What are your plans for the evening of November 3, 2020? or 11/5/24

[pmv]

"Personality disorders" have adverse affects on others, not just the person with the disorder. As for Trump, you really think he's happy? Purportedly he's angry almost all the time. Did you see his behavior on 60 minutes? Is that the behavior of a happy well adjusted person?

Deep down Trump knows he's shit which is why he requires constant adoration from others. If he loses this election, he will go into an emotional tailspin because his ego can't face the idea of losing. The problem is that you're defining one's well being by external measures of success, like power and wealth. But you're missing the fact that you can have those things and still be utterly miserable.

I guess it only becomes a 'disorder' if it makes the sufferer sufficiently unhappy that they voluntarily seek psychiatric help. And that is going to depend on what else is going on in your life and how those around you react to your dysfunction. Trump is probably unhappy but not as unhappy as he would be were he also poor and powerless, with the same personality. Generally those at the lower end of society are far more likely to end up meeting that criteria for diagnosis, because they are far more likely to end up suffering the consequences of their dysfunction.

The point about if he loses the election implies that it only really manifests as a disorder when it leads you to recieve some sort of comeuppance. But if you succesfully evade such a comeuppance then that would imply it wasn't a disorder after all ("The important thing is, I didn't get my comeuppance. No Comeuppance!" - Homer Simpson, and also potentially, Donald Trump).

 

[pmv]

Well his need for adulation and attention has gotten hundreds killed so that seems pretty disordered.

I agree, but that's a moral judgement, not a psychological/scientific one. Are psychological classifications supposed to be based on moral values?

 

[fskimospy]

I agree, but that's a moral judgement, not a psychological/scientific one. Are psychological classifications supposed to be based on moral values?

To a certain extent yes. If Trump personally killed 700 people we would say he was disordered even if killing them didn’t bring him one ounce of discomfort. We would probably think he was even more disordered in that case, actually.

 

[MtnMan]

I guess it only becomes a 'disorder' if it makes the sufferer sufficiently unhappy that they voluntarily seek psychiatric help. And that is going to depend on what else is going on in your life and how those around you react to your dysfunction. Trump is probably unhappy but not as unhappy as he would be were he also poor and powerless, with the same personality. Generally those at the lower end of society are far more likely to end up meeting that criteria for diagnosis, because they are far more likely to end up suffering the consequences of their dysfunction.

The point about if he loses the election implies that it only really manifests as a disorder when it leads you to recieve some sort of comeuppance. But if you succesfully evade such a comeuppance then that would imply it wasn't a disorder after all ("The important thing is, I didn't get my comeuppance. No Comeuppance!" - Homer Simpson, and also potentially, Donald Trump).

In a normal family and friends relationship, an intervention might be considered by family and friends. The problem is that family and friends are equally dysfunctional.

Trump Jr. spawn with his saying "the death rate is almost nothing" Kushner say "he took the country back from the doctors", Ivanka and her "find something new" to the unemployed. Yea, that ain't going to happen.

 

[woolfe9998]

I guess it only becomes a 'disorder' if it makes the sufferer sufficiently unhappy that they voluntarily seek psychiatric help. And that is going to depend on what else is going on in your life and how those around you react to your dysfunction. Trump is probably unhappy but not as unhappy as he would be were he also poor and powerless, with the same personality. Generally those at the lower end of society are far more likely to end up meeting that criteria for diagnosis, because they are far more likely to end up suffering the consequences of their dysfunction.

Well no, it doesn't require you to "voluntarily seek psychiatric help." You need that for a formal diagnosis, not to have the disorder. Or else not being tested for COVID means you don't have COVID.

Trump's narcissism is such that he would likely never seek psychiatric help no matter his level of distress. Because doing so would be admitting weakness. If fact, the unwillingness to get help is actually a symptom of it.

The point about if he loses the election implies that it only really manifests as a disorder when it leads you to recieve some sort of comeuppance. But if you succesfully evade such a comeuppance then that would imply it wasn't a disorder after all ("The important thing is, I didn't get my comeuppance. No Comeuppance!" - Homer Simpson, and also potentially, Donald Trump).

Not really, no. Trump seems unhappy virtually all the time. When does he ever even smile or laugh? All he does is complain that he's being persecuted, and we've heard constant news reports for the last 4 years that staffers are telling reporters "he's having another meltdown." Losing the election will just kick Trump's grievance amplifier up to 11.

The problem for Trump is that his narcissism never really allows him to be happy or even content because he has developed an image of himself as perfect. It isn't just losing in something material like an election or business deal; it's anyone even criticizing him. The inability to take any sort of criticism is a serious problem. I've known people in real life with this issue, but Trump is worse than any of them.

 

[zinfamous]

Joe Rogan is having Kyle Kulinski a lefty YouTube political commentator as a guest on election for a live stream...

I'll watch it.
How you react to one name or another will tell me how far up you pushed your head up the establishment's ass whilst experimenting with analingus.


_____

have you ever listened to Joe Rogan? I have. He's interested in bias confirmation, not general openminded discussion. I don't really dislike him, but he's a pretty dumb person. Like, really dumb, but he can be entertaining and I don't really fault him for being dumb (I've learned that a majority of really awesome comedians are actually pretty fucking stupid, but I don't really dislike them because of that...cleverness is a different thing. Though, honestly...I've never found Rogan's routine funny. Another example: Tom Segura. Endlessly, profoundly hilarious. But have you listened to that guy? Generally quite dumb, lol.)

I don't mind that he brings "controversial" figures on, even if simply giving a platform to known, indefensible nonsense is inarguably problematic, I appreciate that he at least attempts the veil of curiosity. All you have to do is listen to him interview people.

"But don't you think that....?" Is how he asks most of his questions, especially when speaking to actual experts that really don't owe him the deference of explaining to him why their expertise regarding the questions he keeps asking, they that have more than answered already, places them in a position that has already long challenged, answered, and defeated his general conspiratorial nonsense.

But if you seek advice for herbal supplements and blasting your pecs and the benefits of drinking distilled water, then Joe Rogan is probably your guy.

 

[trenchfoot]

So far, Trump is still living in his made up world along with his supporters where he and they think the virus will go away all on its own and that they are dedicated patriots "defending the Constitution" and the "traditions" they feel represent their best interests.

All this while Trump is behaving like any third world dictator would who ran roughshod over the people he lords over and the laws of the land and now wants to desperately hang on to power every despicable way possible in order to avoid being held accountable and punished for it.

With this in mind, I'm going to be tuned into Trump the man and how he behaves with the way things go during the vote tallying. I won't be surprised if he panics and lets his true despotic self take over encouraging civil unrest and other forms of chaos while blaming the Democrats for it all, thus giving himself a reason to proclaim martial law in order to seize and hold on to power.

Anything's possible with this guy.

 

[zinfamous]

He's an idiot and buys into a ton of conspiracies. It is sad he has the #1 podcast.

that's not surprising, though. Michael Bay films are extremely popular. General Popularity is a rather predictable metric for low-attention span, low quality, garbage nonsense.

 

[pmv]

Well no, it doesn't require you to "voluntarily seek psychiatric help." You need that for a formal diagnosis, not to have the disorder. Or else not being tested for COVID means you don't have COVID.

Well I think that's the point - to be said to have the disorder, you have to have the formal diagnosis. As I understand it, that's kind of the way psychiatry works. There's no objective clinical test, it's about a professional giving you a formal diagnosis, declaring that you fit the criteria. A lot of people will object to the use of formal clinical terms as moral or political judgements, and many people _with_ formal diagnosis get into jealous diagnostic boundary policing (e.g. the flak that Stephen Fry got for joking about his 'OCD', when he hasn't been formally diagnosed as having that condition).

I'm not defending Trump - he's just a horrible human being, and seriously messed-up. I just have some doubts/confusion about the way technical psychiatric terms get used.

 

[fskimospy]

Well I think that's the point - to be said to have the disorder, you have to have the formal diagnosis. As I understand it, that's kind of the way psychiatry works. There's no objective clinical test, it's about a professional giving you a formal diagnosis, declaring that you fit the criteria. A lot of people will object to the use of formal clinical terms as moral or political judgements, and many people _with_ formal diagnosis get into jealous diagnostic boundary policing (e.g. the flak that Stephen Fry got for joking about his 'OCD', when he hasn't been formally diagnosed as having that condition).

I'm not defending Trump - he's just a horrible human being, and seriously messed-up. I just have some doubts/confusion about the way technical psychiatric terms get used.

But he either has the disorder or he doesn’t, it doesn’t spring into existence upon diagnosis.

I think people can make reasonable inferences by looking at the criteria for diagnosis and at his behavior.

 

[pmv]

But he either has the disorder or he doesn’t, it doesn’t spring into existence upon diagnosis.

But I think it kind of does. That seems to be in the nature of psychiatric diagnoses. Which is why I find the whole topic kind of odd. Personality disorders most of all (I've known many people with such diagnoses, in particular known many diagnosed with "borderline personality disorder", but also have known just as many seriously-messed up people - possibly sociopaths - who didn't have a label because they were in a position where they weren't going to fall into the clutches of the mental-health system). I find the whole topic very confusing. There seems to be a lot of debate within the mental health profession itself about the validity of diagnoses.

There seems to be something very OCD about the DSM itself - with its endlessly shifting attempts to classify and catogorise every kind of dysfunction - including endlessly multiplying sub-types (reminds me of me trying to organise my music playlists by genre or theme). Many different schemas have been proposed over the years for how different traits should be clustered to define PDs, it starts to look like 'herding cats' or 'nailing jelly to a tree' after a while, as they attempt to rigorously categorise all human unhappiness.

 

[Wreckem]

I’m going to watch the returns for Collin County Texas come in after the polls close. If he doesn’t carry it by 5% or more he’s in danger. If he loses it, he likely loses Texas.

 

[MtnMan]

Police scanner will be part of the 'watch' on Tuesday night. That and streaming Netflix or Prime or Hulu.

Just heard a dispatch for a disturbance at a local grocery store gas pumps where Trump supporters were trying to prevent people from buying gas.

 

[blankslate]

have you ever listened to Joe Rogan? I have. He's interested in bias confirmation, not general openminded discussion. I don't really dislike him, but he's a pretty dumb person. Like, really dumb, but he can be entertaining and I don't really fault him for being dumb (I've learned that a majority of really awesome comedians are actually pretty fucking stupid, but I don't really dislike them because of that...cleverness is a different thing. Though, honestly...I've never found Rogan's routine funny. Another example: Tom Segura. Endlessly, profoundly hilarious. But have you listened to that guy? Generally quite dumb, lol.)

I don't mind that he brings "controversial" figures on, even if simply giving a platform to known, indefensible nonsense is inarguably problematic, I appreciate that he at least attempts the veil of curiosity. All you have to do is listen to him interview people.

"But don't you think that....?" Is how he asks most of his questions, especially when speaking to actual experts that really don't owe him the deference of explaining to him why their expertise regarding the questions he keeps asking, they that have more than answered already, places them in a position that has already long challenged, answered, and defeated his general conspiratorial nonsense.

But if you seek advice for herbal supplements and blasting your pecs and the benefits of drinking distilled water, then Joe Rogan is probably your guy.

I have listened to him and I have come away with a pretty much diametrically opposed assessment of the guy
But hey it'd be pretty boring if we all had the same opinion about everything.

*e2a*
if he was really the guy you make him out to then his guest of choice for Nov. 3 would be someone like Tim Pool or Ben Shapiro not someone who is as big a lefty as Kyle Kulinski who hosts the Secular Talk channel on YouTube
_____

 

[zzyzxroad]

I have listened to him and I have come away with a pretty much diametrically opposed assessment of the guy
But hey it'd be pretty boring if we all had the same opinion about everything.

*e2a*
if he was really the guy you make him out to then his guest of choice for Nov. 3 would be someone like Tim Pool or Ben Shapiro not someone who is as big a lefty as Kyle Kulinski who hosts the Secular Talk channel on YouTube
_____

But he is literally a conspiracy nut. A few years ago he thought the moon landing was faked. A couple of months when tuned in he and a guest were talking about how Hillary had to be in on epstein's death. He has a good sense of humor but people listen to him and think he knows what he is talking about.

 

[nickqt]

What's funny is that all of the paranoia, suspicion and agitation serves the interest of Trump, who might require chaos to stay in control. Not even an oxymoron, that's how fascists operate. Chaos is control.

 

[Juiblex]

Nothing out of the usual. The election was already decided years ago by the powers to be. The zionist will win.

 

[soundforbjt]

Nothing out of the usual. The election was already decided years ago by the powers to be. The zionist will win.

Trump?

 

[cytg111]

Nothing out of the usual. The election was already decided years ago by the powers to be. The zionist will win.

Ok. I we should stop the chemtrails over jubis house, he has had enough. I think he is ready for the soros vaccine, go.

 

[zzyzxroad]

Nothing out of the usual. The election was already decided years ago by the powers to be. The zionist will win.

WWG1WGA?

Speaking of Q I do appreciate that you all incorporated satan worship into your theories. For a child of the 80's that is very nostalgic.

 

[brandonbull]

Just now catching up on the Obama admin?
That was a good show. I suggest skipping its replacement show, “the clown show”.

I heard Biden is wanting to star in a remake of "What's My Line?".

 

[Muse]

have you ever listened to Joe Rogan? I have. He's interested in bias confirmation, not general openminded discussion. I don't really dislike him, but he's a pretty dumb person. Like, really dumb, but he can be entertaining and I don't really fault him for being dumb (I've learned that a majority of really awesome comedians are actually pretty fucking stupid, but I don't really dislike them because of that...cleverness is a different thing. Though, honestly...I've never found Rogan's routine funny. Another example: Tom Segura. Endlessly, profoundly hilarious. But have you listened to that guy? Generally quite dumb, lol.)

I don't mind that he brings "controversial" figures on, even if simply giving a platform to known, indefensible nonsense is inarguably problematic, I appreciate that he at least attempts the veil of curiosity. All you have to do is listen to him interview people.

"But don't you think that....?" Is how he asks most of his questions, especially when speaking to actual experts that really don't owe him the deference of explaining to him why their expertise regarding the questions he keeps asking, they that have more than answered already, places them in a position that has already long challenged, answered, and defeated his general conspiratorial nonsense.

But if you seek advice for herbal supplements and blasting your pecs and the benefits of drinking distilled water, then Joe Rogan is probably your guy.

I heard one Joe Rogan interview, it was a video. It was Michael Osterholm, IIRC, and Rogan asked way to many stupid questions and his reactions had his stupidity on plain display. Never again. It was a long one, maybe an hour and I only got 1/2 way through. I can tell, paying attention to anything Joe Rogan does is mostly a waste of time.

 

[zinfamous]

I have listened to him and I have come away with a pretty much diametrically opposed assessment of the guy
But hey it'd be pretty boring if we all had the same opinion about everything.

*e2a*
if he was really the guy you make him out to then his guest of choice for Nov. 3 would be someone like Tim Pool or Ben Shapiro not someone who is as big a lefty as Kyle Kulinski who hosts the Secular Talk channel on YouTube
_____

what are you talking about?

crazy is crazy. you are putting the qualification on "party of choice," not the same example that I gave you: dude hosts crazy people, claiming that is being "open minded."

you argue that I am defining him based on hosting "crazy right wingers." No, that isn't what I said. lol: "well, you thought he was hosting crazy...but what if I told you...he was hosting this left-wing guy! ...also a crazy nutter, but, hey! left wing! so that should make you happy and defeat your argument, lol lazy leftwinger!" seriously, what the fuck?


Rogan hosts fucking crazy people, gives insanity a platform, and thinks that absolves him of "judgement" from the elites. That's fucking horseshit.

Crazy is crazy, and that's what this is about.

 

[zinfamous]

I heard one Joe Rogan interview, it was a video. It was Michael Osterholm, IIRC, and Rogan asked way to many stupid questions and his reactions had his stupidity on plain display. Never again. It was a long one, maybe an hour and I only got 1/2 way through. I can tell, paying attention to anything Joe Rogan does is mostly a waste of time.

Joe Rogan asks virologist: "I hear what you're saying...but don't you think that [this article from unpublished nutter that I read today] is right about distilled water breaking down viruses?"

That is literally every Joe Rogan podcast.

 

[zzyzxroad]

I heard Biden is wanting to star in a remake of "What's My Line?".

Refresh your talking points because the ones you have are form over a month ago. At this point playing the slow Joe card makes you look like an idiot.