BestWestern(Bobby)

I don't post much, simply because only pornbots follow me. But I will today start sharing music I quite like, if you hear me out and decide to listen, thanks!

@ChrisExpTheNews The purpose of a system is what it does

Replication is the consent framework of ethics for science fetishists: it's a useless non sequitur framing. Who gives a fuck if "some narrowly specific intervention increased GPA by .01 SD" replicates or not? Cargo cult epistemology.

@lu_sichu The psychoanalysts are retarded. It's far simpler, if you're an asshole you won't get the schizophrenic/bipolar 1 patient to be med adherent.

@GustavoidFring I know the psychoanalysts says this and talk about transference and all sort of things but idk if anyone actually empirically studied this sort of claim. I mean even normal therapist put a lot of emphasis on the relationship between you and them

is this true

@lu_sichu *Work in psych

@lu_sichu Not really evidence that I'm aware of, just comes from personal experience and dealing with a plethora of clinicians. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11… psych has a higher baseline empathy, and the majority of the world in psych is about relationships and trust.

Dollar Tree Curtis LeMay

@lu_sichu Oncology*

@lu_sichu Geriatrics, pediatric ontology, and IM, also fall into this category.

@annakhachiyan Wrong and stupid

What we call borderline isn’t “fear of abandonment” or “fear of intimacy” or whatever flattering but meaningless therapy buzzwords people love to throw around, it’s a cluster of symptoms that basically amount to a failure to progress beyond childhood emotional development but that’s increasingly everyone now

I did not think this was real, but he really said it.

@DoubleEph He’s smart. He dropped out of Med school to pursue Islamic terrorism.

Gorsuch be like: first, I’d like to acknowledge that we’re on stolen Nacotchtank and Piscataway land. Second, the state of Oregon’s ban on throwing queer people into volcanoes is a blatant violation of the first amendment.

One month of the Iran War, in Economist covers

People keep asking me what Trump’s speech is going to be about. I think it’s basically what we’ve all been expecting: he will say the Shahada and convert to Islam

@number_pizza111 Got it from arguing with presuppositionalist Catholics in neo Nazi telegram groups

There is no way you all learned the word “Ontology” from Heidegger. I don’t believe that.

Iranian officials have so much faith in the average American citizen. It’s heartbreaking.

@YoniAstro Missed the chance to call it K4-20B

It's the most wonderful day of the year lmfao arxiv.org/abs/2603.29700

@davidbessis Habermas speaks on this, unironically

When this bubble is over, we need to have a serious conversation on how people can get a PhD and not understand the difference between a mathematical proof and a bullshit factory.

@hecubian_devil This is how it feels lowkey

This sort of interaction is useful to explain that ‘Gen Z feminism’ basically does not exist—there is no new feminist theory in dialogue with previous forms, because no one reads or writes more than posts. They call porn “a zionist degeneracy” because they absorb right wing content that blames The Jews for porn and promiscuity. At the same time, they claim to love Dworkin (who was a Zionist) because they’ve never read more than excerpts of her that got reposted on instagram or tumblr. It’s all the same thing: the ideologically incoherent consequence of being fed slop (including human-produced slop) that social media algorithms tune to deliver only that which validates your instincts and emotions. They call themselves feminists because they’ve internalized that’s a good thing to be, and because they’ve found a way to act out “feminism” that’s also like “hyper femininity” which they deeply want to express. It goes in with a constellation of other markers like coquettish aesthetics, chastity, melancholy, thinness, etc, as proof of their exquisite femininity. Their “feminism” is an exercise in personal branding, in negating Maleness as thoroughly as possible, as marking themselves Female as much as possible. That’s why it’s incoherent, because it’s a feminism fundamentally uninterested in the *liberation of women* but rather in the social position and aesthetic of individual women trying to embody their idealized form of gender roles. So it’s not really a theory of “feminism” in the sense of analysis and action concerned with the liberation of women from patriarchy. It’s just been reduced to individual aesthetic expression.