5 ms·

Haha you now know how they maintain their SEO -- by purging the politically incorrect stuff. BTW only druggies say "research chemicals", academic researchers j

Haha you now know how they maintain their SEO -- by purging the politically incorrect stuff. BTW only druggies say "research chemicals", academic researchers just use "drugs"/"compounds" or maybe "fine organics" or the actual name of whatever it is. "Research chemicals" is basically "SWIM" in terms of being a "druggie heuristic"

fwip 7y ago
What is SWIM?
- xkcd-sucks 7y ago
  "Someone Who Isn't Me"
- azimuth11 7y ago
  “Someone who isn’t me”, a term used when discussing something (usually illegal) the poster did or has experience with, but is using this term to hide that fact.
  - senorjazz 7y ago
    An annoying term that has no meaning and is completely pointless and would have no bearing in a court of law at all and everyone knows what you are saying is "I"
- PhasmaFelis 7y ago
  For some while (maybe still), there was a common belief that talking about your drug experiences online couldn't be used against you in court if you pretended it was someone else. This could be done semi-convincingly if you talked about, say, your "roommate" using drugs, but pretty quickly people started saying shit like "my cat" or "someone who isn't me" and, finally, abbreviated that to "SWIM." Like, "SWIM wants to know where to buy LSD in Seattle." Yeah. At least some forums are discouraging that now because it obviously won't hold up in court and provides a false sense of security, but I imagine some people are still attached to it.
  - valtism 7y ago
    It's the same as those who believe that if you ask the person selling you weed if they are police, they are under obligation by law to tell you so. They are not.
    - fastball 7y ago
      Eh, not really the same. Cops are demonstrably not required to tell you they are cops. The idea that they need to was always ridiculous misinformation. Meanwhile, as far as I'm aware, SWIM has not been the lynchpin in a court case yet, so it's hard to say one way or the other if using it as legal cover is actually a gross misconception.
      - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
        It's a lot like the freemen-on-the-land folks. People think, against all evidence, that the law is a mindless machine, a slave to its inputs, unaffected by the human beings who actually administer it. They think you can hack the law by saying the right magic words, like Captain Kirk crashing an evil computer by saying "this sentence is false." It doesn't work that way. If you try to buy 50 grams of coke off an undercover cop, no jury on earth is going to believe that you thought you were buying Coca-Cola. You're not going to get away with using a slang term universally understood to mean "me" and claiming it meant "someone else," either.
    - amelius 7y ago
      How about "I will sell it to you only if your life depends on it"?
      - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
        What would that accomplish?
  - paulie_a 7y ago
    That is similar to the stupid IANAL preface people insist on including. Quite frankly you can literally make a post stating you are a lawyer and the following is legal advice and there would not be a single repercussion.
simonebrunozzi 7y ago
> Haha you now know how they maintain their SEO -- by purging the politically incorrect stuff. Curious, how do you know this as a fact? Also, curious about your nickname - any story behind it?
LolWolf 7y ago
RCs are a pretty common name, even among academics, at least in neurobiology (though it’s for sure recognized as “speaking in dialect/slang” as some would say... e.g., not everyone would immediately know what you’re saying). I do agree that “compounds” or 5-HT agonists, or whatever are far more neutral (if overly broad) terms and those should be used if you’re being careful (perhaps with some added description).
- TomMarius 7y ago
  How would people look for that article on Google if it was named "compounds"?
- speedplane 7y ago
  > 5-HT agonists, or whatever are far more neutral (if overly broad) terms and those should be used if you’re being careful Google ranking doesn't care how technical you are. If you do a google search about anything somewhat nutritional or health related, you get a slew of low credibility websites with dubious information. Getting to any scientifically rigorous papers is a real research project.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > If you do a google search about anything somewhat nutritional or health related, you get a slew of low credibility websites with dubious information. Getting to any scientifically rigorous papers is a real research project It's a much easier project (though still requires some review and judgement) if you use Google scholar instead of the general search engine. But that's true or any domain; if you are specifically looking for scientific papers, the general search engine is like going to the grocery store for lab glassware.

fwip 7y ago

What is SWIM?

xkcd-sucks 7y ago
"Someone Who Isn't Me"
azimuth11 7y ago
“Someone who isn’t me”, a term used when discussing something (usually illegal) the poster did or has experience with, but is using this term to hide that fact.
- senorjazz 7y ago
  An annoying term that has no meaning and is completely pointless and would have no bearing in a court of law at all and everyone knows what you are saying is "I"
PhasmaFelis 7y ago
For some while (maybe still), there was a common belief that talking about your drug experiences online couldn't be used against you in court if you pretended it was someone else. This could be done semi-convincingly if you talked about, say, your "roommate" using drugs, but pretty quickly people started saying shit like "my cat" or "someone who isn't me" and, finally, abbreviated that to "SWIM." Like, "SWIM wants to know where to buy LSD in Seattle." Yeah. At least some forums are discouraging that now because it obviously won't hold up in court and provides a false sense of security, but I imagine some people are still attached to it.
- valtism 7y ago
  It's the same as those who believe that if you ask the person selling you weed if they are police, they are under obligation by law to tell you so. They are not.
  - fastball 7y ago
    Eh, not really the same. Cops are demonstrably not required to tell you they are cops. The idea that they need to was always ridiculous misinformation. Meanwhile, as far as I'm aware, SWIM has not been the lynchpin in a court case yet, so it's hard to say one way or the other if using it as legal cover is actually a gross misconception.
    - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
      It's a lot like the freemen-on-the-land folks. People think, against all evidence, that the law is a mindless machine, a slave to its inputs, unaffected by the human beings who actually administer it. They think you can hack the law by saying the right magic words, like Captain Kirk crashing an evil computer by saying "this sentence is false." It doesn't work that way. If you try to buy 50 grams of coke off an undercover cop, no jury on earth is going to believe that you thought you were buying Coca-Cola. You're not going to get away with using a slang term universally understood to mean "me" and claiming it meant "someone else," either.
  - amelius 7y ago
    How about "I will sell it to you only if your life depends on it"?
    - PhasmaFelis 7y ago
      What would that accomplish?
- paulie_a 7y ago
  That is similar to the stupid IANAL preface people insist on including. Quite frankly you can literally make a post stating you are a lawyer and the following is legal advice and there would not be a single repercussion.

simonebrunozzi 7y ago

> Haha you now know how they maintain their SEO -- by purging the politically incorrect stuff. Curious, how do you know this as a fact? Also, curious about your nickname - any story behind it?

LolWolf 7y ago

RCs are a pretty common name, even among academics, at least in neurobiology (though it’s for sure recognized as “speaking in dialect/slang” as some would say... e.g., not everyone would immediately know what you’re saying). I do agree that “compounds” or 5-HT agonists, or whatever are far more neutral (if overly broad) terms and those should be used if you’re being careful (perhaps with some added description).

TomMarius 7y ago
How would people look for that article on Google if it was named "compounds"?
speedplane 7y ago
> 5-HT agonists, or whatever are far more neutral (if overly broad) terms and those should be used if you’re being careful Google ranking doesn't care how technical you are. If you do a google search about anything somewhat nutritional or health related, you get a slew of low credibility websites with dubious information. Getting to any scientifically rigorous papers is a real research project.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > If you do a google search about anything somewhat nutritional or health related, you get a slew of low credibility websites with dubious information. Getting to any scientifically rigorous papers is a real research project It's a much easier project (though still requires some review and judgement) if you use Google scholar instead of the general search engine. But that's true or any domain; if you are specifically looking for scientific papers, the general search engine is like going to the grocery store for lab glassware.