Again, I’m not arguing against legitimate use cases for drug therapy here. 🤷
What I’m saying is that working conditions need to be improved, and then any psychological problems people have that are not a result of exploitation should absolutely be treated using therapy. I’m not sure how much more clear I can make this.
I get what you’re saying, but you keep wording it in a way that like, implies you think health issues caused by exploitation don’t still need to be treated, regardless of their origin. This stuff should be covered for anyone that needs it full stop. AND working conditions need to improve. Unless there’s evidence that the medical treatment is actually improper (using much higher than therapeutic doses for example), there’s no issue here really (with the covering of novel therapies, specifically)
You can say the increased need for treatment is a sign of damaging exploitative conditions and I’d agree but that isn’t what the article is about
No, I’m not implying anything of the sort. Nowhere am I arguing against treating health issues, and I’ve been as explicit as humanly possible regarding that point.
psychological problems people have that are not a result of exploitation should absolutely be treated using therapy
This sentence specifically excludes people whose conditions are a result of exploitation. A condition can be caused by exploitation and still be a health issue (and worth noting, it won’t often just go away if the bad working conditions go away).
The issue […] is using drugs to paper over problems that are a direct result of shitty working conditions.
Again, framing genuine medical treatment as “papering over” is harmful.
When you say in response to this article that “drugging people up shouldn’t be used to paper over brutally exploitative working conditions that cause psychological damage.” you’re implying that what is being done here isn’t legitimate treatment and is merely “drugging people up”. Which from the article doesn’t seem to be the case.
Of course I wouldn’t put it past capitalists to push that sort of scheme, but you’re framing it as “this is happening” not “this could be happening/would be bad if it did”. What is described in the article is just bog standard, physician supervised ketamine therapy, nothing day to day, and nothing during the work day.
FWIW I don’t think you necessarily intended for your comments to be taken this way, but several people have now pointed out that they took it that way to you so continuing to argue you didn’t say it isn’t especially helpful.
Indeed, I find any time you explain yourself and people keep bringing up the particular phrasing you used while ignoring your clarifications, that’s a sure sign that they just want to argue for the sake of it.
Again, I’m not arguing against legitimate use cases for drug therapy here. 🤷
What I’m saying is that working conditions need to be improved, and then any psychological problems people have that are not a result of exploitation should absolutely be treated using therapy. I’m not sure how much more clear I can make this.
I get what you’re saying, but you keep wording it in a way that like, implies you think health issues caused by exploitation don’t still need to be treated, regardless of their origin. This stuff should be covered for anyone that needs it full stop. AND working conditions need to improve. Unless there’s evidence that the medical treatment is actually improper (using much higher than therapeutic doses for example), there’s no issue here really (with the covering of novel therapies, specifically)
You can say the increased need for treatment is a sign of damaging exploitative conditions and I’d agree but that isn’t what the article is about
No, I’m not implying anything of the sort. Nowhere am I arguing against treating health issues, and I’ve been as explicit as humanly possible regarding that point.
This sentence specifically excludes people whose conditions are a result of exploitation. A condition can be caused by exploitation and still be a health issue (and worth noting, it won’t often just go away if the bad working conditions go away).
Again, framing genuine medical treatment as “papering over” is harmful.
When you say in response to this article that “drugging people up shouldn’t be used to paper over brutally exploitative working conditions that cause psychological damage.” you’re implying that what is being done here isn’t legitimate treatment and is merely “drugging people up”. Which from the article doesn’t seem to be the case.
Of course I wouldn’t put it past capitalists to push that sort of scheme, but you’re framing it as “this is happening” not “this could be happening/would be bad if it did”. What is described in the article is just bog standard, physician supervised ketamine therapy, nothing day to day, and nothing during the work day.
FWIW I don’t think you necessarily intended for your comments to be taken this way, but several people have now pointed out that they took it that way to you so continuing to argue you didn’t say it isn’t especially helpful.
That is indeed not what I meant to say there, and I can’t help it if people choose to aggressively misinterpret what I was very clearly trying to say.
To me it seems mostly like its just the plain meaning of the words you chose (repeatedly) but
When I keep repeating that I’m not against therapy over and over, but people just keep fixating on specific phrasing what else is there to say. 🤷
Some people just enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing.
Indeed, I find any time you explain yourself and people keep bringing up the particular phrasing you used while ignoring your clarifications, that’s a sure sign that they just want to argue for the sake of it.