What a charming individual and what a charming turn of events it is that another group of horrible, awful people were allowed to form, popularise, grow and become a movement on reddit. Not only...
Larson called Nazi leader Adolf Hitler a “white supremacist hero.” He urged Congress to repeal the Violence Against Women Act, adding, “We need to switch to a system that classifies women as property, initially of their fathers and later of their husbands.” He also showed sympathy for men who identify as involuntary celibates, or incels, suggesting it is unfair that they “are forced to pay taxes for schools, welfare, and other support for other men’s children.”
What a charming individual and what a charming turn of events it is that another group of horrible, awful people were allowed to form, popularise, grow and become a movement on reddit.
Not only that, but they have been made so comfortable by their ability to become a community that they are happily expressing such views publicly while running for political office.
What a great contribution reddit made to the world by allowing "incels" to grow as much as it did before acting.
This is honestly outrageous and the staff of reddit that held off on doing something should be deeply, deeply, deeply ashamed for it. Those decision makers are responsible.
Reddit didn't cause incel culture and without Reddit they'd still have congregated elsewhere. Even though I agree with the banning of /r/incels, that's still just treating the symptoms.
Reddit didn't cause incel culture and without Reddit they'd still have congregated elsewhere. Even though I agree with the banning of /r/incels, that's still just treating the symptoms.
Reddit absolutely did. It was a completely fringe barely existent thing elsewhere. A meaningless nothing of nothingness. It was popularised and turned into a movement by reddit. Reddit's power is...
Reddit absolutely did.
It was a completely fringe barely existent thing elsewhere. A meaningless nothing of nothingness.
It was popularised and turned into a movement by reddit.
Reddit's power is in the fact that it is insanely easy to create and grow a community for literally anything there, things that would be ridiculously difficult to do anywhere else online. You wanna make a community for birdswitharms? You aren't growing that successfully anywhere else.
With that power comes responsibility, and reddit are responsible.
Greatly distributed? The only way that power changes is when reddit user numbers decline. I don't know what you mean by greatly distributed but user distribution across the site does not prevent...
Greatly distributed?
The only way that power changes is when reddit user numbers decline. I don't know what you mean by greatly distributed but user distribution across the site does not prevent the creation or growth of new communities as there is no limitation on the number of subreddits anyone follows.
What happens when reddit declines in population? Its ability to actually be harmful with communities like this decreases greatly. They're operating on old principles of it not mattering because these communities in the past would never be anything more than fringe even on reddit. But Incels was at 50,000 when it was finally deleted. A very very far cry from the olden days of coontown at like.. 2000 to 5000 if I recall correctly.
The numbers are drastically important. The sheer quantity of people and reach reddit has now is terrifying, it can bring huge numbers of absolutely awful people together from all over the world to support one another. People that would be lone nuts in their sporadic existence in communities all over the world become a powerful force online when they're all in one place and all egging one another on.
The "incel" phenomenon reminds me a little of the "hapas" thing on reddit too. :/ I don't even know how you handle a mental health issue like that where it's tied so deeply to a person's sense of...
The "incel" phenomenon reminds me a little of the "hapas" thing on reddit too. :/
I don't even know how you handle a mental health issue like that where it's tied so deeply to a person's sense of racial identity (or lack thereof).
He's been making crazy claims for years and went to jail for threatening to shoot the President (Obama) at one point. I think he believes the crazy shit he says. Whether or not he's had the...
He's been making crazy claims for years and went to jail for threatening to shoot the President (Obama) at one point. I think he believes the crazy shit he says. Whether or not he's had the opportunity to act out these impulses. . . idk. His ex wife killed herself and their daughter lives with the maternal grandparents. I'd imagine given the ex's suicide the acts of rape he admits to towards her are generally true. Hopefully the family was able to protect the daughter from him before gaining custody.
It truly terrifies me that people like that exist in the world... I'm a firm believer that mental illness is a biological state that can be treated. It's cases like this where those beliefs are...
It truly terrifies me that people like that exist in the world... I'm a firm believer that mental illness is a biological state that can be treated. It's cases like this where those beliefs are put to the test. Do you think someone who acts and thinks as this man does can be reformed?
No, I don't believe he can be reformed. In order for a person to get "better" from any kind of mental illness, they have to want to get better. This guy is clearly happy with himself, even though...
No, I don't believe he can be reformed. In order for a person to get "better" from any kind of mental illness, they have to want to get better.
This guy is clearly happy with himself, even though we all know he's a piece of shit.
If the illness presents a threat such that a person can be involuntarily committed (e.g. Baker Act in FL), there exists the potential. However, if they stop taking their medication after being...
If the illness presents a threat such that a person can be involuntarily committed (e.g. Baker Act in FL), there exists the potential. However, if they stop taking their medication after being released (side effects are really bad, they go on vacation and forget to bring it, insurance bureaucracy causes a refill to be refused for an entire week (which has happened with my antidepressants before), etc.), and the illness tells them not to take the medicine again, their progress reintegrating into society (job, friends, etc.) can be erased, even if they really want to remain "normal" once they take medication. It's an interesting topic for ethical debates over individual autonomy vs. the collective good of society.
It depends, honestly. People who have committed crimes because of "mental defect" can be forced into psychiatric facilities, where at the very least they can be made to stick to a medication...
It depends, honestly. People who have committed crimes because of "mental defect" can be forced into psychiatric facilities, where at the very least they can be made to stick to a medication regimen. And for some disorders (like bipolar or schizophrenia) the medication can allow a clarity that might result in the patient being more diligent in their therapy program. So there's a possibility.
I don't think we have a drug yet that instills empathy, though.
I would hope so and I would say in cases it can such as ECT that can help fix it enough for them to want to fix the rest of the situation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroconvulsive_therapy
I would hope so and I would say in cases it can such as ECT that can help fix it enough for them to want to fix the rest of the situation.
I do. Medicines help with some conditions, but they work best in conjunction with a therapy program. A person who does not see anything wrong with themselves will not put anything into therapy,...
I do. Medicines help with some conditions, but they work best in conjunction with a therapy program. A person who does not see anything wrong with themselves will not put anything into therapy, and therefore will not receive anything out of it
This opinion is based on conversations I have had with my father in law, who is a psychologist who is on the front edge of the field, with a focus on de-emphasizing medication from its current place as a first response in psychological treatments. He has told me that a patient must want to be treated, must want to get better, and no one can force them to do the necessary work if they do not.
Before promoting the global statement that “all” people with mental illnesses can get better, but only if they want to, please consider that autism (along with many other disorders/“illnesses”) is...
Before promoting the global statement that “all” people with mental illnesses can get better, but only if they want to, please consider that autism (along with many other disorders/“illnesses”) is in this camp of mental “illness.” Ask your father in law if you can borrow his DSM IV and read it. Help yourself become more familiar with mental disorders. These types of dismissive blanket statements about mental health conditions as a whole are dangerous. They’re exactly what fuel the misinformation that continues to perpetuate the very disorders in question.
Now, as for this Nathan Larson character, there’s no fixing whatever shit this guy has.
Autism is not considered a mental illness. It is neurodevelopmental disorder. There are off course other mental illnesses that that don't have a clear cut cure but all are treatable and and in...
Autism is not considered a mental illness. It is neurodevelopmental disorder. There are off course other mental illnesses that that don't have a clear cut cure but all are treatable and and in most cases people can get better if not totally cured.
I’d like to clarify a couple of things here regarding categorization that I feel are misunderstood: Autism Spectrum - disorder (not illness) Bipolar I or II - disorder Schizophrenia Spectrum -...
I’d like to clarify a couple of things here regarding categorization that I feel are misunderstood:
Autism Spectrum - disorder (not illness)
Bipolar I or II - disorder
Schizophrenia Spectrum - disorder
My understanding is that if we are to term a psychological condition an illness we must first consider its origin (was it a disease or infection that led to the condition, for example). The terms disorder and illness are often used interchangeably.
Setting aside semantics, simply stating that people with mental illnesses or disorders can only improve their conditions (or get better) but they have to want to get better - this is not a narrative that needs to exist any longer. How can anyone want to get better if they (and/or their family) don’t know what to look for? I don’t believe this is what OP meant, but I feel it’s important to make the distinctions.
Misinformation and lack of understanding promotes diseases and disorders. This is my point.
I totally agree with you aside from one point. Autism is not a mental/psychological illness/disorder it neurological. The statement that most people with mental illnesses can get better is not...
I totally agree with you aside from one point. Autism is not a mental/psychological illness/disorder it neurological.
The statement that most people with mental illnesses can get better is not dismissive blanket statement. I feel that it is important to keep the conversation about care and solutions because the biggest causes of misinformation is ignorance about treatments and the stigma around mental illness. There are treatments to mental disorders and most people benefit from them. That is not misinformation.
I know it is and probably where the misinformation stems from. Perhaps a long with the fact that psychologists and psychiatrist diagnose and treat the disorder. I used to refer to it as a mental...
I know it is and probably where the misinformation stems from. Perhaps a long with the fact that psychologists and psychiatrist diagnose and treat the disorder. I used to refer to it as a mental illness until my son was diagnosed with ASD where I find out that all the mental health care professionals I've talked to corrected me and refer to it as a neurological disorder.
If you look into what is happening in a person with ASD, it makes sense.
The DSM is definitely a work in progress. Homosexuality was in the DSM III as a disorder. That was a recent as the ‘90s even. I feel you on Autism - I really do. I feel like it’s something that...
The DSM is definitely a work in progress. Homosexuality was in the DSM III as a disorder. That was a recent as the ‘90s even.
I feel you on Autism - I really do. I feel like it’s something that we’re all still getting acquainted with.
There’s so much to all these mental complications. Bipolar disorder and schizophrenia have popped up in my family and they’re both so misunderstood. I do wish more people took the time to learn about these - particularly the most common disorders and the disorders people most use to denote “crazy,” now that it’s unacceptable to say crazy. We’d be in a better world if they did.
For example, this Virginia fella is fucking bat-shit bonkers. It’s in the DSM, go look it up. ;)
Hehe indeed. I'm familiar with the issues surrounding schizophrenia and bi-polar. They run in my wife's family. Not so long ago my brother in law lost a son to schizophrenia related suicide....
Hehe indeed. I'm familiar with the issues surrounding schizophrenia and bi-polar. They run in my wife's family. Not so long ago my brother in law lost a son to schizophrenia related suicide. Public perception and the underfunded mental health care system are to blame there.
You're right, I forgot that autism is still classed as a disease. I was not referring to neurodivergent conditions in that category, as I don't consider them illnesses. I was referring more to...
You're right, I forgot that autism is still classed as a disease. I was not referring to neurodivergent conditions in that category, as I don't consider them illnesses. I was referring more to things like depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, etc. And the reason why the word "better" was in quotation marks the first time was that some conditions, like BPD for example, can show improvement without necessarily being "cured". "Better" is a relative term, very subjective to whoever is using it, and I was using it quite literally to denote improvement rather than cure.
BPD can actually show improvement toward actually being cured, with continued Dialectical Behavior Therapy. The woman who invented DBT, Marsha Linehan, was institutionalized for BPD and no longer...
BPD can actually show improvement toward actually being cured, with continued Dialectical Behavior Therapy. The woman who invented DBT, Marsha Linehan, was institutionalized for BPD and no longer shows any symptoms of the disorder.
Anytime I feel like this world can't surprise me anymore, I find an article like this. And a bonus to the admitted pedophilia: What's disturbing is that he'll actually garner some votes.
Anytime I feel like this world can't surprise me anymore, I find an article like this.
And a bonus to the admitted pedophilia:
admitted to raping his ex-wife
What's disturbing is that he'll actually garner some votes.
He's run before and got less than 2% of the votes. Most of those can be attributed to people not being informed and just clicking a candidate with a name they liked and the "correct" party...
He's run before and got less than 2% of the votes. Most of those can be attributed to people not being informed and just clicking a candidate with a name they liked and the "correct" party affiliation.
Just for future reference, if a URL has ?utm_ in it, you can remove that and everything that comes after. It's used for analytics/tracking. This post's URL without it looks like this:...
Just for future reference, if a URL has ?utm_ in it, you can remove that and everything that comes after. It's used for analytics/tracking. This post's URL without it looks like this:
I don't know who "this guy" is. Not clicking the link to find out. Intended or not, that's a clickbait tactic I'd rather not encourage either. Not blaming you, just pointing it out.
I don't know who "this guy" is. Not clicking the link to find out. Intended or not, that's a clickbait tactic I'd rather not encourage either. Not blaming you, just pointing it out.
I don't do clickbait, not on purpose anyway. This was the best way I could think to post this without trying to push anyone's response. I'm not a prolific poster anywhere and I've deleted more...
I don't know who "this guy" is. Not clicking the link to find out. Intended or not, that's a clickbait tactic I'd rather not encourage either. Not blaming you, just pointing it out.
I don't do clickbait, not on purpose anyway. This was the best way I could think to post this without trying to push anyone's response. I'm not a prolific poster anywhere and I've deleted more comments here than I've posted. I've seen a lot more of these random, super hateful, caricatures and it's making me wonder what isn't being said. Not about this guy, maybe. But, "Hey, look at this crazy thing! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
I'm open to guidance about how to post things in a way that fosters conversation. Do you have have any advice?
I thought the title might lead to more emotional responses. I was honestly trying to make it less so. Can titles of posts be changed? If you think that's more appropriate, I can change it.
I thought the title might lead to more emotional responses. I was honestly trying to make it less so. Can titles of posts be changed? If you think that's more appropriate, I can change it.
I think the way you changed it is perfect. Now I know who and what we're talking about. Thanks! I think sticking to the facts of what happened is usually the best way to open discussion. I mean,...
I think the way you changed it is perfect. Now I know who and what we're talking about. Thanks!
I think sticking to the facts of what happened is usually the best way to open discussion. I mean, sometimes using the name of the person can prejudice responses when it comes to a politically charged figure (notthatIwouldbetalkingaboutTrumporanything). In this case, this guy admitting to being a pedophile in this interview is just one of the many outrageous things he copped to; that's just the headlining fact. So I can see how it would be hard to distill it all into one coherent title for discussion.
i liked your original title a bit better. it seemed to solicit conversation, whereas the passively stated title alone is just news, and the people who respond to a title like that will just be...
i liked your original title a bit better. it seemed to solicit conversation, whereas the passively stated title alone is just news, and the people who respond to a title like that will just be those with some strong opinion (one way or another). Clickbait is not good - but i don't think it has to be clickbait to solicit input per se... (also some people have ambiguous definitions of 'clickbait', often implying malice where none was intended)
It's as simple as the following JS: var url = "https://example.com/foo?utm=something&foo=bar"; var cleaned_url = url.replace(/utm[\W\w]*?=[^&]+(?:&)?/g, '') edit: made code better
It's as simple as the following JS:
var url = "https://example.com/foo?utm=something&foo=bar";
var cleaned_url = url.replace(/utm[\W\w]*?=[^&]+(?:&)?/g, '')
Banning "utm=" or "utm*=" from urls is not the correct way to go about link canonicalization. What if some site legitimately has "utm=" in it's url not related to urchin and removing it destroys...
Banning "utm=" or "utm*=" from urls is not the correct way to go about link canonicalization.
The correct way is to look for the <link href="url" rel="canonical"> tag in the <head> of the page, which will point you at the canonical url without any tracking links. Most large sites include these for SEO reasons.
If there is no canonical tag, then I think some process of repeatably removing url query strings, loading the page and checking the correct content still loads could work.
I think the guy is either a very dedicated troll, severely unhinged, or that this is part of a campaign to scare people into thinking those dangerous libertarians want to infiltrate government.
I think the guy is either a very dedicated troll, severely unhinged, or that this is part of a campaign to scare people into thinking those dangerous libertarians want to infiltrate government.
What a charming individual and what a charming turn of events it is that another group of horrible, awful people were allowed to form, popularise, grow and become a movement on reddit.
Not only that, but they have been made so comfortable by their ability to become a community that they are happily expressing such views publicly while running for political office.
What a great contribution reddit made to the world by allowing "incels" to grow as much as it did before acting.
This is honestly outrageous and the staff of reddit that held off on doing something should be deeply, deeply, deeply ashamed for it. Those decision makers are responsible.
Not only that, but they turned a blind eye as all of r/incels reformed as r/braincels.
Did you see the thing last week when their (top?) Mod posted a suicide note and basically they all failed to notice.
Okay I usually try and avoid these things, but what?
https://reddit.app.link/tOn1eO6nsN
Reddit didn't cause incel culture and without Reddit they'd still have congregated elsewhere. Even though I agree with the banning of /r/incels, that's still just treating the symptoms.
Reddit absolutely did.
It was a completely fringe barely existent thing elsewhere. A meaningless nothing of nothingness.
It was popularised and turned into a movement by reddit.
Reddit's power is in the fact that it is insanely easy to create and grow a community for literally anything there, things that would be ridiculously difficult to do anywhere else online. You wanna make a community for birdswitharms? You aren't growing that successfully anywhere else.
With that power comes responsibility, and reddit are responsible.
Greatly distributed?
The only way that power changes is when reddit user numbers decline. I don't know what you mean by greatly distributed but user distribution across the site does not prevent the creation or growth of new communities as there is no limitation on the number of subreddits anyone follows.
What happens when reddit declines in population? Its ability to actually be harmful with communities like this decreases greatly. They're operating on old principles of it not mattering because these communities in the past would never be anything more than fringe even on reddit. But Incels was at 50,000 when it was finally deleted. A very very far cry from the olden days of coontown at like.. 2000 to 5000 if I recall correctly.
The numbers are drastically important. The sheer quantity of people and reach reddit has now is terrifying, it can bring huge numbers of absolutely awful people together from all over the world to support one another. People that would be lone nuts in their sporadic existence in communities all over the world become a powerful force online when they're all in one place and all egging one another on.
The "incel" phenomenon reminds me a little of the "hapas" thing on reddit too. :/
I don't even know how you handle a mental health issue like that where it's tied so deeply to a person's sense of racial identity (or lack thereof).
He's been making crazy claims for years and went to jail for threatening to shoot the President (Obama) at one point. I think he believes the crazy shit he says. Whether or not he's had the opportunity to act out these impulses. . . idk. His ex wife killed herself and their daughter lives with the maternal grandparents. I'd imagine given the ex's suicide the acts of rape he admits to towards her are generally true. Hopefully the family was able to protect the daughter from him before gaining custody.
It truly terrifies me that people like that exist in the world... I'm a firm believer that mental illness is a biological state that can be treated. It's cases like this where those beliefs are put to the test. Do you think someone who acts and thinks as this man does can be reformed?
No, I don't believe he can be reformed. In order for a person to get "better" from any kind of mental illness, they have to want to get better.
This guy is clearly happy with himself, even though we all know he's a piece of shit.
Great point. It's kind of cyclical, though. If the mental illness causes someone to refuse treatment, can it be treated?
If the illness presents a threat such that a person can be involuntarily committed (e.g. Baker Act in FL), there exists the potential. However, if they stop taking their medication after being released (side effects are really bad, they go on vacation and forget to bring it, insurance bureaucracy causes a refill to be refused for an entire week (which has happened with my antidepressants before), etc.), and the illness tells them not to take the medicine again, their progress reintegrating into society (job, friends, etc.) can be erased, even if they really want to remain "normal" once they take medication. It's an interesting topic for ethical debates over individual autonomy vs. the collective good of society.
It depends, honestly. People who have committed crimes because of "mental defect" can be forced into psychiatric facilities, where at the very least they can be made to stick to a medication regimen. And for some disorders (like bipolar or schizophrenia) the medication can allow a clarity that might result in the patient being more diligent in their therapy program. So there's a possibility.
I don't think we have a drug yet that instills empathy, though.
I would hope so and I would say in cases it can such as ECT that can help fix it enough for them to want to fix the rest of the situation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroconvulsive_therapy
“In order for a person to get "better" from any kind of mental illness, they have to want to get better.”
As a blanket statement, do you believe this?
I do. Medicines help with some conditions, but they work best in conjunction with a therapy program. A person who does not see anything wrong with themselves will not put anything into therapy, and therefore will not receive anything out of it
This opinion is based on conversations I have had with my father in law, who is a psychologist who is on the front edge of the field, with a focus on de-emphasizing medication from its current place as a first response in psychological treatments. He has told me that a patient must want to be treated, must want to get better, and no one can force them to do the necessary work if they do not.
Before promoting the global statement that “all” people with mental illnesses can get better, but only if they want to, please consider that autism (along with many other disorders/“illnesses”) is in this camp of mental “illness.” Ask your father in law if you can borrow his DSM IV and read it. Help yourself become more familiar with mental disorders. These types of dismissive blanket statements about mental health conditions as a whole are dangerous. They’re exactly what fuel the misinformation that continues to perpetuate the very disorders in question.
Now, as for this Nathan Larson character, there’s no fixing whatever shit this guy has.
Autism is not considered a mental illness. It is neurodevelopmental disorder. There are off course other mental illnesses that that don't have a clear cut cure but all are treatable and and in most cases people can get better if not totally cured.
I’d like to clarify a couple of things here regarding categorization that I feel are misunderstood:
Autism Spectrum - disorder (not illness)
Bipolar I or II - disorder
Schizophrenia Spectrum - disorder
My understanding is that if we are to term a psychological condition an illness we must first consider its origin (was it a disease or infection that led to the condition, for example). The terms disorder and illness are often used interchangeably.
Setting aside semantics, simply stating that people with mental illnesses or disorders can only improve their conditions (or get better) but they have to want to get better - this is not a narrative that needs to exist any longer. How can anyone want to get better if they (and/or their family) don’t know what to look for? I don’t believe this is what OP meant, but I feel it’s important to make the distinctions.
Misinformation and lack of understanding promotes diseases and disorders. This is my point.
I totally agree with you aside from one point. Autism is not a mental/psychological illness/disorder it neurological.
The statement that most people with mental illnesses can get better is not dismissive blanket statement. I feel that it is important to keep the conversation about care and solutions because the biggest causes of misinformation is ignorance about treatments and the stigma around mental illness. There are treatments to mental disorders and most people benefit from them. That is not misinformation.
FYI, Autism is listed in the DSM-V as a spectrum disorder.
I know it is and probably where the misinformation stems from. Perhaps a long with the fact that psychologists and psychiatrist diagnose and treat the disorder. I used to refer to it as a mental illness until my son was diagnosed with ASD where I find out that all the mental health care professionals I've talked to corrected me and refer to it as a neurological disorder.
If you look into what is happening in a person with ASD, it makes sense.
The DSM is definitely a work in progress. Homosexuality was in the DSM III as a disorder. That was a recent as the ‘90s even.
I feel you on Autism - I really do. I feel like it’s something that we’re all still getting acquainted with.
There’s so much to all these mental complications. Bipolar disorder and schizophrenia have popped up in my family and they’re both so misunderstood. I do wish more people took the time to learn about these - particularly the most common disorders and the disorders people most use to denote “crazy,” now that it’s unacceptable to say crazy. We’d be in a better world if they did.
For example, this Virginia fella is fucking bat-shit bonkers. It’s in the DSM, go look it up. ;)
Hehe indeed. I'm familiar with the issues surrounding schizophrenia and bi-polar. They run in my wife's family. Not so long ago my brother in law lost a son to schizophrenia related suicide. Public perception and the underfunded mental health care system are to blame there.
Condolences to your brother in law - I know how that feels.
Thanks. It sucks but the family is healing and it basically turned us all into mental health advocates. So I guess there is a positive side.
You're right, I forgot that autism is still classed as a disease. I was not referring to neurodivergent conditions in that category, as I don't consider them illnesses. I was referring more to things like depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, etc. And the reason why the word "better" was in quotation marks the first time was that some conditions, like BPD for example, can show improvement without necessarily being "cured". "Better" is a relative term, very subjective to whoever is using it, and I was using it quite literally to denote improvement rather than cure.
BPD can actually show improvement toward actually being cured, with continued Dialectical Behavior Therapy. The woman who invented DBT, Marsha Linehan, was institutionalized for BPD and no longer shows any symptoms of the disorder.
Excellent! I'm glad progress is being made.
Psst, you posted this comment twice.
Thanks! I'm in an area with weak internet and I've been a little to click-happy!
Can convicts run for office?!
Virginia passed a law recently that allows convicted felons to run for office.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nathan-larson-candidate/
Well shit. When someone posts a Snopes link I think I was duped.
Anytime I feel like this world can't surprise me anymore, I find an article like this.
And a bonus to the admitted pedophilia:
What's disturbing is that he'll actually garner some votes.
He's run before and got less than 2% of the votes. Most of those can be attributed to people not being informed and just clicking a candidate with a name they liked and the "correct" party affiliation.
Who's money is being wasted on his campaign?
He lives with his parents, so my guess is mommy and daddy.
Just for future reference, if a URL has ?utm_ in it, you can remove that and everything that comes after. It's used for analytics/tracking. This post's URL without it looks like this:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nathan-larson-congressional-candidate-pedophile_us_5b10916de4b0d5e89e1e4824
UTM stands for Urchin Tracking Module:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urchin_(software)
@Deimos considering the privacy-oriented nature of Tildes, could we automatically strip out ?utm query strings on every submission?
Yep, planned. I want to have link canonicalization in general, which should mostly get rid of all of that kind of stuff.
Good idea! Thank you for requesting it.
I didn't know this. I will be adding this to my list of things to look out for. Thank you!
Thank you, too :)
I think he's delusional. A lot of people with troubling beliefs have been politically prominent lately, and he probably thinks he is no different.
I initially thought it night be a false flag op like the fake Ron Moore story but sadly I think this guy is just sick in every sense of the word.
I don't know who "this guy" is. Not clicking the link to find out. Intended or not, that's a clickbait tactic I'd rather not encourage either. Not blaming you, just pointing it out.
I don't do clickbait, not on purpose anyway. This was the best way I could think to post this without trying to push anyone's response. I'm not a prolific poster anywhere and I've deleted more comments here than I've posted. I've seen a lot more of these random, super hateful, caricatures and it's making me wonder what isn't being said. Not about this guy, maybe. But, "Hey, look at this crazy thing! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
I'm open to guidance about how to post things in a way that fosters conversation. Do you have have any advice?
Why not just use the actual title of the article?
I thought the title might lead to more emotional responses. I was honestly trying to make it less so. Can titles of posts be changed? If you think that's more appropriate, I can change it.
Users can't change titles (yet). I can change it for you if you'd like though.
Please. I'm trying to start an honest conversation. Thank you.
I think the way you changed it is perfect. Now I know who and what we're talking about. Thanks!
I think sticking to the facts of what happened is usually the best way to open discussion. I mean, sometimes using the name of the person can prejudice responses when it comes to a politically charged figure (notthatIwouldbetalkingaboutTrumporanything). In this case, this guy admitting to being a pedophile in this interview is just one of the many outrageous things he copped to; that's just the headlining fact. So I can see how it would be hard to distill it all into one coherent title for discussion.
The vague titles are usually the ones that can run a little clickbaity. "Here are 10 reasons that they will never tell you why you should click!"
i liked your original title a bit better. it seemed to solicit conversation, whereas the passively stated title alone is just news, and the people who respond to a title like that will just be those with some strong opinion (one way or another). Clickbait is not good - but i don't think it has to be clickbait to solicit input per se... (also some people have ambiguous definitions of 'clickbait', often implying malice where none was intended)
It's as simple as the following JS:
edit: made code better
Banning
"utm="or"utm*="from urls is not the correct way to go about link canonicalization.What if some site legitimately has
"utm="in it's url not related to urchin and removing it destroys the link? Your simple javascript doesn't even check the"utm="is in the query string, so it will match URLs like https://example.com/blog/what_are_those_utm=_parameters_you_see_in_urls.html and mutilate it to https://example.com/blog/what_are_those_The correct way is to look for the
<link href="url" rel="canonical">tag in the<head>of the page, which will point you at the canonical url without any tracking links. Most large sites include these for SEO reasons.If there is no canonical tag, then I think some process of repeatably removing url query strings, loading the page and checking the correct content still loads could work.
Cool, learned something new today.
Thank you.
I think the guy is either a very dedicated troll, severely unhinged, or that this is part of a campaign to scare people into thinking those dangerous libertarians want to infiltrate government.
Remember when the conservatives said gay marriage will lead to pedophilia? They weren't wrong, but their reasoning was reverse from reality.