harmonea

Do you not know that actual news clips from actual news outfits get posted on youtube sometimes

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.

Come on now, you know the left panels would have said something about tax breaks for "job creators." You only wish they fumbled on their absurd message.

Idk man, I was just continuing the chain of references.

No way. Why should OP change? He's not the one who sucks.

Mhm, that's one of the "very recent additions" I meant. The other being Memoria, but that's a sidequest.

Bit of a sensationalized headline, then. They're almost there, but not "entirely."

Article only mentions dungeons. Did they add it for story trials too? As far as I know that's only available for early 4-player trials and a couple of very recent additions. The Chrysalis, Steps of Faith, etc can still wipe a group of human players easily if their mechanics are ignored.

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.