Interesting that the doctor there claimed there weren't studies, when there absolutely have been, though admittedly in rather low numbers, namely due to the fact that historically there have been rather low numbers of people who ever transition.
For example, here's one from 2008. It shows that of "trans kids", 43% desisted after puberty. 27% lost contact (could be legitimately uncontactable, could be suicide, either way those numbers are discounted as a result). The remaining 30% were continuing. And if we are to generously presume that the 27% that lost contact followed the same trends, that would make it ~59% desist with 41% continuing.
Here's a blog post with sources compiling a bunch of studies on the topic. Desistance after puberty among these studies range from 60% desistance to a staggering 90% desistance after puberty.
Even in the best case scenarios, early studies that weren't influenced by modern trendiness of transgenderism as a subculture indicate that the majority in all studies of "trans" children results in desistance.
And not one of these advocates will look you in the eye and address the reality that they are willing to RUIN these lives in the false hope they might ease a couple in return. Take the most generous numbers, and they're willing to sacrifice 3 children in the hopes that another 2 aren't as bad as before. And note, that's not happy, mind you. That HOPING that they're better off. It doesn't account for those in denial and going down a sunk cost mentality. It doesn't account for those that commit suicide. This is purely of the people that were still alive and able to give their feedback.
There have been studies. Low numbers, sure. But when cross checked, guess what they find out? Best case scenario and that gender dysphoria is a 100% real thing, children are still overwhelmingly not accurate judges about their wellbeing regarding this topic, and psychos out there are willing to abuse children through these methods. That simple.
That's a fair point. Frankly, merely being an escort is enough to throw serious doubt on him being anything but a leftist. It's not impossible for him to be on the right and an escort, but it's definitely highly unlikely.
It really is funny how there's virtually nobody that can give any sort of rational or reasonable argument as to why a nation should give foreign aid over taking care of their own domestic problems instead.
And I say that as someone who hates government as a whole, but if we have to have them, why is the money going to ANY nation over domestic spending? It doesn't matter if that money goes to a third world shithole like (throws a dart at Africa) Tanzania, to a barbarian shithole like Qatar, or a developed ally like England, none of them should take even a single iota of priority over domestic issues. And this isn't limited to America. It applies to any nation. And the only "argument" in favour of it is ultimately the idea that developed nations like America are somehow responsible for the rest of the world, which is ultimately just a round-a-bout way of supporting colonialism with a leftist coat of paint.
You sound not only pozzed, but like you're clearly a newfag to the internet that doesn't even understand what was lost because all they've ever experienced was a sanitised little hug box.
Damn, you're thirsty for attention when you're trawling back for comments from weeks ago.
The only time consultation isn't a scam is specifically the type of work that cannot be done in-house or through some kind of contractor work. If it can be done either other way, the consultation is 100% a scam, even those with good intentions. Why is it a scam? Because there are better ways of getting that work achieved.
That wasn't slow burn shit. Hell, it wasn't even related to that all that much. It is now, but at the time it wasn't and was mostly naive idiots thinking the grass on the other side was greener (and boy were they wrong).
Either way, it doesn't really matter what year you want to put on it, some asshole will come along and say "pfft, you think it's only been happening that long? It's actually this long!", entirely missing the point that there has been a significant shit in tactics.
Also, 130 years pre-dates USSR, and contradicts the point that there has been a shift from explosive sudden changes to subtle long-term changes.
Do you think they care? Do you think they even truly know? Do you even think they're intelligent enough to understand?
All they care about is that they can gain more power and control. And personally, as doompilled as this is going to sound, I think it's working for them. They're boiling the frog and sticking to it. Part of the biggest issue with the USSR was how fast everything changed. But today? This has been happening for a solid 30 years at least. They've shifted from the Revolutionary methodology and instead adopted the Fabian methodology. The long game. The slow burn. The gradual shift.
I'd say it's better to go a touch broader with all consulting companies. Literally just name the consultation company, add a link for evidence, and let the user take that as is.
It doesn't invoke that pattern recognition you mentioned earlier as much, but it does promote some level of objectivity through user judgement of each company, while also shining a light on how prevalent these consultation firms are becoming/have become within the industry.
Frankly, shouldn't have been touching Revisionism anyway. Still not going to touch this from SE and their misleading over Remake. It was pitched as a remake of the game, not that Remake was the subtitle and that this was an alternate story. For that reason alone it's worthy of avoiding.
Then there's the fact that it's Square Enix. And that it's a modern game at all. And that nothing good can come from new entries riding the coat tails of an old success.
How many signs were needed that this was going to be shit? Did it really take you to get to the consulting agency in the credits of the second game to give that away? Really?
Remake, Rebirth, Revisionism, Revolting, Retarded. It's the FF of Reeeeeeing.
Restrictions breed creativity. It truly is that simple. Remove the restrictions of technological capability, and it's no surprise that the creativity of design also starts to vanish.
It's just a confirmation/extension of the already known Conspiracy Conspiracy, where alphabet agencies have deliberately spread misinformation surrounding conspiracies to both obfuscate what is the truth as well as more outlandish elements to discredit people who share other conspiracies.
It's shit like pushing flat earth theory to discredit more valid theories like MKULTRA, Operation Northwoods or Room 641A discussion. It's shit like working with the media to make a film/show called Stargate (legit good show though) that obfuscates searching about the military Stargate Project (about astral projection/remote viewing). And that isn't to say "remote viewing is clearly real", but these organisation have a clear interest in hiding this information from the public. Even for "legit" reasons. But how is the public to know what is legitimate and what is illegitimate?
What makes this specifically different is the fact that it also has the specific purpose of trying to radicalise people. Ironically to keep themselves in the job. Creating their own enemy to justify their existence. Because they know that the tides were turning and an ever growing state surveillance organisation was getting less and less popular among pretty much everyone. Until they created an enemy that could justify their powers.
So just to get this clear: Parents have no rights to raise their own child, however if they do fail to raise their child and that child commits and atrocity, that's now their fault?
I know that pointing out double standards is a meme, but it's just insane how these people operate. That anyone can be held responsible for the actions of another (excluding cases of explicit coercion, extortion, etc), but that those same people can also be jailed for preventing those others from self-harming.
It's a modern element that such a role be needed. Get someone in-house. Buying these "connections" through a community manager is nothing more than buying pozzed elements. Might as well consult with SBI or similar groups, because that's the end result of these people who push marketing, because they ALWAYS apply pressure internally to try and change the culture because "that's what's marketable".
Again, of the three things you mentioned for a community manager, there is only one that has any merit in the slightest, and that's marketing. Controversy and fanbase policing is irrelevant bullshit that marketing losers push to try and further control the core company through fearmongering ("if you don't do what I tell you to do, there will be controversy and the fanbase will lash out unless they're policed well enough!").
Again, I disagree that this position is needed. You're trying to make is seem like a necessary evil, but I don't think it is. You simply need someone who is a part of the core team to take a step back to engage for marketing purposes that will ACTUALLY represent the company, rather than hiring some freak that will ultimately rot the company from the inside out.
Or, let me re-iterate: Hiring one of these freaks is a red flag. Because the kind of people who would hire a freak almost certainly already aligns with said freak. So it's less that they'll rot the company, but rather that a rotting company will rely on these freaks to get the job done and make sure they're as thoroughly pozzed as they possibly can be.
Any space that isn't explicitly anti-SocJus will inevitably fall to SocJus infiltrators. It's happened time and time again, yet people are still deluding themselves that letting foxes into the hen house will somehow work this time and not result in utter shitshows.
I disagree. They don't need to be engaging in their fanbase at all, and marketing is marketing, not a community manager.
I get what you mean, but ignoring the media at large is a far better tact than anything else. Always has been.
That's bullshit. Single parenthood has been the leading connecting factor relating to SO many issues that it's undeniable unless your denial is a coping mechanism to avoid coming to terms with your personal failures and how said failures might impact others.
This ALSO applies to broken families, and children with step parents, though it's definitely at much lower rates. But it's clear that a lack of a proper two parent dynamic leads to serious issues, and while other people can fill that role it's not a guarantee. Equally so though, it's not a guarantee that both roles being filled means you'll turn out fine. There are other elements, but that doesn't mean that a leading factor shouldn't be identified.
Something something "I have a bridge to sell you" something something.
At this stage, any company with a "community manager" is a red flag.
And as per usual, a red flag doesn't instantly mean something is wrong. It's merely an indicator that there very well could be.
And considering the kind of people that dominate the HR/PR/Community Manager demographics, it's blatantly obvious that if you're hiring one of these people, you know what you're ultimately getting yourself into. And at that point, you get what you deserve from the situation.
I know it's absolutely "but media"-brained, but these freaks really looked at Dune and thought "yeah, controlling the water is definitely a good idea".
When Swartz was no longer the one running the site. He was the reason it was freedom oriented to begin with. Then he got arrested and supposedly committed suicide, and from there it was smooth sailing to shift one of the largest forums that were overwhelmingly libertarian oriented towards being the biggest bootlickers imaginable with as little resistance as possible.
I feel sorry when people's legacies are actively and openly twisted into the very opposite of what they stood for. Swartz didn't want Reddit to be like what it is today. And yeah, he wasn't right-wing, but at least at the time he was consistent in his stances and firmly stood against the state.
Based on your history around here, you're one of the people who's terminally susceptible to propaganda that thinks they're immune. The amount of times you fall back on establishment talking points is truly astounding. You are nearly the exact person I am talking about.
Most people are aware that the media is corrupt, lying and propagandistic. The problem is that they believe they're immune to propaganda and that the media they consume is done so critically and therefore it becomes irrelevant.
The other problem is convincing people in which way the media is propagandistic, because a lot of die hard leftists truly believe the media is right-wing and pro-trump. And no just some media, they think outlets like CNN and MSNBC are pro-trump.
It's not that "it won't work", it's that it's irrelevant if you do. Because again, most people agree that the media is fucked. The problem is they think they don't fall for the lies when they continually and routinely do.
Honestly, it's the same thing. The point is to plan to have some kind of value or worth down the track, and the people that Chillin is referring to is the people that spend all their paycheck and leave little to nothing for savings. All because instant gratification is more addictive.
I had a guy at work once actually tell others that they shouldn't be saving or trying to get more money. This is a man who is at retirement age who's working not because he needs to (because he saved and is well off) but to keep himself busy. And while I don't have a problem with him still working, I do have an issue with someone who is well off giving others the worst advice possible.
This is also a man that routinely spouts "you pay peanuts, you get monkeys", because that's what happens at this business. But yeah, you shouldn't save, just spend it all on instant gratification.
And they wonder why they're middle age being a mindless labourer working for bare fucking minimum when they're given this advice by someone who appears to have their own shit together. And I admit, I truly don't know if this man is a blithering idiot that got lucky in his own life with a decent amount of charisma, or if he's actually malicious.
That's also true.