Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Because name-calling and attacking the platform (WSJ) are the only crutches left to fall back on when you lack the credentials & expertise to critique the substance of Alpert's article.
Look, I get it. Some people fly off the handle at the mere mention of TDS. Which, ironically, may in itself be a symptom of TDS.
Let's try this. Let's replace the term TDS with a broader term like, say, Social Media Derangement Syndrome. Would that allow people like txdot and rooster to calm down, take a deep breath, and ponder the issue a little more deeply?
I just posed the following question to my trusty AI research assistant: "Is there a recognized psychiatric disorder tied to social media"? Here's what she pumped out 3 seconds later:
"While not currently in the DSM-5-TR as a formal, stand-alone diagnosis, Social Media Use Disorder (SMUD) or "problematic social media use" is recognized by researchers as a behavioral addiction with severe mental health consequences. It is strongly associated with increased depression, anxiety, FOMO (fear of missing out), and body image issues, often driven by compulsive usage patterns and negative social comparisons.
Key details regarding social media-related psychiatric issues include:
Core Behaviors: The disorder is marked by excessive, compulsive, and uncontrolled use of platforms, leading to functional impairment in daily life.
Commonly Linked Conditions:
Anxiety and Depression: Heavy use is heavily linked to, and can exacerbate, depression and anxiety disorders.
FOMO (Fear of Missing Out): A key, recognized factor driving the need to be constantly online and check for updates.
Body Dysmorphia: Comparison to curated, filtered images often drives poor self-esteem and, in some cases, body image disorders.
Internet Addiction: The behavior is often categorized under the umbrella of "Internet Gaming Disorder" or broader internet addiction frameworks.
Impact on Adolescents: The U.S. Surgeon General issued an advisory highlighting risks for youth, particularly noting that over three hours of daily use doubles the risk of poor mental health outcomes like depression.
Prevalence: It is often characterized as a behavioral addiction, with studies pointing to similar neural mechanisms as gambling addiction.
While not yet listed as a formal diagnosis in the DSM-5, research suggests that the excessive use of social media platforms, including Instagram, TikTok, and X, can have a significant negative impact on mental health."
Just trying to broaden the discussion here.
I would caution against regarding TDS or BDS or ODS as smaller subsets of the new category SMUD (Social Media Use Disorder) mentioned above. Not all political junkies are addicted to social media. Some of them may just sit in front of their 55-inch flat-screen TVs all day screaming at FOX, CNN, MSNOW, etc. Whether they vent on social media or not, the symptoms are usually the same.
The WSJ, Fair and Balanced. The NYT, some legitimate criticisms of Trump, interspersed with fodder for TDS.
Thank you, Tiny! Your speed reading is invaluable here. Good summary of WSJ vs NYT. One day snapshot. Agree with your conclusions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rooster
And thanks to you also for helping me understand MY diagnosis. JDS. Whew. If I may impose upon you to take pity and focus your psychiatric diagnostic expertise....what would you recommend as therapy? Is there an archive of WSJ opinion pieces available that I could immerse myself in?
I would recommend that you attempt the same exercise as Tiny just did, every morning until your personal bias detector is liberated from all traces of TDS.
Just went back and altered my question to "Is there a recognized psychiatric disorder tied to politics and social media"?
This time my AI research assistant spewed out a more precise and relevant answer as follows:
"While there is no single, universally recognized DSM-5 psychiatric disorder specifically named for politics and social media, psychologists identify significant mental health issues driven by this intersection, including extreme election stress, anxiety from social media overload, and obsessive political preoccupation. These conditions often manifest as heightened anxiety, depression, and compulsive behavior.
Election Stress Disorder: This term describes high levels of anxiety, stress, and, at times, depression linked to intense political polarization, 24-hour news cycles, and social media misinformation.
Social Media Addiction/Disorder: While not officially in the DSM-5, researchers often discuss this in the context of behavioral addiction, linking it to depression, lower self-esteem, and social isolation.
Political Obsession (OCD-like Symptoms): Intensive exposure to political news can lead to obsessive-compulsive-like behaviors, where users seek out inflammatory content, leading to short-term emotional gratification followed by long-term stress.
Media-Induced Anxiety: Excessive consumption of social media and news, particularly regarding polarizing topics, has been directly correlated with heightened anxiety, fear, and, in some cases, symptoms of trauma.
"Trump Derangement Syndrome" (TDS): This is a colloquial, non-clinical, and politically charged term used to describe an extreme, obsessive, and irrational negative reaction to President Trump.
These conditions are generally treated by therapists as manifestations of anxiety, stress, or behavioral compulsion rather than unique, distinct disorders."
.....
The WSJ, Fair and Balanced. The NYT, some legitimate criticisms of Trump, interspersed with fodder for TDS.
Your opinions of these....opinions....are noted....as...opinions.
But pray tell, just who do you think you think that this is directed to? And WHAT do you think you are convincing them of?
Personally, I have never said jack about the NYT. I certainly never said that they weren’t biased.
I read the WSJ and NYT every day. The WSJ is excellent for hard news, especially economic and geopolitical. But their OpEds can be horribly biased, skewed towards maintaining the economic status quo for their (mostly) wealthy subscribers and pushing a conservative/MAGA agenda that is at least as biased as the horribly anti-MAGA NYT. They are a Murdoch-owned outlet, after all.
They NYT OpEds are their own special kind of mess. David Brooks, maybe Russ Douthat are worth paying attention to once in awhile. Otherwise...no.
I would rarely quote EITHER of these outlets to make a point ANYWHERE. And I sure AF wouldn’t do it to back my claims about an imaginary psychological condition that I only “believe” in because it fits MY bias.
...
Let's try this. Let's replace the term TDS with a broader term like, say, Social Media Derangement Syndrome. Would that allow people like txdot and rooster to calm down, take a deep breath, and ponder the issue a little more deeply?....
So kind of you. We are not worthy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lustylad
...Just trying to broaden the discussion here....
Bull-fucking-shit.
You brought this WSJ "expert" into what was little more than a click-bait Troll thread. You used it to attempt to legitimize a bullshit idea in a bullshit thread.
From the fuggin WSJ no less...jeezis..
The term “TDS” was invented as a weapon to insult and denigrate people who oppose Trump. And one can always find a soul-selling, biased "expert" with excellent credentials to support any quack idea out there. Just look at Scott Bessent….
I understand the frustration.
Whattya do when it is becoming harder and harder to defend so many of the things that Trump does…the unending, blatant lies, the weaponization of the DOJ, the horrible treatment of immigrants…
How do you respond?
Well...you could...invent a childish, school yard insult to attack the very sanity of those who oppose him. We all know that they are mentally unstable and prone to violence, right? Let’s feed on that! It’ll drive ‘em crazy!
Don't ferget ta dazzle 'em with AI too! Always a hoot...
I would rarely quote EITHER of these outlets to make a point ANYWHERE.
Just out of curiosity, what outlets are on your "approved list" - so we can all know in advance they can be safely quoted without provoking your immediate vituperation and slamming shut any chance of open-mindedness on your part?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rooster
And I sure AF wouldn’t do it to back my claims about an imaginary psychological condition that I only “believe” in because it fits MY bias.
You still won't take this discussion any deeper. My AI research assistant even offered you an off-ramp. Millions of people suffer from social media addiction and its negative psychological/behavioral conditions. That's not imaginary at all. You could've just admitted the obvious, and cited examples on both sides. Even had some fun coining new affliction acronyms to pin on the so-called MAGA crowd. Why can't you do that?
Reminds me of the old joke:
Q: How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: You can't change 'em unless they really want to change!
Just out of curiosity, what outlets are on your "approved list" - so we can all know in advance they can be safely quoted without provoking your immediate vituperation and slamming shut any chance of open-mindedness on your part?
No outlets. Individuals. If you asked the question without using it as a conduit for your wordy insults, I'd entertain a real answer. But that's no fun, right? You gotta WIN!
(vituperation...faak...that online thesaurus is worse than findin a weird lump on one o' yer balls while yer fondlin yer sack...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lustylad
.... My AI research assistant even offered you an off-ramp....
Yeah, I repeat: I truly am not worthy.
Sooo...No thanks. Plus...there's an Ex-3-Star General over on Gateway Pundit that is gonna explain how my thoughts about Pete Hegseth are totally unreasonable...I gotta get movin...
Anyway...Fuck this. This new game of "I've offered to have a reasonable discussion with you even though I think you're suffering from the made-up idea that I support" is boring.
Just out of curiosity, what outlets are on your "approved list"...
Quote:
Originally Posted by rooster
No outlets. Individuals.
Bullshit. If, as a matter of principle, you only attack individual authors, then why did you devote 3 posts to railing against the WSJ?
Plus you never heard of Jonathan Alpert as an individual before reading his WSJ piece. You didn't like his message (even though it offers help for the afflicted), so you (and txdot) just dismissed him as a "hack". Is that what passes for intelligent discourse in your bubble?
Bullshit. If, as a matter of principle, you only attack individual authors, then why did you devote 3 posts to railing against the WSJ?
Maybe....it's cuz you posted about 8 defending them?
(I'm flattered that you actually counted! Obsess much?)
Then again...it could just be because they suck.
Yeah, that's it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lustylad
Plus you never heard of Jonathan Alpert as an individual before reading his WSJ piece. You didn't like his message (even though it offers help for the afflicted), so you (and txdot) just dismissed him as a "hack". Is that what passes for intelligent discourse in your bubble?
Right. You know this.
Yeah, well....guess what?
I actually KNOW him! Fucking KNOW him!
And you...with your blatant insensitivies and cruel assumptions...are way out of line here.
BUT NOOOO! You had to bring him up!
My nemesis...
That cocksucker stole all of my research!
I was the one who figgered out TDS was real! It was me. Me! ME!!
And now he gets alla the credit.
AND the WSJ byline!
Plagiarizing mutherfukker...
Fuck.
ORRRRRRRRRRRRRR....maybe...I looked into this...did a li'l research... before...
I SHOT MY FUCKING MOUTH OFF.
Maybe...I didn't just take your and the WSJ's word for it that he is qualified to say what he does.
Spoiler alert....he isn't.
He's a shill. Just looks good on paper. Not great. But pretty good. Good enough to fool you. Still a hack shill. Makin shit up to help sell WSJ ads to MAGAts...
It's gotta be said...AI coulda done a better job with that column. Hopefully this jerk-off...and most "psychotherapists" and WSJ columnists...will lose their jobs to it.
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rooster
Don't ferget ta dazzle 'em with AI too! Always a hoot...
But it makes you look cheap. And desperate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lustylad
So make up your mind, rooster... Are you a fan of/believer in AI or not?
Or is the answer - "it depends"?
Do you promote AI when it generates something that fits yer narrative, but trash it otherwise?
Whassa matter? I already said YOU WIN!
Now, I said I was done cuz I was bored. But if yer gonna keep askin me questions, well...I will deign to offer to answer...in a thoroughly-placating-yet-completely-magnanimous-sounding way...
And yes...the answer is that... it depends.
(ya DO realize I was mocking you above right?...and that ya basically just...mocked yerself right back? Or did you actually use AI for this and I was just baffled by the viturperative, vitriolic, truculent, contumelious verbosity.....)
