The idea that SSRI antidepressants work by increasing serotonin levels. If that were the case, why don’t they start working immediately? Instead, most people don’t see positive effects for several weeks.
I was listening to a sleep scientist the other day and they were saying that one thing we know is that depressed people have more rem sleep on average, and SSRIs decrease the amount of rem sleep.
If it is something sleep based that goes some way to explaining why it takes time to have an effect. Building up or wiping out a sleep debt can’t happen instantaneously.
That’s interesting… because I always thought that REM sleep was the most important part of sleep, and more was better.
In fact, I read an article once that suggested that REM sleep was when our spinal fluid flushed all the waste material out of our brains at night (which leads to the types of dream that occur during REM sleep), which is also a process that prevents brains from being clogged with waste material.
I always thought that our brains being filled with waste material was part of depression, and that flushing out that waste material would help our brains function more correctly.
Sounds like the opposite - like, our depressed brains are depressed because they think too much?
Characteristic sleep-EEG changes in patients with depression include disinhibition of rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, changes of sleep continuity, and impaired non-REM sleep.
Yeah, I think we have multiple types of sleep because we need them, and if you’re getting too much rem sleep at the expense of other types it’s going to cause problems.
They can’t work immediately because the body isn’t producing enough serotonin to have an immediate effect, nor would you want that. Over time serotonin reuptake is slowed and eventually this has a cognitive effect. That doesn’t help everyone but that doesn’t make them ineffective.
Plus the idea that SSRIs work, period. They only work slightly better than placebo, and they count them as “working” as long as they help with a single symptom. So if they don’t help your depression at all, but they do help with your insomnia, they put that in the “it worked!” pile. That’s why suicide risk sometimes increases on SSRIs. They do nothing for your crippling depression except increase your motivation, so before you were depressed and couldn’t accomplish anything, and now you’re depressed, but also have the wherewithal to follow through on your suicide plan.
I have been having some mental health issues, and I was reading about this the other day. I was going through wikipedia with the various types of antidepressants, and it seems that SSRIs are just barely better than placebo, or even in studies not even better than placebo.
I know there are multiple classes of antidepressants out there. Are there any that do a better job, even if they are not as common?
I duno about any that work, but if a dr offers you effexor tell them hell fucking no. Everyone I have talked to about it agrees its fucking absolutely awful. Worst drug I have ever taken.
Effexor has some awful side effects. I have seen people complain about brain zaps but I didn’t get them. For me I kept getting this weird lagging feeling in my body, like my perception of my limbs was lagging behind where they were in this very weird feeling way. Its very hard to explain but it was very uncomfortable feeling, every movement of my head was accompanied with this weird feeling. After I quit the drug the issue persisted for months after, it was legit fucked I was scared it would never go away but eventually it did.
Also effexor triggered multiple manic episodes where I was hearing voices and didn’t sleep for a week. Like legit psychosis. I haven’t had any episodes that bad before taking effexor and none since I quit it as well. I can honestly say it made my mental health issues infinitely worse, shit is a demon drug. TBH I don’t fuck with psych drugs anymore because of my experience with effexor.
There’s different definitions of depression, for one.
And “do a better job” is going to be defined by the individual.
But there are SSRIs, SNRIs and SDRIs like Wellbutrin. They have vastly different side effects and play on different systems (serotonin, norepinephrine and dopamine) many people find SNRIs to be more effective, but again it’s all the individual.
After hearing from Maria Schneider, and confirmed by Bertolucci, how he and Brando treated her filming the rape scenes in Last Tango my Brando crush instantly withered on the vine. She was only 19.
I’m convinced he’s not all there. Dude was talking about what he’s going to do when he gets out of prison. He doesn’t seem to understand they’re going to wheel him out on a trolley.
I'm making the point that babies cannot be fucked, only raped, which obviously isn't "inherent" to the person who said "he fucked babies" which minimises the reality of the "scenario" as you call it (more minimisation, why do you do that? To preserve your own comfort of course!). Words matter, and if you think pointing that out is "splitting hairs" (when you're literally the only one making a load of fuss over this valid distinction), then again, you're the one with the problem here (and taking issue with someone pointed out that babies can only be raped, not "fucked" is definitely a problem that needs addressing, like seriously - imagine being the person dying on the hill to defend the use of "fucked" to describe baby rape.. 🤦♀️).
Lemmy sucks. This isn’t a you thing. Nobody IRL would ever spend the energy debating you on this. And of course a follow-up of “whoa relax don’t get triggered bro”
There is no understanding that words matter round these parts at all. This place is a dangerous bubble bc it started as a place where one assumed everyone was on the level. So if you were the outlier opinion, maybe it really was you: I’d challenge myself and question my opinions. Now, if I’m downvoted, I dig in and entrench.
The point is that we should try to stop using euphemistic language around rape. It happens all the time, and it lessens the impact of the act for the reader. We should be explicit.
Omfg. I’m a big slippery slope, legal precedent, kind of guy. But this demands capital punishment if not castration/sterilization. Just make them laws for one day for this dude. www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-25108439
I honestly believe that if you’re convicted of shit like this the band should be able to sue to have your rights to royalties and any songwriting/producing credits revoked. Even if they have to surrender any monetary outcome to the victims or their families.
I know I loved the band growing up and the band have tried to separate themselves from the singer, but how can you? The music is still good but it can’t avoid leaving a bad feeling knowing he used the fame generated by the shared music for such heinous thing
It would make it a bit easier for people who can if you knew that the scumbag wasnt getting royalty cheques anymore.
Ian Watkins is a fucking extreme example, but imagine putting in a dozen years of your life and career, your art and passion into a band and its catalogue only for the lead singer to make it absolutely radioactive.
Tasted it while visiting Hungary, beloved by the locals. Not being a connoisseur, it tasted to me like the extracted essence from a ton of black pepper seeds into a single ounce of alcohol. Strongest stuff I’ve ever had. They had also a traditional drink with like 85% alcohol. Quite a culture. Lots of warm people.
If you find it, please let me know. I looked around and struck out. It sounds so odd, is like to try it. Perhaps bring it camping to compare its flavor to a forest’s!
I live in Sweden, so our main source of alcohol is the government monopoly Systembolaget, now, I can order alcohol throughout the EU with no customs or any restrictions (as far as I know), but i have no clue where to start, however, Systembolaget are famous for being able to bring in stuff from all over the world on special order, so I’ll probably go through there, but I will keep my eyes open on other sites as I find them.
We could create a community for odd spirits, both for finding and asking about odd spirits…
This is the question. “It tastes like the forest: still, slightly sweet air, golden sunlight filtered through emerald leaves, a crystal brook babbling just out of sight” versus “It tastes like the forest. Dirt, rotting undergrowth, and animal shit”.
They probably mean that consciousness does not arrive from matter - that there is some other thing that causes consciousness, like another fundamental particle or whatever.
Essentially they are arguing for the existence of the “soul” or “spirit” in some fashion or another. Definitely unscientific as we have no evidence of such a thing.
GameCube. Because I have fond memories of it in my childhood. I prefer it over PS2 because it properly supports 4 player games (without any extra gadgets).
Smash Bros. Mario Kart. TimeSplitters. All excellent couch multiplayer games. Even Metroid Prime 2 had quite fun multiplayer.
Imagine someone telling you “you have to separate the product from the corporation. Yes, they lobby to permit slave labour and are directly funding the genocide in Palestine, but they make one fine chicken sandwich - and if you don’t put down your silly objections to focus on that, you have failed as a human being”.
Fuck that, fuck everything about that.
Art is political. Fiction doubly so. You cannot and should not try to rip art free from its cultural context, because that context is the perspective that gives it meaning in the first place.
And extra-splintery fuck the idea that the onus is on the audience to sweep everything under the carpet for horrible people.
We’re in no danger of running out of art. We have an unlimited supply of artists just waiting for a break in the canopy to sprout up and grow into something new and exciting. If a handful of toxic assholes get canceled despite being popular, then so much the better.
I disagree. You can both admit that the company makes one damn fine chicken sandwich and still not buy it because they support slave labour. Them supporting slave labour doesn’t make it a bad chicken sandwich, just as them making a damn good chicken sandwich doesn’t stop them from supporting slave labour. It’s the method that’s important, not the reason itself.
That's the point though, that some people will use the 'but chicken sandwich is good' as a justification to overlook the other problems and still buy them. My ex and Hobby Lobby, for instance - she'd want to go there and shop for paints because they 'might have a sale', and I was just uh, no? Fuck Hobby Lobby.
First up, fandom is free advertising; fuck them I’m not promoting their product for them, even if I don’t buy it.
But more than that, it’s sending a message that the behaviour is something we’re willing to condone, that we stand with the abuser rather than their victims.
Imagine telling a sexual assault survivor to just lie back and enjoy the masterful comic stylings of Bill Cosby, or at least to shut up and let you enjoy it, because they’re ruining the funny.
Would that person have reason to consider you a friend or ally after that?
The Harry Potter IP, for instance, is just a giant anti-trans flag now, and the people who wave it around are picking a side. They can’t pretend they’re not; pinning the logo to their chest is explicitly endorsing the author’s views, and spitting in the face of every trans person in their life.
I think you missed their point. They explicitly said that you can at something is a good product and just not buy it because fuck that company. Same point with artists, they can be talented shitbags, we avoid them for the shitbag part, no other reason.
Every work has the author’s stank all over it, it can’t not. It’s seen through their eyes and spoken through their lips (or fingers I guess).
Once you know what it is, it will - and should - colour your perception. If it turns out to be something toxic, then you’re allowed to be viscerally repelled by it. It’s okay. It’s not intellectual dishonesty to have an emotional-based opinion on art ffs.
Now if you let your opinions on engineering get affected by emotion, that’d be another matter. When deciding whether a bridge is safe to carry traffic, you absolutely should not let your personal feelings about the architect factor into the decision.
But this is art we’re talking about. Entertainment. Works designed specifically for emotional impact, with no value outside of that. How you feel about them is the only valid criterion.
If a work squicks you out because the author is a piece of shit, that’s a genuine, valid and authentic opinion - it’s pretending otherwise that would be dishonest.
And in my experience, the ones shouting the loudest about the intellectual integrity angle tend to be fanbois with a huge emotional attachment to the work from their adolescence. Buncha simps, in other words.
Which fine, feelings are valid - but they should damn well own it. If nostalgia > victims, then have the balls to just say it, don’t try to well-ackchewally it into some lofty principle, because it isn’t.
I am a fat guy, there sandwich is only marginally better than the lowest end stuff, any fast casual local place is going to do it better. You can trust a fat man about fried meat.
Right except we can’t apply this evenly. You can go right now to any big museum, see elegant wood carvings from like 800 years ago, and we know nothing about the artist except his name. How do you know he wasn’t a murdering psychopath? You don’t. What you do know is Rowling said some shit on Twitter. We are holding more modern work to a higher standard compared to older work simply because we can document the lives of modern artists better. If you can’t enforce a moral principle with anything resembling consistent application I question how good it is.
A good moral principle is ‘don’t do things that needlessly harm people’, but unintended consequences are everywhere. By delaying a passerby two seconds while you give a homeless guy $5, you might end up causing them to get hit by a garbage truck that would otherwise have missed them.
You can’t enforce the principle consistently, but that doesn’t make it worthless; you give it a good-faith, best-effort go, and that’s all you can do. If your best efforts turn out to be disastrous, that’s shitty, but life’s unfair like that.
Also, whatever else was going on with the person 800 years ago, JK is right now causing ongoing harm in her relentless campaign of hatred for trans people. Waving her IP around is promoting her cause, and so harming more people, right now.
If nobody knows whether the 800-years-ago guy was a piece of shit or not, then promoting their work isn’t supporting some piece-of-shit cause and harming people.
As for chicken sandwiches - without explaining why you think my analogy was inapt, calling it bullshit is no more of a slam-dunk rebuttal than if I called you a poopoohead.
Entity X makes product Y and does shitty horrible thing Z. By being a product-Y fanboi and promoting Y all over the internet, you’re expressing approval for X and condoning Z (at least enough to cut them slack for it).
What difference does it make whether Y is a media IP or a food product?
Don’t muddy the water: you were talking specifically about chick-fil-A, even though I was using it as a generic example of a product people might get attached to. The ‘separate the art from the artist’ crowd would have you ignore any unpleasantness on the part of the producer, so long as the product is enjoyable in isolation - and hold it a moral failing not to do so.
And your entire point was that you couldn’t be consistent because you werne’t all-knowing; not knowing the character of your 800-year-old artist is no different in this instance from not knowing the future: to perfectly apply the principle would require full knowledge of every situation where it could possibly apply (which is of course impossible). This does not, I contend, render the principle, or attempts to apply it as consistently as your knowledge allows, worthless.
asklemmy
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.