Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
Yes.
If you've got something like bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, for instance, there is no cure for your mental illness. It can be treated, but this is merely controlling the symptoms rather than curing anything. In these conditions, psychological treatment might be a key element in patient welfare. For instance, someone may be able to reduce the severity of some of their behavioural issues with CBT to help them develop coping stragies. Drugs are often also a key plank of treatment.
For many mental illnesses, psychological treatment might be the only cure. Putting someone on citalopram or sertraline is not going to "cure" anyone's depression or anxiety. Drugs might make them less depressed / anxious, but drugs aren't going to resolve whatever problem in their life is triggering depression / anxiety. Psychological treatment might.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,015
- 3,881
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
I guess as long as you're having fun. It's better than frantic delusions of WWIII.
Nowhere in that article does it say the Clinton campaign paid other people to fabricate the story, either.
There's two ways to read the sentence "they paid them to fabricate the story", It can be read as they actively requested a fabricated dossier, or it could equally apply that they paid for a dossier that happened to be fabricated. A dossier was put together containing a combination of truths, rumors, and outright fabrications. Clinton's campaign paid for the creation of that dossier. Therefore, they paid for the creation of fabricated claims against Trump. So in at least one sense, they absolutely "paid people to fabricate the story". I'm sure they'd have been fine with only true information, though I also wouldn't be surprised if they said "throw in some salacious lies too", but there's no evidence that happened.
Nope, but what you did there was. The latter is a reading so insanely obtuse that nobody honest would understand it as the intended meaning of the sentence.
Imagine if i paid someone to cut my lawn, and that's all I asked them to do. The employee then uses their strimmer to intentionally slice through the legs of the postman as he crosses my lawn. Would you say I "paid him to kill the postman"? And that that sentence isn't in any way misleading about my level of involvement in the act?
That's not accurate at all and there's a big difference.
The Washington Free Beacon and Paul Singer paid Fusion GPS to fabricate the story. They stopped paying the bills when Trump became the nominee, and Fusion GPS shopped the fabrication of the story to Perkins Coie, which just happened to perform the DNC's and Clinton campaign's legal services while Perkins Coie attorneys did double duty as Clinton campaign staffers, up to and including Marc Elias himself. Perkins Coie started paying for the fabrication of the story with funds appropriated from both, illegally itemized as legal services rather than electioneering.
Just never mind at that point, the DNC had been completely captured and held fiscally hostage by the Clinton campaign, and its offices stacked by Clinton campaigners. Same for the fact all parties involved already knew the dossier and most of its allegations were bunk. Or that the Clinton campaign was simultaneously and independently leaking stories from the dossier and resultant investigation to the press, without knowledge of the dossier's existence or who was actually funding it.
Any semblance the situation may bear to Clinton's 2008 campaign, when overzealous staffers and campaign contributors/supporters were independently and simultaneously following plays proscribed by confidential high-level campaign memos questioning Obama's patriotism, Christianity, and citizenship -- while playing up the Jeremiah Wright story in media -- is entirely a figment of your imagination. There's no established pattern for firewalls to maintain plausible deniability, money laundry, or outright ratfuckery when a Clinton is involved at all.
I've tried to look this incident up, and can't seem to find any source that isn't a right-wing shit-stirrer.
Only way anyone could believe that is by having never talked or listened to the average Palestine advocates at any point and are only vaguely aware of them through whatever is funneled through the reactionary RW echo chambers. No curiosity. No good faith. Just wasted energy
It's still always funny seeing people in masks outside.
Same with the left-wing shit-stirrers as well.
...what? Which left-wing shit-stirrers are reporting on a supposed clash between pro-Palestinian protesters and the Philly Pride march?
They only report on the opposite. Both sides very heavily spread misinformation through omission. You only get one side of the story if you only read/watch/listen to RW/LW shit-stirrers.
I'm not saying these right-wing outlets are "spreading misinformation through omission". I'm saying I don't know whether this incident even happened because I can't find anything to corroborate it that's trustworthy.