No, because that denies that it is linked to the initial Lyme infection somehow and may well have a completely different cause than the more general chronic fatigue or fibromyalgia. Again, that would be like telling people just to call long covid "chronic fatigue."

telling people this is due to mystical nonexistent spirochetes in their blood that can only be treated with a long course of IV antibiotics.

Right, that's exactly what I said. Just like I said Long Covid is actually the result of vaccines. Seriously, you're telling me "my posts" (btw, what are you even referring to? Do we have a history or something?) are this thing you've made up in your head about me because I am pointing out the FACT that a condition exists despite many misled denialists. Chronic Lyme is as real as long covid is even though we don't know what the underlying cause of it is.

The medical reality is the symptoms people experience

No shit! Which is because Lyme Disease is real! Fucking hell, what is your problem?

Um... stop accusing me of weird bullshit while denying reality and calling a medical reality and the experience of countless disabled people pseudoscience?

Anyway, ashiniadash, here you can see why that topic is high on the list of controversial wikipedia pages. Libs gonna lib ig.

Neither is long Covid. Just a big hoax by lazy whingers. 🙄

Case in point.^

Most people who have it know why, and it has to do with the large swathes of chuds (and libs too) who insist it isn't real, just in your head, an excuse to be lazy, etc. etc. Almost any chronic illness that is hard to diagnose and can't be pinned with complete unambiguous medical certainty to a single clear cause gets that sort of treatment. There are still so many people who don't even believe Lyme disease is real.

I completely agree and this is something everyone should remember. Even so, it's fair to say that there is a spectrum when it comes to the ahistoricity of any given historical depiction. A work can be a bit off despite the honest attempt of the artist to make it historically accurate or it can be a grotesque mischaracterization that distorts the context beyond any semblance of the historical reality. G*mers tend to demand the latter while pretending they're the ones championing accuracy.

It honestly depends on how you want to define it and under what framework. In Marxism the definition of class depends on the relationship to the means of production. Obviously using the Marxist framework is the most accurate to describe what's actually happening and as Marxists we should use those definitions and try to inform people as best we can that proletariat and bourgeoisie are the two main and oppositional classes (primary contradiction) in capitalism. But like Mardoniush pointed out there still are other classes since the relationship to the means of production can be more complicated than just straight ownership vs labor despite the antagonism of those two classes being the primary contradiction.

Still, none of those are a "middle class" and you are completely right about how one of the big reasons that term gets heavily used is so the parts of the proletariat that are not impoverished can feel elevated above those who are. But that right there means there is a material difference between certain subsets of the proletariat that gets called "middle class" and "lower class." There is a large subset that historically in the US was generally well off (comparatively) to the subset that lives in poverty conditions, and it is true that the former subset is shrinking while the latter subset is growing (along with the intensity of the contradictions). It is not wrong to point this out, and "middle class" is definitely not meaningless when used this way, it's just that using the word "class" to describe this phenomenon is deliberately muddying the waters and it's not using the term according to a Marxist framework. Don't mistake that to mean that what the OP article is saying is untrue or isn't happening, because it most definitely is happening! It's just bad semantics.

I appreciate that comment. I may have been too reactive and harsh in my response, and apologize for that. It is admittedly one of my "peeves" when someone I'd otherwise consider a comrade seems to advocate specifically for killing innocents and children as a means to punish the people who do deserve the pit and worse.

I absolutely share your anger, even rage for the demon shitstains supplying WP to aid a genocide. And to be clear, it's not that they don't deserve to see their own family killed in the same way they are facilitating the unimaginably painful murder of other families, I just personally think it's important for us as leftists to draw a line against targeting innocent people especially for the sake of vindictiveness. In other words, if we could somehow make the guilty fascists think that was happening to their own family without actually doing that to the innocent members of their family, I'd have zero problem with that, in fact I'd be all for it. Since we were discussing hypotheticals, I actually rather like that one.

Well wishes to you, I should probably log off for a bit too.

It’s actually quite crazy to see the amount of change Biden could get done even with out control of the legislative branch. Adding to that, the Republicans are in disarray too yet things still got done. I’m surprised OP didn’t include the largest climate legislation in world history. I want to see another country or region beat us, as this would be welcome competition.

It's from the TriggerNometry podcast (no idea if it's a good podcast overall. Edit to add: It's not, at least one of the hosts is a complete dipshit).

Israel/Palestine: Asking The Questions No One Else Will | Norman Finkelstein | Triggernometry: https://podtail.com/en/podcast/triggernometry/israel-palestine-asking-the-questions-no-one-else-/

Summary of the interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va257BZvAj4

@CommunistBear@hexbear.net

You:

Eh, fuck em. It's killing somebody's families either way, might as well be theirs.

Also you:

Save your indignation for those who deserve it.

lol.

If we're just talking hypotheticals here, why is it so hard for you to say that it would be bad, hypothetically, to kill a 3 year old with white phosphorus?

What you're apparently trying to say is that your comments advocating for killing entire families based on the crimes of one of their members is that you're posing this hypothetical situation to people here on lemmy who are in a position to target/profit from/earn a living from white phosphorus. And that doing so will perhaps get them to imagine the horrors and change their ways. Really? K. Keep fighting that good fight then. As a final note, believe me, those who deserve my indignation aren't getting any less of it just because I took a moment to call out a chuddy comment.