Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !uspolitics@lemmy.world
7) No Hit-and-Run questions.
Please don't delete your post for no apparent reason. If you plan on deleting a question later, say so in the post, or if you feel that you have a good reason to remove it, message a mod beforehand. It's not fair to the ones who took their time to answer, and it's not in the spirit of the community.
8) No Bots.
Posts or comments from bots, LLM's, AIs, Neural Networks, Transformers, or Marvin the Paranoid Android are not welcome in AskLemmy. Real humans only please.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Downvotes aren't an "I disagree button," y'all. This person makes a well-articulated point with a credible source; if you don't like it either explain why or move on.
A manosphere-gateway self-help guru who somehow hasn't lost his license by some miracle (though was reprimanded) is not what I'd call a credible source.
Pure ad hominem, and unsubstantiated ad hominem at that. The man in the video makes an argument and backs it up by evidence (and, you know, his decade of relevant professional experience). There's straight up zero substance to anything you said (except the reprimand bit, but then you have to explain the contents of that reprimand and why they're relevant here).
Look, if you enjoy that kinda stuff - be my guest. Let's just maybe not pretend that him being a licensed practitioner somehow absolves him from also being a shady unethical influencer who may have ulterior motives which affect how and why he presents topics. Again - not a credible source to me and many others. Hence the downvotes.
Okay that sounds shady (specifically the Indian medicine bit, everything else is frankly not a big deal), but not in a way that's relevant to the contents of the video or the top comment. Again, ad hominem is a fallacy for a reason, or in other words: What's the ulterior motive?
I don't believe it's a fallacy to say "this person has done enough bad stuff to discredit himself and I don't have time nor expertise to sift through his content to separate the good parts from the bad, so it's a safer bet to not listen to him at all".
I had not heard of the guy before, but like anyone else, he has his own perspective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alok_Kanojia
That isn’t what most people would consider a source. The reality is that the word “reliable” often gets dropped from the term when people are asking you for a reliable source. They have an expectation that if you have a source for the information, that you have already found the information credible. The reality is that most people will accept some information from a non-credible source and that is typically when they already have a bias towards that information. Most people are not trained to recognize the existing biases in their thinking so they are unaware of the problem. What was provided is a YouTube video of an entertainer who livestreams. Give me something peer reviewed, not a video of him spouting his platform.
From my long, long experience arguing with people on the internet, the words of a practicing, licensed professional with relevant experience absolutely do count as a source, at least enough to establish a baseline for debate. At this point the burden of (dis)proof is on the accuser to provide evidence that says otherwise.
Most intellectually dishonest thing I've read today. You know that the contents of the video are meant to be backed not by the words of "an entertainer who livestreams," but by his education, over a decade of relevant professional experience and all the statistics and papers he keeps citing in the damn video.
Okay three things here: First, "spouting his platform" of going to therapy but with a disclaimer that might help some people get more out of it? Like, this isn't exactly a bombshell, nor does he say "screw therapy pay me." There's no perverse incentive or anything of the sort here. Second, I've never ever seen anyone start off an internet argument with "give me something peer reviewed." This isn't an academic paper. If you want something peer reviewed, you'll have to start off with something peer reviewed first. Third, by that standard all media for non-academics is a no-go, which is not how any internet argument I've ever seen went. If that's the standard you want to set then sure, but you don't get to enforce it on other people.
therapy people have sort of a cult mentality... they don't want to discuss the limits or issues with therapy.
they basically think it's a miracle cure for everything, and if you disagree they downvote or call you names.
truth is therapy is a limited resource and has lots of issues. and not all therapists and therapies are the same for everyone. but that's a complex detailed discussion folks don't want to have. a large chunk of the therapy industry has implicit and explicit biases and is overwhelmingly dominated by women.
not to mention all the bad ignorant takes like 'therapy is talking'... when there are many non-talk therapies that are necessary.
the problem is 'go to therapy' has become a way to dismiss people's legitimate problems, concerns, and sometimes just their ordinary experiences. it's yet another way of going 'i don't agree with you or like you so therefore you should just go away'.