this post was submitted on 29 May 2025
217 points (93.6% liked)

Bluesky

1199 readers
307 users here now

People skeeting stuff.

Bluesky Social is a microblogging social platform being developed in conjunction with the decentralized AT Protocol. Previously invite-only, the flagship Beta app went public in February 2024. All are welcome!

founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
 
top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] friend_of_satan@lemmy.world 1 points 18 minutes ago

I was recently listening to Moby and this commentary track came on, and this part of it hit me hard. https://youtu.be/qb577Bl0oFI

This song is about two drug addicts in a relationship who've disappeared down the rabbit hole of hardcore drug addiction. Almost everybody I know either is or has been a drug addict. When I was growing up my mom and her friends did a lot of drugs but harder drugs always seemed really scary to me. At some point though I realized that I'd become in ennured through exposure to drug use. Everyone I knew was either smoking crack or smoking meth or shooting speed balls or dying of overdoses. Sadly it actually became sort of normal. So that's what this song is about. My friends are junkies and it's normal. It doesn't seem weird anymore which in and of itself is weird. The way drug use is demonized almost from a Victorian perspective, and I don't think people should do addictive drugs because they become addicted to them and they end up miserable, but the reason people do drugs more often than not is they want to be happy. A lot of people tend to think of drug users as subhuman and living in gutters and I mean the people who sell drugs are mean people who use guns but at the end of the day someone who's doing drugs just wants to feel good like, child eating Oreos and there's nothing nefarious about a drug user's intentions. It's just someone trying to feel better than they normally would, with the added bonus of nihilism thrown in there. So that's the inspiration behind this song.

[–] DemBoSain@midwest.social -1 points 46 minutes ago

Don't make fun of him for having a parasite, lots of people have parasites.

Don't make fun of him for being anti-vax, it's not his fault he doesn't remember polio.

Don't make fun of him for believing vitamin A and ivermectin can cure all diseases, he clearly never went to medical school.

Don't make fun of him for having the skin-care routine of a rotisserie chicken, nobody stays young-looking forever.

Don't make fun of him for being stupid, there are stupid people in my own family.

[–] HEXN3T@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 hour ago

I have seen a concerning amount of support for outright stigmatisation. It helps absolutely no one but the oppressor.

[–] BadlyTimedLuck@lemmy.world 5 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

Not to demean addicts, but is this saying that addicts are much better people than RFK BECAUSE they can get clean and learn from their mistakes

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 11 hours ago

I think it's more like they are saying junkie is a slur

[–] RedditAdminsSuckIt@lemmy.world 3 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

Yeah I mean I get what they are trying to say. They don’t want to be lumped by that association. They don’t want that commonality I guess.

For instance I’m a recovering alcoholic. I’ll always be an alcoholic, I just don’t adhere to those thoughts.

It’d be weird of me to get upset if they started calling trump an alcoholic. It doesn’t change my situation and I can still choose to not drink.

Calling someone else an alcoholic doesn’t make the world think of me

I can’t say I agree with their stance.

[–] Glytch@lemmy.world 25 points 21 hours ago

Don't mock him for his drug addiction.

Mock him for giving himself brain worms by eating roadkill. Mock him for his antivax beliefs (something the disqualifies him from his current position more than his former drug addiction imo). Mock him for his raw milk fetish. These are things that are under his control.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 30 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

As a person? Perhaps. As HHS Secretary? It is a valid criticism.

[–] Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 19 hours ago

A recovering addict who is otherwise qualified should be exactly the type of person we want involved in healthcare and public health administration, because a recovering addict is uniquely qualified to understand substance abuse patients and policies related to them.

Many healthcare professionals simply cannot empathize with addicts and instead treat them like moral failures. Comments like these are exactly what I'm talking about - a recovering addict is just as capable as anyone else, and anyone else is just as capable of becoming an addict.

Worse yet, most public health responses to situations like the fentanyl crisis boils down to "try to stop the drug dealer" rather than "try to manage the underlying conditions that lead to addiction and substance abuse."

But, this particular recovering addict happens to swim in sewage, doesn't believe in germs or vaccines, and thinks that extremely expensive rehab is accessible to everyone. This is not because he is an addict, it is because he's a fucking madman.

[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone -5 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

So having been a heavy drug user in the past disqualifies you from those roles in your mind?

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 18 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I said exactly what I meant: It is a valid criticism.

[–] L0rdMathias@sh.itjust.works 1 points 21 hours ago (3 children)

Why would being an expert in the field disqualify you from becoming an expert in the theory?

[–] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 14 points 21 hours ago

Because being a heroin addict only makes you an expert to some degree in heroin not the job of a cabinet secretary

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 9 points 20 hours ago

Being or having been an addict does NOT make anybody an expert. It makes you an (ex-)addict. That’s all. I am by no means an expert on tobacco use or cessation, nor am I an expert on binge eating.

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 4 points 21 hours ago

Cabinet secretaries shouldn’t be experts in their department’s business anyway. They should be advised by experts, but not come into the job with preconceptions or biases from their own experience.

[–] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 9 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

Yes, I would say the same for most drug addicts and that role.

[–] RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works 22 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Heroin addiction is something that should disqualify someone from heading Health and Human Services though

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 15 points 21 hours ago

I’ve known drug addicts who have turned their lives around in very positive, inspiring ways. I don’t think any of them would argue that they should be head of Health and Human Services.

[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 7 points 22 hours ago

MF'er looks like Frankenstein's Monster's ugly older brother.

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 7 points 21 hours ago (3 children)

Also applies to his voice.

[–] match@pawb.social 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

what made his voice sound that way? like he's moments from death?

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 3 points 14 hours ago

Laryngeal dystonia. It's a medical condition which he has no control over.

I have dystonia in my hand. Should I be made fun of for that?

Making fun of his voice is ableist garbage. Focus on something that's actually wrong with him, like almost everything he believes and is trying to do

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

The dude sounds like a robot or a smoker who had their larynx removed and have to use one of those electronic devices to talk. Except he doesn't actually have a device. That's just how he sound.

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 3 points 14 hours ago

Yeah. It's a medical condition. We shouldn't make fun of people for medical conditions. There's enough wrong with him that you can focus on without resorting to that.