3 ms·

> I have rights under the 1st Amendment to express myself freely Not where I'm standing* you don't - this is an international forum discussing an international

> I have rights under the 1st Amendment to express myself freely Not where I'm standing* you don't - this is an international forum discussing an international issue. Aside: I'm a foreigner so I personally have very little in the way of constitutional rights. We all have almost no information about each other and text comments on emotionally tangled subjects are easily misread. The risk is that psych comments can easily do more harm than good: the potential for misunderstanding is high. Even without misunderstanding between commenters there is a risk of triggers in readers. It is hard to say what this community thinks is correct but https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html The next obvious step is past-life trauma analysis (yes, that's a real thing that real people do). I'm actually interested in any quantitative papers you can find on that topic. Moderator about an adjacent topic: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20psychiatric&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... * My jurisdiction has no first amendment

127361 3y ago
No. I support freedom of expression over safety in that case. As long as it's legal under the 1st Amendment, then anything goes. And of course we have the right to counter speech we disagree with. It is up to the reader to validate whatever I'm saying in my posts and it's their responsibility to disregard them if they're inaccurate. If I get censored on this forum, then it obviously doesn't align with my values and I will find another one that supports freedom of speech.
InSteady 3y ago
The idea that people who are healthy, secure, and mentally resilient don't tend to have crippling addictions is not terribly controversial. If a user is peddling it as scientific fact without any sources to back it up that is one thing. But this is a discussion forum not an academic community or professional society. Saying trauma or other forms of adversity may be driving porn addiction is not the same as diagnosing people with psychiatric disorders online. We are allowed to speculate and discuss what drives human behavior, especially when the behavior is relevant to the entire thread. That's a lot different than saying things like "you obviously have ADHD" or "everyone with porn addiction has untreated PTSD." GP was not diagnosing anyone, they were proposing a mechanism that could be driving a particular kind of behavior. If you google "trauma, adversity, and addiction" you will find a wealth of resources discussing scientific evidence of a connection. This is not all that controversial. I imagine the one group that would be most against this line of inquiry would be the subset of heavily moralistic people who use emotional and/or physical abuse to spread their worldview. See: Scientologists. Finally, as an aside, there is evidence that epigenetic changes from severe trauma are passed from parents to their children. While I'm sure the majority of past-life trauma analysis is charlatanism, it is not as though we do not inherit some of our hang-ups and quirks on a biological level based on the lived experiences of our ancestors. [1] Although this first article is only discussing changes to genetic expression, and not changes to the genome (mutation), there is also some evidence that epigenetic changes can lead to permanent changes to the genome under the right circumstances. [2] [1] - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-parents-rsquo-trauma-leaves-biological-traces-in-children/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-parents-rsquo... [2] - https://www.the-scientist.com/features/do-epigenetic-changes-influence-evolution-70591 https://www.the-scientist.com/features/do-epigenetic-changes...
- robocat 3y ago
  > The idea that people who are healthy, secure, and mentally resilient don't tend to have crippling addictions is not terribly controversial I suspect the implied cause and effect is underlying that. A belief that "healthy, secure, and mentally resilient" leads to "no crippling addictions" is hard to quantitatively show. Most likely the causation is reversed: we define someone with a crippling addiction as "unhealthy or mentally unresilient". I certainly have multiple addicts (especially smokers and drinkers) within my own peer group of healthy, secure, and mentally resilient people. And Hungary has 20% of the population with Alcohol Use Disorder/Alcoholism. Do those 20% all have childhood trauma?

127361 3y ago

No. I support freedom of expression over safety in that case. As long as it's legal under the 1st Amendment, then anything goes. And of course we have the right to counter speech we disagree with. It is up to the reader to validate whatever I'm saying in my posts and it's their responsibility to disregard them if they're inaccurate. If I get censored on this forum, then it obviously doesn't align with my values and I will find another one that supports freedom of speech.

InSteady 3y ago

The idea that people who are healthy, secure, and mentally resilient don't tend to have crippling addictions is not terribly controversial. If a user is peddling it as scientific fact without any sources to back it up that is one thing. But this is a discussion forum not an academic community or professional society. Saying trauma or other forms of adversity may be driving porn addiction is not the same as diagnosing people with psychiatric disorders online. We are allowed to speculate and discuss what drives human behavior, especially when the behavior is relevant to the entire thread. That's a lot different than saying things like "you obviously have ADHD" or "everyone with porn addiction has untreated PTSD." GP was not diagnosing anyone, they were proposing a mechanism that could be driving a particular kind of behavior. If you google "trauma, adversity, and addiction" you will find a wealth of resources discussing scientific evidence of a connection. This is not all that controversial. I imagine the one group that would be most against this line of inquiry would be the subset of heavily moralistic people who use emotional and/or physical abuse to spread their worldview. See: Scientologists. Finally, as an aside, there is evidence that epigenetic changes from severe trauma are passed from parents to their children. While I'm sure the majority of past-life trauma analysis is charlatanism, it is not as though we do not inherit some of our hang-ups and quirks on a biological level based on the lived experiences of our ancestors. [1] Although this first article is only discussing changes to genetic expression, and not changes to the genome (mutation), there is also some evidence that epigenetic changes can lead to permanent changes to the genome under the right circumstances. [2] [1] - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-parents-rsquo-trauma-leaves-biological-traces-in-children/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-parents-rsquo... [2] - https://www.the-scientist.com/features/do-epigenetic-changes-influence-evolution-70591 https://www.the-scientist.com/features/do-epigenetic-changes...

robocat 3y ago
> The idea that people who are healthy, secure, and mentally resilient don't tend to have crippling addictions is not terribly controversial I suspect the implied cause and effect is underlying that. A belief that "healthy, secure, and mentally resilient" leads to "no crippling addictions" is hard to quantitatively show. Most likely the causation is reversed: we define someone with a crippling addiction as "unhealthy or mentally unresilient". I certainly have multiple addicts (especially smokers and drinkers) within my own peer group of healthy, secure, and mentally resilient people. And Hungary has 20% of the population with Alcohol Use Disorder/Alcoholism. Do those 20% all have childhood trauma?