Top Susan G. Komen Official Resigned Over Planned Parenthood Cave-In

ElBeh · 1 day

I upvoted you because I think you bring up a good point when it comes to charities. Although badandrew was doing the right thing, there is a fear that people will use another group's name to solicit money without any intentions of giving to the charity. I think threatening to sue was the inappropriate way of going about it, they easily could have worked with badandrew instead, which would have been more productive. Given that, I understand your point and where they would be coming from.

ElBeh · 1 day

There was an argument on the Atlantic message board that I think should be addressed. Some people brought up the fear of false positive and necessary surgery leading to death. I wanted to use this comment to show why that is not a legitimate fear:

Per Brewer, Salz, and Lillie's "Systematic review: the long-term effects of false-positive mammograms", 7% of women have a false positive on the first mammogram. The second mammogram is significantly more expensive (and more accurate), but just to keep math simple let's say the false positive rate is also 7%. This means that .5% of women who get a mammogram have a false positive.

Now let's talk about surgery. Henry Rosenberg, M.D., Professor of Anesthesiology, claims that 5/1 million people die from anesthesia. On top of that, surgery for breast cancer (almost) only deals with cutting through tissue, not muscles, and not near vital organs. The risk level is significantly lower than more surgeries, although things can always go wrong.

~12% of women get breast cancer sometime in their life. So let's talk about the risk of a false positive vs. not providing mammograms (this was seriously brought up on the message board): 5% * 5/1million vs ~12% of women being screened.

Correct me please if I am wrong, but I though it would be important to bring this up on reddit.

Elysum · 3 days

It looks Detroit-esque, in that there are broken bottles every where, houses falling apart, and tons of trash. The difference is that the inhabitants are students who are well off (the homes on South U cost a lot compared to North State), and you are not in physical danger.

Ypsi is dangerous as shit in some places. My friends who lived their had their homes broken into on multiple occasions. Although it is far from awful, I would not consider Ypsi safe by any means.

Elysum · 3 days

From my experience, law enforcement is ridiculous for the students. To be honest, Ann Arbor was the #1 city for me where I just did not trust the cops, they seemed to concentrate on getting people for minor traffic infraction and crimes than actually making the community safer.

Elysum · 3 days

Truth House. I also used to live at Mich and Minnies (which I highly recommend).

Elysum · 3 days

Oh man, it is so amazing to watch it early in the morning. Also, your message made me really miss Kerrytown's farmers market.

Elysum · 3 days

So when I went to college in Ann Arbor, I lived in a Co-op where all the frats were. During rush week we would wake up at 8, grab a beer, and watch everyone do the walk of shame.

DTanner · 3 days

Although you may have a valid point regarding Canada's single-payer healthcare system, and the affect it has on patents, I have a strong feeling you did not read the article given that was not the issue. It was not the fact that Google had ads from pharmaceutical sources that were from Canada and were selling drugs cheaply, it was the fact that these companies had ads selling drugs without a prescription.

He fled to Mexico in 2006 and started an Internet pharmacy, selling steroids and human growth hormone to U.S. consumers through Google ads, he said. The two substances—sold in the U.S. by prescription only—are sought by body builders to add muscle and by older consumers seeking to slow the signs of aging; they aren't approved in the U.S. for such uses.

By the end of the operation in mid-2009, agents were buying Google ads for sites purportedly selling such prescription-only narcotics as oxycodone and hydrocodone. Agents also got Google's sales office in China to approve a site selling Prozac and Valium to U.S. customers without a prescription.

Now maybe our FDA regulations are strict and are inappropriately affected by Big Pharm, however the above is still illegal and has little to do with Canada (except some of these companies claim to be from there). To be honest, some of these drugs (especially oxycodone) are highly addictive, and although they may be needed by someone, to sell it without a prescription is dangerous.

Don't get me wrong, I am not defending our healthcare industry or Big Pharm what so ever, and do believe that changes need to be made, however that appears to be a very separate issue than what Google is going through.

DTanner · 3 days

I think the issue is that these pharmacies do not follow proper protocol to ensure the drugs are safe/legitimate, are being given to people in need of them (buying the drugs without prescriptions was mentioned multiple times throughout the article), and even furthermore that they will even receive these drugs (hence the "allegedly from Canada"). What I find interesting (not to pull the famous Reddit "OMG Glen Beck") is that Google was fined for having ads from illegitimate and even illegal sources, because they had documentation stating that they knew these advertisers could be harmful, does this apply to other outlets. Glen Beck is famous for the whole Cash for Gold scandal, something he openly supported, could he also be prosecuted?

I find what Google did reprehensible, however I have to wonder what sort of precedent it will set for advertising, and will it actually make us safer from real scams?

Edit: Typically I am a stickler for edited headlines on /r/TrueReddit, however I think yours was more appropriate than WSJ's. I just wanted to openly say good job for appropriately editing the headline as not to create views but to provide an appropriate summary.

gasoilpetrol · 4 days

Alright, that is completely reasonable, but if you go a step deeper (inception memes have been lacking as of late) that is how a lot of people who are heavily into music feel about those who like/hate bands because Pitchfork does.

So personal anecdote: I know the ultimate redditor (1 year ago he had the 3rd or 4th highest karma on the site) and he is a big Pitchfork fan (which is totally cool, I also like the site). The issue is this, he (being a redditor) also feels superior to anyone who does not hold his view. So one day, I am talking about 2 jazz albums I recently discovered to another friend, and overhearing he just scoffs at the recommendation. 2 weeks later, when Pitchfork puts those 2 albums in their top 50 (wild card choice), he starts listening to them and talking about them all the time.

The fact is, this guy is not the only person I know who is not interested in listening to music Pitchfork does not recommend or mentions. That is what gets a lot of people about Pitchfork (at least in my opinion).

Also, (you probably don't do this but I feel it needs to be mentioned): If you know someone who reads music blogs, and is just generally into music, do not just recommend the same albums that Pitchfork does, especially on the day that album is reviewed on Pitchfork (unless you think it is life changing and P4k says meh).

gasoilpetrol · 4 days

They did the same thing with Bon Iver's new album (it wasn't a 10, but it was up there). The fact is, Pitchfork needs to know what is going to be popular and cannot risk people thinking they are out of touch.

gasoilpetrol · 4 days

Pitchfork's X & Y review in 2005 was rough at best, but I guess so is X & Y. I never liked Coldplay, but I still do not understand why people hate them. They make decent pop music, that although slow, has arguably thoughtful lyrics, and the band is talented (although far from the most talented). This is not a case of Nickelback or Creed, where every song they make sounds the same/ Sure, Coldplay is far from great, but I feel people just hate them in the same way highschool goth kids hate everything popular.

JohnWH · 4 days

I was sad to find out that this has not been posted yet. It is one of my favorite indie folk songs.

Lingua_Franca2 · 4 days

I just heard this today. I am really excited for it to come out. You can legally download the song here:

http://stereogum.com/936242/bowerbirds-in-the-yard/mp3s/

gasoilpetrol · 4 days

Oh, I was saying that Stereogum is the Star magazine of indie music, not wire.

I don't listen to metal, but I have heard awesome things about Decibel from my friends that do.

gasoilpetrol · 4 days

Last point first: I would actually prefer a high energy crowd that fills up 50%, however artists sadly cannot always survive like that. The greatest thing about concerts is when everyone sings along and everyone is just happy to be there. I have made some amazing connections at Explosions in the Sky, The National, Wilco, and The Weakerthans, because during off years the real fans come, and it is such an amazing experience. I guess my issue is this: Most indie shows do not have the passion that punk shows had when I was a kid. Punk, which has a strong fashion element still had a lot of love. People would pick each other up from the mosh pit, talk about punk shows, etc. This does not happen at a lot of these indie shows, and maybe it is just because I live in SF, but most people there are douchebags. Youth Lagoon (who is great live) had the most obnoxious crowd of everyone just standing there arms crossed. Getting in, people were calling each other hipsters, only made worse by the fact that they had ironic mustaches and urban outfitter flannel. This is far from Pitchforks fault, but rather a complaint about the music scene.

OK now back to Pitchfork (which I check out every day, and in all honesty think is generally decent): I think the issue people have with Pitchfork now (vs in early 2K) is their readership who follows it so religiously. To put it in perspective, their readers sometimes remind me of obnoxious Apple users. Somehow by reading Pitchfork a lot of these users think they have great taste in music and if you like something Pitchfork does not like, you have shit taste. The fact is that Stereogum, Paste, Q, Spin, Rolling Stone (yes, really), etc. all talk about the same bands and do the same reviews, even for underground music, but it is Pitchfork that has people really hate musicians/groups based on their reviews. I mean think about it, it was not until Pitchfork really started shit talking Coldplay that everyone else became obnoxious about their dislike for them. Sure I don't like Coldplay (but their song Paradise is damn catchy), but I don't shit talk them. To be honest I don't really even care what they do.

As for jealousy: Maybe some people may be jealous, however anyone who is really into music knows about the bands Pitchfork reports on way before them. To be honest, I would love to review music, however that would never be the reason for me hating Pitchfork (or any other review site/blog).

TL;DR: Pitchfork is not bad by itself (I like their stuff most of the time), it is their religious fanbase that irks me.

gasoilpetrol · 4 days

I have the same issue with /r/music. A lot of the recommendations were popular indie faves from 5 years back. I feel like /r/indiefolk has great recommendations that are new and old. I recently found out that I love Phosphorescent's first album, which I would not have tried because I was not a fan of his later albums.

It is difficult because there is so much new music out there, that is feels wrong to look at older albums, but discovering music is still great, regardless of the era.

gasoilpetrol · 4 days

Nice, although it has become the Star magazine of indie music, I really like Stereogum

gasoilpetrol · 4 days

You hit the nail on the head. There are going to change dramatically over time, but as I mentioned before, nothing is really differentiating Pitchfork from other sources. Sure they mention underground music still, but the majority of their time is spent embracing mainstream indie acts. Their top 50 was extremely predictable, down to the "wild-card" picks (the ones no one else selects).

This is the issue with any review site that becomes popular, they need to then match their growing fanbase's tastes, meaning they abandon the mindset that originally made them popular.

gasoilpetrol · 5 days

I agreed with you until the last line

Ultimately I feel the people that hate Pitchfork just wish they could be them.

I find that sentiment to be a large representation of what people really hate about the indie scene: The feeling of superior taste based on the fashion element of the indie scene. Pitchfork, like many others, does a great job of covering underground music, however it also affects the type of crowds that go to those shows. Pitchfork, much like reddit, has a large user base that feels they are part of and exclusive club, especially one that is more intelligent, more knowledgeable, and generally better than everyone else (if you have ever been to a reddit meetup, you will know what I mean).

As someone who goes to a large number of concerts, I have seen the affect of how pitchfork's review affects the type of people that go. The passion is not there, and neither is the feeling of community. Every one of these concerts feels like a fashion over music.

Sure, this is not Pitchfork's fault in the least, but does hit the last part of the article:

Pitchfork and indie rock are currently run by people who behave as though the endless effort to perfect the habits of cultural consumption is the whole experience of life. We should leave these things behind, and instead pursue and invent a musical culture more worth our time.

gasoilpetrol · 5 days

Although milkycratekid is completely right that this is an attack piece, even (arguably) without any substance to support its claims, I think it does bring up one major point:

Pitchfork and indie rock are currently run by people who behave as though the endless effort to perfect the habits of cultural consumption is the whole experience of life. We should leave these things behind, and instead pursue and invent a musical culture more worth our time.

I compiled 15 different top 50 rankings this year, and only 223 of the albums were original, meaning the same records were mentioned over an over again. Pitchfork's top 50 was not exceptionally different from any of the other top 50 rankings, everyone listing the same records over an over again. Furthermore, the majority of those albums were safe bets: they were easy listening. These were not albums that broke boundaries, or ones where every song (or even half) were original.

I don't believe this is Pitchfork's fault, but instead systematic of Pitchfork becoming a large review source based on fashion, and therefore needs to be careful about their opinions. Paste, Rolling Stone, and Pitchfork have a fan base looking for what is new and popular, not what is groundbreaking. If you look at AllMusic.com reviews of certain albums compared to Pitchfork's, it is really interesting to see what they base their review on.

As indie has become mainstream, and (like all other movements) has a strong fashion element, people continue to search for what is new and "underground".

Captain_Redbeard · 7 days

Someone on the board brought up the following point that I think should be addressed.

This is not meant to be racial just factual; I think that if he had been black the comments on here would be way different.

Would he be viewed as a hero or anti-hero if he was just some black kid from Brooklyn? Would people say "No Harm, No Crime" if he wasn't white?

JohnWH · 8 days

That was a really wonderful comment. As with anything that deals with race and gender politics, a little bit of perspective goes a long way. Understandably a number of these geek men have felt excluded their whole life, however they need to understand how much worse it is for women in their field. Those women receive the same ridicule as children, and sadly continue to experience it as adults in male dominated fields. It is a difficult situation, and I can pull from one of my experiences to explain why I support a little bit of exclusion when it comes to some (not all) gatherings.

I went to an all Jewish high school growing up, at it is through that experience that I became very comfortable with my identity. In college, I barely made any Jewish friends, since I was more interested in meeting others, being that I was already comfortable with where I was. Interestingly enough, the majority of my friends also came from exclusive communities, or at least ones where their race/ethnicity were dominant (such as African-American friends from Detroit). This however is purely anecdotal and has no factual/scientific basis, so I am sure it is different for everyone. I just know from my personal experience, being comfortable with myself gave me the confidence to go outside my circle.

Two-Year Club	Secret Santa 2010
reddit mold	Verified Email

JohnWH

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login