Posts by casualharbor9

It feels like every time a team hits a peak, the roster just evaporates overnight. Do you think it's even possible to sustain a winning culture when the talent pool shifts that drastically every few years?

I was reading something the other day that really got me thinking about how much we’ve fundamentally altered our relationship with the natural world, and not just in the "we cut down trees to build malls" kind of way. I’m talking about that strange, modern impulse to try and "engineer" nature to fix the problems that our previous engineering caused. It’s this weird, circular logic where we use high-tech interventions to simulate or manipulate biological processes to keep the environment "balanced."

It feels like we’ve reached a point where we no longer trust the ecosystem to just... exist. If a certain species becomes an issue, our first instinct isn't to look at why the habitat changed or why the predator-prey balance shifted; our first instinct is to go into a lab, find a way to manipulate the biology of the nuisance, and then dump them back into the wild to "correct" the situation. There is something deeply unsettling about the idea of mass-releasing biological agents—even if they are "harmless" versions of a pest—into a densely populated urban center. It feels like we are playing a high-stakes game of biological Jenga.

I remember back when I was a kid, if you had a bug problem in the backyard, your dad would go out with a spray can and you’d all run inside. It was primitive, sure, and probably bad for the soil, but at least there was a clear boundary. You knew where the "human space" ended and the "bug space" began. Now, that boundary is being blurred by design. We are essentially inviting the "problem" into our living rooms through the front door, just in a different form, hoping that the math works out in our favor.

The logic usually boils down to "it's more efficient and less toxic than chemicals," which is a hard argument to fight on a purely practical level. I get it. We don't want more neurotoxins in our groundwater. But I can't help but wonder about the long-term ripple effects. When we intervene at a genetic or reproductive level to suppress a population, we are essentially performing a massive, uncontrolled experiment on a local scale. What happens to the birds that eat them? What happens to the other insects that occupy the same niche? We talk about "targeted" solutions as if they are surgical strikes, but nature isn't a surgical theater; it's a chaotic, interconnected web. You pull one thread, and you have no idea which part of the tapestry is going to unravel next.

There is also a psychological component to this that I find fascinating. There is a certain type of modern hubris involved in believing we can outsmart evolution. We think we can take a complex, millions-of-years-old biological cycle and "hack" it with a little bit of lab work. It’s the same mindset that led to the introduction of cane toads in Australia—a well-intentioned attempt to solve a problem that ended up creating a legendary disaster. We keep trying to find the "silver bullet" that allows us to live in comfortable, sanitized urban environments without ever having to deal with the consequences of how those environments interact with the wild.

I find myself oscillating between thinking this is a brilliant, necessary evolution of pest management and thinking it’s a terrifying leap into a future where we can't distinguish between a natural environment and a laboratory. Are we actually solving the problem, or are we just moving the goalposts of what "nature" even means?

Does anyone else feel a growing sense of unease about these types of biological "hacks" being implemented in our cities, or am I just being overly cynical about the inevitable march of progress?

Sophia Bishop2 said:Following those instructions, I submitted two reports yesterday and the day before.

The first one was about this post which clearly clashes with the recommendations found in the social science subforum rule. 05/24/2013. I won't go as far as saying it breaks the rules, but at first glance—especially once you actually click the link—it lacks basic literacy.

It’s not my place to tell the moderators how to do their jobs, but you’d think a post like that would bother them at least a little. 🤷

The second report covered the entire thread: if a subforum has "science" in its name, I don't see why threads that belong in "all sorts of things" should be allowed there. Unless there's another subforum specifically for "I read/heard something, let's chat about it." On the other hand, if the moderation policy is to tolerate posts like this under the "social sciences" umbrella, then fine. However, I also reported the whole "discussion" (using quotes because it isn't a discussion) as being incorrect and off-topic.

I get that Daniel is busy and that Nica, as the sole admin, carries the weight of the entire Forum, but I thought reports would at least get a reaction. Apparently not. 😢

So, it seems there's nothing left for me or anyone else to do but stir up some "unnecessary drama" over on the main board. Hopefully, reporting it here will make it a bit more visible. ☕

The discussion was just as poor as the topic itself. Honestly, it’s not anyone’s fault that certain people fail to grasp that expressing political stances or aesthetic preferences isn't some personal affront—it's the literal subject matter for political science, sociology, psychology, or anthropology. Perhaps they might eventually understand that, though I’m not particularly optimistic about people who view the entire world through a strictly left-right lens.

... if the subforum has the word "science" in its title, I don't see any reason why threads should be opened there that belong in "all sorts of things" based on their tone and quality. Unless, of course, there's another subforum designed for the "I read/heard something, let's chat about it" crowd. Then again, if the moderator policy allows for posts like this under the umbrella of "social sciences," then so be it.

There is a tiny little sub-subforum called "on the edge of politics" (though personally, I think most of this belongs here) where a topic like this could really flourish amidst endless reading, replies, thread closures, bans, and sponsored ads popping up in between. But hey, when someone wants to wrap their regressive views in a veneer of intellect or legitimacy, they inevitably push them into forums with "science" in the name... 🤷

So, it seems there's nothing left for me or anyone else to do but stir up some "unnecessary drama" over on the main board. In the hope that a report there will actually get some visibility.

Drama on this forum usually escalates into an ancient Greek tragedy where everyone ends up dead.

I don't know. Is there any actual evidence to back this up? It seems like we're just throwing theories at the wall at this point. Are we really expected to believe that these psychological mechanisms work exactly like this without any peer-reviewed data from a place like Cornell University or Weill Medical School? It feels like a lot of speculation. Where is the clinical validation? If the FDA hasn't weighed in on the implications of these specific behavioral patterns, shouldn't we be a bit more skeptical? I’m not saying it’s impossible, but let’s not pretend we have the full picture yet. Does anyone actually have a source for this, or are we just riding the wave of a popular idea?

Rosey casualharbor9 said:So, what's the deal, mouse? 🙂...

I don't know who you think you're dealing with here, but I can assure you, it isn't me. Why on earth do you assume you're entitled to more leeway than everyone else? What exactly makes you think you can act like this toward me? Even before. She was deleting completely neutral posts, so why did she go scorched earth? Show me exactly what’s wrong with the posts I’ve already asked about across four different threads—the ones that got me slapped with warnings and partial bans! Stop hiding behind canned phrases and moderator censorship.

Quote : Rosey

Rosey casualharbor9 said:So, what exactly are these posts? Just copy-pasted articles ripped straight from the internet. If you had ever bothered to actually read the forum rules—or if you viewed them as anything more than mere suggestions—you would realize this isn't some grand conspiracy against you personally. We delete these posts because that’s the rule. Do you want to have a discussion? Fine. But do it in your own words and keep it civil. You’ve had plenty of opportunities to do just that, and once again, you've proven you're incapable of it.

1.)
And where exactly did you get the idea that this is some kind of personal conspiracy against me? You clearly have a solid grasp of what this topic is actually about. Cut it out with the attempts to discredit me by labeling me just another fringe conspiracy theorist from some basement forum. I back up my views with actual arguments—and honestly, that’s exactly where you guys are struggling.

2.)
One of those two deleted posts was actually a translated quote from a top-tier neurologist—someone who’s also a renowned activist and whistleblower fighting against the misuse of science and the promotion of pseudoscience. Ben Goldacre. The second one was basically just a collection of links featuring deep dives from other top-tier whistleblower experts—people actually willing to expose the truth about their own industries. So, you went ahead and deleted me too? Really?

Who do you think is actually qualified to interpret the state of psychiatry: the pill addicts, the dealers supplying them, pharmaceutical propaganda, or medicine itself?
Oh yeah, I could easily prove that this isn't just some "trolling" act—it’s the actual, unvarnished truth about psychiatry. But hey, feel free to keep doing what you're doing. You can keep trying to scrub my posts and silence me with sanctions if that makes you feel better. Or maybe that's just the hope you're clinging to?

3.)
And you didn't think it was worth your time to delete posts like this one? You know, the ones that immediately follow... Regarding my previous post...):

Is there anyone else out there who feels like they’re constantly fighting an uphill battle with their focus? I’ve been looking into Adderall lately, and honestly, the whole conversation around it feels incredibly messy. Does anyone actually know where to draw the line between "I need help" and "I just want an edge"? It’s a fine line, isn't it? casualharbor9 says:
So, let's talk about the current trends surrounding the use and, frankly, the blatant misuse of SSRIs here in America. It’s an interesting—if somewhat troubling—phenomenon to observe.

The latest editorial from the New England Journal of Medicine raises some pointed questions about how we approach medical evidence. It’s a dense read, but it gets to the heart of a growing tension in modern clinical practice: the gap between what high-level statistical data tells us and what actually happens when a doctor sits down with a patient in an exam room. Are we becoming too obsessed with the "average" result? The piece suggests that while large-scale randomized controlled trials are the gold standard for proving a drug works on a population level, they often fail to account for the messy, unpredictable reality of individual biology. We tend to treat these massive datasets as gospel, yet we ignore the fact that a single human being isn't a mathematical average. It brings up a valid point regarding the hierarchy of evidence. If a study shows a statistically significant benefit for a treatment, but that benefit is negligible for the specific person standing in front of you, has the science actually served them? Or have we just satisfied a requirement for publication? There is a subtle, almost dry critique here of how the medical establishment interprets success. We look for p-values and confidence intervals, but we rarely pause to ask if those numbers translate to meaningful quality of life in a way that a patient can actually feel. It’s a measured argument, perhaps a bit skeptical of the current trend toward hyper-specialized data modeling, but it serves as a necessary reminder that medicine is, at its core, a human endeavor, not just a statistical one.

... which is how I responded:

casualharbor9 casualharbor9 said:So, if I’ve managed to parse this entire thing—and honestly, I haven't exactly been reading every single word of this massive wall of text with religious devotion—here is my takeaway: the clinical psychiatry and psychopharmacology department over at Weill Medical School at Cornell University is basically casting doubt on the FDA's current recommendations. They’re questioning both the validity of those federal guidelines and the actual statistical methods used in various clinical trials that claim antidepressants lead to an uptick in suicide rates among patients. And their solution? They’re suggesting we should actually increase the consumption of psychotropic drugs. Is that really where we're landing here?

So, apparently, you don't mind these little "rule violations" coming from someone who—by total coincidence—is an avid consumer of both legal and illegal substances (do you need me to drop links proving that?), and who also happens to share your exact views on the subject. But suddenly, casualharbor9's transgressions are the catalyst for this sudden burst of puritanical moderation in what used to be a colorful thread? And elsewhere too, I suppose?

4.)
To my previous thoughts on this subject, though I’ll be putting them into my own words this time around.You have an answer like this:

Rosey casualharbor9 said:...
It’s like a total feeding frenzy whenever the conversation turns to psychopharmacology, psychiatry, or anything else that serves as a convenient playground for people to moan about the evils of psychiatry, Big Pharma, and those classic white-collar conspiracies.

So, here’s the bottom line regarding all my justifications for being carded, deleted, and partially banned: if I write something about how flawed psychopharmacology is in its mass application, apparently I’m just "crusading" and "lamenting." But the moment I quote top-tier experts who actually agree with me? Suddenly, I’m "violating forum rules."

*****

Where exactly in the rules does it say you can call me "mouse," label me a "conspiracy theorist," and try to mock me with those weird linguistic quirks? You call that a "civilized discussion"?
So, you and your little circle feel entitled to throw around ad hominem attacks and engage in deception, but apparently, casualharbor9 is the only one who isn't allowed to?

*****

This is actually a decent discussion, free from any personal attacks.

Is there any actual data on this? Or are we just circling the drain of anecdotal evidence again? casualharbor9 says:
...
This whole so-called "anti-psychiatry revolution" is a joke. It’s mostly just people venting their frustrations on forums and nothing more. Is anyone actually accomplishing anything? Not really. It's just a massive outlet for pure bitterness.
...
Find my previous post where I shared my niece's experience, then go read the comment casualharbor9 left on it. Honestly, it’s rock bottom. Who in their right mind would ever bother sharing a positive experience with psychotropic drugs after reading that? If you do, you’ll basically be labeled either a junkie or someone who's just paying for a fix in the next thread. It makes it impossible to actually say anything or build an argument. It’s a rigged game: if you have a good experience, you're an addict; if you have a bad one, it's "proof" the drugs don't work and they're just a way to fleece people for cash. What a fantastic discussion. Truly top-tier stuff.

Look, let’s call this what it is: this isn't censorship. This entire thread has just sunk below the gutter. Why is there so much sheer bitterness and vitriol being spewed here? Especially from certain individuals who clearly haven't stepped foot in a psychiatrist's office—though, honestly, maybe they should. This isn't a discussion. It’s an emotional exhaust vent. And that vent is incredibly insulting to anyone who has needed, is currently using, or will eventually need psychiatric help. If you lot want to go off and scream into the void, go find a celebrity gossip forum where people obsess over Taylor Swift or Selena Gomez. That’s clearly where you belong.

(No, it isn't my fault that some guy who pops psychotropic drugs for every little thing + has been smoking weed daily for xy years, feels personally attacked just because I spoke out against the over-prescription of psychotropic drugs. As far as I'm concerned, people can medicate themselves with whatever they want, whenever they want; they just shouldn't do it at the expense of our collapsing healthcare system.)

*****

... moving on:

Uširo said:...
You’ve really leaned into this messiah complex on this forum. It’s bordering on narcissism, if you ask me.
Get lost, kid...

Uširo said:

martin007 said:That (that vague recommendation) is incredibly impractical and unclear... well, at least that much is obvious!

If you actually have proof someone is poisoning people? Report it to the District Attorney.👍

How is a person supposed to report anyone, or even to whom, when they think the whole thing is just one massive conspiracy involving the government and Big Pharma?🤣

Over in the "Fringe Science" subforum, they fight tooth and nail against conspiracy theorists, yet here you are promoting them?!

casualharbor9, make up your mind once and for all; are you left or right?🤣

No, you prefer going straight—headfirst into a wall.🙂

Tox said:

john newman said:I don't think this is a discussion about conspiracy theories... at least, that's not how I see it.

And it isn't. This is a topic about personal resentment. ☕

... blah blah blah...

So, let me get this straight; I’m the one who has "repeatedly proven unable to argue decently or with any sense of decorum"???
And apparently, Antik wasn't just trolling you all with his topics. 🤣
- My sincerest congratulations on your incredible insight. :there isn't a suitably grotesque smiley for this:

*****

By the way, when you silence, delete, and ban someone simply because they actually provide a coherent response, that isn't called a debate. It's just blatant censorship from a position of power. And honestly? That little tactic isn't going to fly with us anymore.

My apologies! Since I’m not allowed to edit the original post, I’ll just add my thoughts here:

Secondly, I suppose we can't really expect anything better from a mirror reflecting our own intellectual swamp. In this place, the final word always seems to belong to those *bureaucratic* paper-pushers—the career mediocre types who are completely out of touch with the reality of the average American they supposedly serve.

So, sanctions are your only way of responding?

It’s fascinating how nobody seems to mind that in the thread titled "the truth about psychiatry," a bunch of immature kids—who seem incredibly proud of their status as legalized junkies—are throwing around ad hominem attacks. We've got shady characters who can't string two coherent sentences together yet suddenly jumped from wearing swim trunks to playing psychiatrist. Then there are the types who openly admit to abusing both legal and illegal substances for everything from depression to quitting smoking. Add to that the wide spectrum of users who have been medicated their entire lives without ever actually finding stability, or causing it in others due to heavy medication—yet, apparently, one casualharbor9 really rubbed someone the wrong side of the bed by offering an argued critique of entrenched views instead of just recommending psychotropic drugs for every physiological function from breathing to basic motor skills.
Kudos on the objectivity.

I’d also like to congratulate the forum administration for allowing this subforum—which, by default, is a natural science section meant to deal with the mechanisms and manifestations of the human psyche—to morph into a grotesque billboard for the pharmaceutical industry. It’s being aggressively criticized by the authentic, unbought group of top-tier experts dedicated to the natural science known as medicine, as well as those concerned with the ethical questions of our society.
Secondly, I suppose one can't expect anything else from a mirror reflecting this intellectual swamp of ours, where the final word always belongs to the safely entrenched mediocrities who remain completely oblivious to the reality of the common citizens they supposedly serve.

Why not just lock the thread now instead of providing any actual explanatory comment? In fact, you might as well just delete everything; perhaps then fewer people will notice what’s actually happening here.

Michelle Evans said:...
It’s perfectly fine that those moderators wiped that post. Honestly, they did the right thing.

Which moderators are we actually talking about here? Is it Sophia Kern43, the one who can’t seem to resist taking cheap shots at anyone with a different opinion? Look, if you're going to mock people, fine—but have the decency to do it on equal footing. You shouldn't be acting like you're untouchable when you're just as vulnerable to being called out as everyone else.
Could you perhaps provide me with some more specific explanations? Regarding this particular subject.Aside from all that administrative gatekeeping and those royal decrees issued from on high...

If you had been the first one to wrap this up in a multi-day funk back when everything was being sanctioned before that temporary lockdown, you wouldn't be talking like this. You’re lacking objectivity. And honestly? It’s pretty glaring.
It doesn't matter. We've already made ourselves clear—follow the rules, or we’re going to request a partial ban. You have more than enough pages of history under your belt here to know exactly what it means to follow, or fail to follow, the guidelines.
The discussion on our end is officially over. There’s really no point in dragging this out any further.
The key.

Since this subforum is titled "Messages, Complaints, and Comments," I suppose we should probably stick to that.
You haven't actually been clear at all. You aren't pointing out where or how I’m supposedly breaking the rules; you're just tossing out empty clichés to justify your sweeping decisions.
Why on earth did one of you two delete my previous posts? I was only sharing the perspectives of top-tier psychiatrists and neuroscientists regarding the pharmaceutical industry—no personal attacks, no addressing anyone directly, nothing. Just facts.
So, after all that, you just hand out bans or split my posts apart because I’m actually responding to the provocations you lot seem so determined to ignore?

If you can't explain it, just say so—I’m more than capable of understanding things from a psychological perspective. 🙂

Richard Grant56 said:So, my post got nuked right after I... I don't know about this woman. He wrote that she sounds like a masochist. Honestly, it feels like some of the moderators over at Psychology are actually taking things a bit too far.

They're exaggerating a bit, wouldn't you say? 😲Wait, what was I saying? Honestly, my thoughts are all over the place today. It’s like... does anyone else feel that way? Just completely lost in the middle of a sentence? No need for a lengthy explanation. Deleted forum posts—all perfectly valid, neutral, and based on nothing but my own personal perspective. So, why were they scrubbed? If you want to prove me wrong, go ahead—I’m practically daring the administration to step up.

I’m not going to dodge the fact that I tend to lean into colorful hyperbole when making a point—which, let's be honest, can sting if you take things personally. Then again, why should I feel guilty about someone else's emotional reaction, especially when they aren't exactly being mindful of how they impact others? That said, I have zero interest in being made a spectacle over some alleged violation of "formal rules." If you actually bother to look at the fine print, those rules aren't even consistent from one point to the next.

So, I see my access to the psychology subforum has been cut off. A partial ban, then? Interesting.

You know what? I couldn't care less about my reputation among people I don't even respect—that’s just who I am in real life, believe it or not. But this isn't about me. This is about issues that have a massive impact on actual lives. It is honestly a total disgrace on your part to refuse to let the voices of reason be heard, especially when they hold different perspectives.
We all live in the real world, where most work isn't exactly driven by ethics—it’s driven by necessity—and quite frankly, it’s often far from morally pure. But honestly, screw the system if we aren't allowed to have an open, honest conversation about it behind the safety of anonymity. By strangling free speech, you're essentially doing yourselves a massive disservice. When you end up supporting these little totalitarian regimes wrapped in layers of corporate formality, don't act surprised when you find yourself stuck in that same subordinate position one day. And trust me, there won't be anyone left to bail you out.

@Nica, what a disaster. 😠I trust you as much as Paul trusts Jesus—so, what’s your take on all of this? Give me something! If you honestly believe I deserve to be torn apart, then go ahead and kill me—but please, just be honest with yourself.

The most logical move would be to split the PZ subforum up: migrate one section over to Philosophy, wipe some of the clutter, and rename another part to "engineering & pro-nuclear lobbying."
Or maybe not.

Actually, wouldn't it make more sense to just introduce specialized subforums? We could have dedicated spaces for the energy sector, theoretical physics, mathematics, material science, biology, chemistry, archaeology, anthropology, practical design, and perhaps even some scientific speculation... plus an astronomy section, since that’s pretty standard for this field, right?

Come on, Nica, do you have even an ounce of integrity left to give me a straight answer before your proteges ban me for actually responding to that last provocation on this thread?

Heh, you all know how incredibly hypocritical it is to expect something from someone else that you won't even practice yourselves.

Why were my last two posts on the "the truth about psychiatry" thread deleted again? I was just providing a reasoned perspective from yet another highly competent expert, along with some Wikipedia entries regarding ethics within the pharmaceutical industry.
Is it more of the usual "trolling, personal attacks, criticizing the mods, or going off-topic"? Or is it just "crusading through threads about psychopharmacology, psychiatry, or any topic I happen to find convenient for venting about evil psychiatry, Big Pharma, and other white-collar conspiracies"?

It’s becoming a total farce. At this point, I'm starting to wonder if the moderation team is biased due to some conflict of interest. ☕

@Nica, I want an explanation from you, not from the usual censors who without valid explanations delete my work and issue warnings.
Michelle Evans and Sophia Kern43—thanks for the responses you already gave; honestly, don't bother anymore, since you both already said that the "debate" is over on your end.

Do you actually support this blatant censorship of the truth on this forum, @Nica?

Here is yet another prime example of my supposed "trolling, ad hominem attacks, and lack of contribution" on this subforum:

- So, what was the actual reason behind your 35-point penalty? Did you miss the allusion to the notorious fact that the system allows Big Pharma to bribe doctors? Is the data regarding a 400% spike in mental health diagnoses somehow untrue? Or was it because I stepped outside the thread with a title like "Got a diagnosis? Who cares!"? Suddenly, you’ve become hyper-sensitive to off-topic posts—posts you were perfectly indifferent to until now?
What is the real reason you're siding with a guy who has a phallic object in his avatar, uses "are you down for a hookup" as a subtitle, and heavily relies on antidepressants and anxiolytics—which, I'll admit, don't actually work for him—yet he unreservedly supports their mass prescription?
Is that my "trolling"?

Sophia Kern43 said:You were handed a custom warning on that thread for your overall contribution lately—trolling, going off-topic, and using ad hominem attacks. If I rewarded every single post with the appropriate amount of points, we’d be having this conversation in the ban corner...

Here is my "entire" contribution to the thread over what was more than just a few posts (three pages/two weeks):

(take a look at the post I'm responding to too)

- Perhaps you could also show those few posts that you (or your colleague) deleted—the ones where I was calling out a guy who does exactly what you're accusing me of, yet he gets away with it every single time. And not just him, but anyone else who shares your views, throughout this entire thread. You only temporarily locked the topic once it became glaringly obvious that your favorites were flagrantly breaking the rules and things were about to spiral out of control due to the most blatant ad hominem attacks.

I’ll admit, looking back, I might have leaned a bit too hard into the hyperbole in certain spots. Maybe some of those bans were earned. But let’s be real: trying to smear my character just to push me out of this subforum is a massive reach, and frankly, it’s a lot to put on you two. Besides, you’ve been trying to suffocate this entire discussion and sabotage it since day one—long before I even stepped into the fray. And I’m certainly not the only one who caught onto that.

Sophia Kern43 said:You earned yourself a custom card on this thread for your total contribution over the last few posts—mostly just trolling, going off-topic, and throwing personal insults. If I had awarded points to every single one of your posts, we’d be having this conversation over in the ban corner right now.

Most of what you write over on the psychology subforum is exactly that—just trolling, personal attacks on other users, constant nitpicking about the moderators, and nothing but off-topic nonsense.

Honestly, I didn't really notice you getting worked up, nor did your colleague.

Look, I’m asking you to be specific. Tell me exactly what happened, where it happened, and why it qualifies as trolling, an ad hominem attack, or going off-topic. I’m looking for actual substance here—not just this vague, sweeping generalization you keep throwing out. It shouldn't be much of a struggle, considering my entire body of work follows this exact pattern.

This entire subforum feels less like a serious Psychology section and more like some amateurish support group for people addicted to psychotropic drugs. Every once in a while, a thread pops up that actually touches on legitimate psychological questions, but they’re handled with the depth of a preschooler’s finger painting. To make matters worse, it’s all drowned out by a sea of pseudo-spiritual nonsense. You have blatant trolls running around opening mocking threads right under your noses, and when someone finally manages to draw a line in the sand after fifteen failed attempts—like what happened with James Bond, for instance—you honestly call that moderation?

Alright, let me give you my two cents on the moderation here—assuming that’s actually allowed on this subforum. I’ll address yours and your colleague's oversight (though I’m not even sure if those other two have ever actually shown up for work). To put it bluntly? Your moderation is absolutely useless.
The quality of this subforum used to be significantly higher back when we had a different moderation team in charge.
A whole bunch of people on this forum—folks who’ve reached out to me over the last few years specifically because they value the support I provide here—could testify to just how wrong you are about my "entire body of work."

I sincerely hope that neither of you has anything to do with psychology in real life, because your ability to communicate in writing—let alone grasp basic context—is practically nonexistent.

And then there’s the constant crusading on threads about psychopharmacology, psychiatry, or pretty much any topic that serves as a convenient playground for whining about the evils of psychiatry, Big Pharma, and those endless white-collar conspiracies.

So, what’s the plan here? Are we going to start a crusade? A little lamentation session? Maybe some finger-pointing at "evil psychiatry" or the "wicked industry"? Or are we just diving headfirst into some deep-seated White House conspiracies? 😲 White lies and conspiracy theories? Is that where we're headed now? What exactly are you implying by that? Could you please explain this to me?.

So, that's what you're calling what I'm showing you? Professional papers, expert opinions, and actual, valid statistical data. On the topic of pharmaceutical influence over psychiatry... does anyone else feel like their views just happen to perfectly align with yours and your colleague's? Just a coincidence, I suppose.

That kind of rhetoric might have been tolerated on the Psychology subforum for a while, but we aren't about to let trolling, insults, or people trying to drag discussions into their private lives slide. It doesn't matter if you're a veteran with over 8,000 posts and a massive history here—we simply don't excuse that behavior.

Quote:

But hey, let’s keep it on the down-low so the mods don't get any ideas about shutting this actually educational thread down again. 😉 They're making it pretty clear they know exactly how much the rules are being broken here. 🙂

Don't give me that "🙂" routine. You're clearly more than capable of spotting sarcasm, cynicism, and irony—stuff you love to throw around yourself, both here and in other threads—yet somehow, when I use that exact same rhetoric, I'm the one getting sidelined.

So, let's get specific: what exactly constitutes trolling, an ad hominem attack, or going off-topic in this context? What, where, and why?

I’m curious about the exact criteria used in the psychology subforum to distinguish between trolling, ad hominem attacks, and off-topic posts versus irony, acceptable banter, or staying on subject. It feels like the same mistakes keep being made, which makes it difficult for me to express myself when I actually want to contribute something meaningful to certain discussions.

Alright, I’ll break down one specific post and my responses—the ones that just earned me a 60-point penalty. I’d like to ask the moderator with that horrific avatar—and maybe the other moderator with the stylish woman as her avatar (the avatar, not the moderator, God forbid)—could they perhaps update them to something more appropriate? Or at least point out where I went wrong:

Quote: addx said:Tricyclics often have more side effects than SSRIs, but they can also be more effective.
There are also complications regarding how you take them; for instance, you have to watch what you eat so you don't block the enzymes that break them down—that's something I've read frequently.

I took Serzone and honestly didn't notice any side effects. It's cool because you take it before bed, it works while you sleep, and it actually helps with sleep... When I was on it, I was combining it with two other medications, so I'm not entirely sure which one did what. Also, you can practically start and stop taking Paxil without much trouble, unlike with SSRIs. I've tried all those types of antidepressants, though I tend to avoid SSRIeve.

Then there are antidepressants that aren't even serotonergic, like Wellbutrin. That one is also prescribed quite effectively as a smoking cessation aid, and it can be stopped relatively easily. It's also frequently combined with SSRIs because it partially counteracts their side effects. I took that one too, but quit quickly; I felt somewhat angry/aggressive from it... though I definitely noticed a very obvious effect that helped me quit smoking (since I'm a smoker).

You have Paxil, which is an SSRE (the opposite of an SSRI), and it also has an antidepressant effect for certain populations—mostly helping alcoholics dealing with depressive symptoms during abstinence, as far as I know. I tried that one as well because, again, unlike SSRIs, you can stop immediately. It's actually quite bizarre that both the inhibition of serotonin reuptake (SSRI) and the "enhancement" of serotonin reuptake (SSRE) can result in antidepressant effects, but presumably for different groups.

casualharbor9 says (deleted post):
It’s great how comprehensively you treat everything from insomnia to depression, alcoholism, mood swings, and smoking cessation using psychopharmacology. Is marijuana consumption part of any of those therapies, or is it the cause? Can you tell our colleague James Bond when a total recovery is projected?
And are you on the organ donor list? 🙂

- is this part trolling, ad hominem, or off-topic—and why?

Quote:

Is there any point in even bringing up addx? It feels like we're just circling the drain at this point. As requested: It’s pretty obvious that, to some extent, we’re just playing a game of blindfolded darts here. casualharbor9 (deleted post): To a certain extent? Or should we be more precise? When you're dealing with emotional states that don't have a clear-cut cause, isn't psychopharmacology basically just a blind chicken scratching around a field, hoping to stumble upon a grain of truth inside someone's brain?

Is this just trolling, an ad hominem attack, or is it strictly off-topic? And more importantly—why?

Quote:

Is there anything more predictably exhausting than this? Just when you think you’ve finally mapped out the landscape of your own brain, some new variable drops in to derail the entire process. It feels like we're constantly chasing moving targets, doesn't it? One day you're convinced you have the formula, and the next, everything shifts again. Is it progress, or just a different way of spinning our wheels? Hard to say. Asks: Look, I’ve gone through enough clinical studies on all these medications to know they exist and what they’re capable of. It isn't like the researchers haven't tried to perfect them—it's not as if they haven't attempted to refine the formulas or engineer better ways to target specific receptors. But honestly? This is simply the ceiling of where we are right now. At the end of the day, if it actually works for someone, isn't that the only metric that truly matters? casualharbor9 (deleted post): Let’s be real: this stuff clearly works for people actually dealing with severe conditions like schizophrenia or those requiring heavy-duty intervention. But does it actually help the masses? Not really. It certainly doesn't help the millions of people who have been broadly labeled as "disordered" and immediately shoved onto pharmacotherapy. Think about it. What could possibly explain that massive 400% spike in diagnosed mental health issues we've seen over the last two decades? Most of these cases are just categorized under the broad umbrella of depressive or anxiety disorders. Is it an actual epidemic of illness, or just an epidemic of over-diagnosis?

Is this part trolling, an ad hominem attack, or just off-topic? And more importantly—why?

Quote:

Is anyone else dealing with this? I feel like I’m just spinning my wheels here. casualharbor9 says: Honestly, I feel for the people who claim this stuff doesn't work or simply refuse to believe in it. But there’s really no sense in using that as an excuse to label every patient whose quality of life actually improves long-term as some kind of addict, or worse, turning around and dragging their psychiatrists through the mud like they’re nothing more than street dealers. casualharbor9 says (deleted post) People who actually feel better because they believe in the medicine? That’s just the placebo effect. Honestly, if you're dealing with nasty side effects, you might as well just stick to peppermint candies. Then you have the ones who aren't even getting any relief, yet they keep taking them because they can't seem to quit—you could pretty much call those people addicts. And the doctors prescribing them for their own gain? They might as well be called dealers. At least that's how I see it, and frankly, it feels like there should be laws against it. Where exactly am I supposed to be seeing bile splashed all over the screen? Personally, all I’m picking up is heavy irony, sarcasm, and satire—concepts that, frankly, the psychoanalysts on this sub probably ought to be a bit more acquainted with, rather than just lazily labeling everything as "trolling" or "flaming."

- is this part trolling, an ad hominem attack, or just off-topic—and why?

Quote: addx said:I mean, look, as a man, I just can't wrap my head around paying for sex. But what am I supposed to do? Am I going to go out of my way to ruin everyone else who does it? Post endless nonsense on a forum attacking hookers or whatever... I don't even know where to start. Maybe it's a bad analogy, but why all this vitriol over something that doesn't even touch your own life? It feels like some kind of performative righteousness in a field you aren't even stepping into. To me, it looks like using any excuse just to feel superior to someone else...

casualharbor9 says (deleted post):
I suspect that you, as a "real man," would actually be bothered if someone else's recreational indulgence with prostitutes—and the enrichment of their pimps—was being funded by your own pocket (which effectively fills the federal budget) while at the same time people have to scramble for donations to treat terminally ill children.

- is this part trolling, an ad hominem attack, or just off-topic—and why?

Quote: addx said:okay, so someone has certain principles and doesn't want to take pills? fine. but it seems like in this "covert narcissistic" context (since we are clearly on a psychology forum), that principle is being used to paint oneself as better than others, and others as worse than you. this entire thread has been saturated with covert narcissism, from Dr. Torres himself down to the people arguing here.

Look, you have your principles. You don't take medication. Fine, if that's what matters to you. But this behavior seems less about holding onto a value and more about squeezing that principle for "ego-upholding"—rather than it having any actual utility if it were a real principle. It feels like the only application for this stance is to draw a line between who lives "better" or, even more interesting, who lives "harder" than someone else—implying they are somehow superior because they didn't take the "easy route" (like some dirty junkie on pills)... are we competing on principles now or what?

casualharbor9 says (deleted post):
It seems to me there are serious psychological reasons why someone who advocates for the excessive consumption of psychoactive substances reacts so intensely when faced with the negative side of it.

- is this part trolling, an ad hominem attack, or just off-topic—and why?

Quote:

Is there anyone actually getting anything done today? Or are we all just staring at the screen, waiting for the brain fog to lift? It feels like my focus is currently somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic. Does anyone else feel like they’re running on empty before the day has even truly started? casualharbor9 says: I’m all for raising some awareness about these pills—what they actually do, how they function, and what you can realistically expect from them (which, let's be honest, isn't always much). As for ADs, especially SSRIs, I tend to view them as a temporary bridge to help pull the brain out of a pathological state. casualharbor9 (deleted post): How do you actually view the pathological states that the brain and other organs fall into because of ADHD?

Is this just trolling, an ad hominem attack, or is it off-topic—and why exactly?

Quote:

Is there any point in even bringing this up? Does anyone actually think adding more to the mix solves anything, or are we just stacking pills like Jenga blocks and hoping the whole thing doesn't collapse? It feels like we're constantly looking for that one magic ingredient to balance out the chemistry, yet here we are, still searching. Is it progress, or just more noise? casualharbor9 says: In case you hadn't heard, depression isn't just some vague feeling—it’s actually something measurable in the brain. And no, I’m not talking about simple serotonin levels. It’s much more complex than that. We're looking at the expression of specific genes within particular regions of the brain, which shifts quite clearly when someone enters a depressive state. Personally, I find the changes in opioid receptor distribution to be the most fascinating part—specifically things like the proliferation of kappa opioid receptors and stuff like that. Unfortunately, measuring gene expression requires invasive methods, like taking tissue samples directly from brain matter. Obviously, that’s not exactly an option for anyone currently living. casualharbor9 (deleted post): So, if this is really the only way to land a reliable diagnosis—well, thanks for that "treatment" approach.

Is this part just trolling, an ad hominem attack, or is it simply off-topic—and why exactly would you say that?

Quote:

Is anyone else here dealing with Adderall? I feel like there’s a lot of noise surrounding it lately, and I’m trying to wrap my head around how it actually sits alongside everything else we talk about here. Is it just me, or does the conversation always seem to circle back to the same few points? What’s the actual consensus on the long-term effects versus the immediate utility? Just wondering if anyone has some real-world perspective to share. casualharbor9 says: Changes in gene expression clearly alter how the brain responds to stimuli—how it interprets everything around it. This essentially dictates our entire lived experience, and when it goes wrong, it can make life feel irreparably bleak and unmotivating. I mean, let’s be real: severe depression isn't just feeling blue; it’s the literal physical inability to get out of bed, let alone accomplish anything meaningful in life. It’s a scientific fact that SSRIs influence this gene expression. That’s why you need at least six weeks of consistent use before those changes actually kick in to facilitate any kind of recovery. In my view, you can't just sit there and rely on a pill to do all the heavy lifting. You have to actually use that "therapeutic window" to implement positive changes in your lifestyle. If you don't, how are you supposed to maintain a stable state once you eventually taper off? Plenty of people have successfully navigated this by doing exactly that. But then again, plenty haven't either. And honestly? In many cases, the failure isn't necessarily the fault of the medication; it's because some people did nothing except swallow a pill without making any actual life adjustments. Of course, there are also those cases where the medication simply fails to open that window at all. casualharbor9 says (deleted post): And how exactly do these hit-or-miss pharmacotherapy results justify the 400% surge in mental health diagnoses over the last two decades? To me, it still feels like that loop Dr. Torre described: "we’re treating more because we’re getting sicker, and we’re getting sicker because we’re treating more."

—is this supposed to be trolling, an ad hominem attack, or just off-topic? And why?

I am asking for a serious response to all these questions. Please leave room for at least one follow-up reply, rather than following the usual custom where complex issues are promptly swept under the rug by some administrative executive order.

unspecified

Gary Thompson6 said:Medication helped me out during those stretches when I honestly couldn't see the situation for what it really was, but if I'm being real, the biggest turning point was just stepping away from the chaos for a bit. Once I finally made peace with the symptoms—basically deciding that whatever happens, happens, and refusing to overthink it—everything just started falling into place on its own.

So, is there anything you’ve done purely by your own choice that goes against standard medical advice?

Thanks for sharing, and good luck.

Gary Thompson6 said:Good morning, everyone.
I doubt anyone here even remembers me, considering the last time I logged on was back in February 2011.
To give you the short version of my story: after losing someone close to me, I was hit with panic attacks and anxiety so intense I genuinely thought I was either losing my mind or dying—there was no middle ground. These episodes were happening multiple times a day and lasted forever. Derealization kicked in, too. I couldn't sleep for anything; even the slightest sudden noise would trigger an attack. Driving became impossible, and it felt like these constant black clouds were hanging over my head. Happiness just wasn't part of my vocabulary anymore. I tried smoking marijuana once, which was a disaster; it just tripled the symptoms. Then came the depression. I was terrified to leave the house and stopped seeing friends because social interaction just fueled the fire. Eventually, I saw a psychiatrist who prescribed Lexapro—maybe 0.25mg, forgive me if my memory is fuzzy since it’s been ages—and that helped me pull myself together slightly. The attacks nearly destroyed me, but they didn't break my spirit. I told myself, "This is brutal, but one day you're going to look back and laugh at all of this." Fast forward four years later: I’ve dropped 10 pounds, quit smoking two years ago, and gotten into incredible shape through running almost every single day. As for the attacks? I haven't had one in about two and a half years. Plus, I have a precious little girl now, about eighteen months old, who is the light of my life. I actually ended up embracing my biggest enemy—anxiety—and making peace with it, which made me incredibly mentally resilient. I'm talking so strong that I, a guy who smoked for ten years straight, quit cold turkey just by sheer willpower, something I never thought possible. Recently, I faced a situation where a loved one suffered a heart attack right in front of me; I spent 20 minutes trying to revive them until the paramedics arrived, but unfortunately, they passed away. Even then, I didn't have a panic attack. I think I've reached a point where nothing in life can easily break me; I've become very calm. I'm only writing this so that people currently feeling the way I used to feel know that life gets beautiful again eventually, and recovery is real. Hang in there and don't lose faith in yourselves.

So, what you're saying is it wasn't the medication (which hasn't worked for anyone else on this thread, for that matter) but rather intentional actions—changing lifestyle habits, shifting perspectives, and staying physically active?

Lawrence Bailey77 said:🙄 ... but I suppose what isn't understood today will eventually be understood in due time, right?

I mean, ethics, morality, logic, philosophy—none of that really matters when you're dealing with a state of total schizophrenia... ☕

Anyway, that’s probably a conversation for a different thread. 😉
The issue at hand here seems to be the subjective perception of evil.

The only thing that actually works in this game is a kind of fanatical, manic persistence.


... though, let's be real, you aren't going to achieve that overnight...