the first time you've done it and I'm not the only one who remembers.

I deal with addicts every day. When people wish for them to drop dead for their problems the appropriate response is not "well MAYBE they'd have a point if..."