It has to be discouraging for you to know that you don’t know what you’re talking about while continuing to double down, to know that you didn’t read the study and that you’re responding to a post title with a gut feeling, to know that all of your “arguments” amount to, “nuh uh, you’re illogical and wrong so I won’t even try to make a single reasoned point” while being completely unwilling and unable to address actual points because you can’t, to know that the likelihood that your gut feeling is actually correct despite the conclusion of a robust study is pretty tiny, and to know that it all played out in a public forum.

I know that last part is ironically what drives you to be rude and condescending when it only hurts your credibility as a thoughtful person. Your fragile ego was challenged and you got mad and attacked the person instead of the idea, hoping no one noticed that saying, “oh man, you don’t know anything” would move the spotlight off of you, who happens to carry all the burden to prove that the study is “silly,” as you put it. And you know that’s true, too, and I bet its transparency doesn’t help that ego of yours.

You cannot compare a bullet passing through a heart - an entirely physical process - with diseases from cancer - complex biochemical processes.

I can’t compare causes of death with different root causes because of different mechanisms of malady? It’s done all the time and I just did it successfully. You don’t like it because it disproves your (still unknown) argument concluding in the “diminished value of the study” which you never read, as evidenced by you asking if they considered Paracelsus.

Occam’s Razor would suggest that when the highly knowledgeable and trained people performing the study, in conjunction with all the people (at least in this thread) who seem to similarly understand what “root cause” means vs the 1 person who doubles down but hasn’t read the study, that you are the issue and not everyone else. And this is “statistically and logically” the case. And honestly, your psuedo-scientific half-understanding zeal and intensity just come off as a drinker who refuses to accept that their actions might result in 61 known diseases that they wouldn’t otherwise encounter if they choose not to drink.

You’re obviously intent on continuing to double down on what amounts to your own personal definition of what “root cause” means as you’ve refused to address what the study authors and everyone else in this thread seen to understand clearly - that getting a disease that you wouldn’t have otherwise gotten had you not been a drinker means that drinking is the root cause of that disease for you. When you get one of these diseases, be sure to argue with your doctor that drinking definitely was NOT the root cause as you have rejected the title of a post on Lemmy that asserts the opposite. Use the word Paraclesus a bunch too.

I think you blew the lid right off this thing, champion

If you get a disease that you wouldn’t have gotten had you not consumed alcohol, then the alcohol consumption is the root cause of your disease. The study found 61 diseases for which this is the case for different people

As I said, the root cause of many people’s heart stopping has been a bullet passing through it - those people’s hearts wouldn’t have otherwise developed massive holes and would have gone on ticking had it not been for the bullet - but that doesn’t mean that bullets piercing hearts is the exclusive reason that hearts stop.

I’m not sure if the point you’re trying to make is that not everyone who consumes alcohol gets these diseases or that alcohol consumption isn’t the only cause of these diseases. Both of those statements are correct but neither are contrary to the study’s conclusion.

By that logic, is it silly to say that the root issue of someone’s heart stopping was the bullet that passed through it, because a knife through the heart was the root issue that caused someone else’s heart to stop?

There’s different ways to get dementia. Alcohol consumption is the root cause of one of them, as well as 61 other diseases. If you get dementia and they run tests, they might find that the root cause of your dementia is alcohol consumption. They might find it’s a different toxic substance you were exposed to, or they might find it was genetic. That’s the root cause of your dementia. The study and article obviously aren’t saying that alcohol is the root cause of everyone’s dementia, or the 61 other diseases it causes.

It is saying that someone who wouldn’t have otherwise dealt with dementia or 61 other diseases could get them purely due to alcohol consumption, making it the root cause of their disease.

I think it’s a joke and you don’t need to be too far any any particular direction to chuckle at it.

Tom Cardy’s music is some of my absolute favorites.

They are definitely making plans for the day that HitlerPig declares Martial Law, and suspends elections…

Unsubstantiated bullshit dreams like this keep real resistance from forming.

“Someone else will save me!”

No, they won’t. There’s no “competent cabal” just waiting to make their move and pretending that there is keeps you from forming or joining the resistance yourself.

No one is going to save you or the people you love, and the price of waiting for Superman is suffering and death.

The ever-accelerating demise of the American empire will remove their fingers from every political and economic pie in the world, creating a small chance that something even worse doesn’t fill the gap.

You’re an idiot, but don’t worry, you’re in good company and other idiots wil always be there to tell you how thoughtful your bullshit is.

I’m going to block you now to very slightly reduce the amount of stupid people in my feed.

I’ve had to ask myself why I’m engaging with you, why this is an argument I’m choosing to participate in. Is the inane purpose of trying to get people to correctly classify platforms as social media my hill to die on?

Of course not. You can also call a horse a pig and it won’t affect my life.

My part in this ridiculous conversation is due to watching millions and billions of people with infinitely more access to information than ever before in human history choosing to believe that their ignorance or opinion is worth just as much as fact to the contrary.

“Here’s the definition of the term you disagree with.”

“Nuh uh, it’s this other thing I made up and you should respect my opinion.”

No, I shouldn’t. Your opinion is ignorant to stated facts and has no worth. One of the diseases that social media (like this site!) has been an amazing vector for is giving anyone a platform (the definition of social media) to express their ignorance, contend that it’s rude and attacking to point out that flagrant ignorance, and probably end up convincing other people that their ignorance sounds kinda cool.

You could have searched “what is social media,” “definition of social media,” “what makes social media social media,” etc. and seen a hundred results that’s converge on an actual definition for the term that Reddit and Lemmy encompass perfectly.

Instead, you redefine a term because it’s how you feel and then use the comments section on social media to broadcast your ignorance.

My contention is this: a website having media and a comment section doesn’t automatically qualify it as social media. Whether it operates as a public or private forum is irrelevant.

You’re making an argument against something that no one else is saying. I replied to this in my last comment. ESPN is not social media because you or I don’t dictate the content there. But here, in this social media environment, I can make any post about anything and interact with all the posts and comments made by anyone else who chooses to use the platform. That’s the definition of social media. We - the social part - post the media. The Reddit company doesn’t make all the posts and then you get to comment on them. Anybody can and does post the media with which everyone interacts. This isn’t a difficult concept. I made this point in my last comment and you conveniently ignored it as it’s the crux of what makes your argument meaningless.

I mean, you straight up said the stupid part out loud:

More importantly, I am making a personal statement: I do not consider Lemmy or Reddit to be social media. I understand they are categorized as such, but I am stating my disagreement with that classification.

“I know that things exist in fact but I redefined them to the benefit of no one except for me feeling special about myself and that’s my right!”

And it is your right to be wrong and proud. And it’s any rational person’s right to see the ignorance in your belief and wonder at the psychological mechanisms that have led to a society where people believe their opinions counter to matters of fact are valid.

I don’t care what you call Lemmy. Shout from the hilltops that this isn’t social media, make up your own special word for it, tell everyone that dogs aren’t actually mammals, that the color green doesn’t exist, and that tax cuts for the 1% will surely trickle down to the rest of us. Having an opinion based on your own definitions or feelings that’s counter to fact makes you irrational at best and allows any rational person to dismiss your opinions on things that actually do matter as you’ve proudly proven that facts aren’t a factor in your decision-making.

I’m not writing this for you. You’re dug into your ignorance and my pointing out it has probably caused you to dig in twice as deep. That’s what people tend to do. I wrote all this precisely because it’s such a stupid, trivial matter that encapsulates a big reason our society has gotten so fucked. Because people have a platform (social media) to express their tiniest thoughts, they have arrived at the conclusion that their opinions on all matters are relevant.

You redefined a term and are arguing that it’s valid and should be accepted… Other people whose last biology lesson was in grade school have impassioned arguments on how they feel vaccines work because they redefined what a vaccine is and does and in their personal definition it’s very dangerous. And we’ve all seen a video of some flat-earther performing Olympic gold mental gymnastics to justify their ignorant opinion.

You’re doing the same thing despite the subject matter being so much more insignificant. I think that’s why I zeroed in on it. This is such a stupid thing to have a stupid opinion about and yet you’re as impassioned as the next person telling cancer patients to quit their therapy and start smelling essential oils.

And the chance of you saying, “I see what you’re saying, I see that I made a definition up for a well-established term, and I’ve changed my mind,” is about as good as arguing with any of the examples above.

This isn’t for you. This was for me and for all the no one else who will ever read this.

By your definition, nearly anything could qualify as social media as long as it involves media and some capacity for correspondence. This broad and vague categorization dilutes the meaning of the term, making it less useful as a precise descriptor.

This is incorrect and the point you’re failing to grasp. What makes this social media is that we the users supply the media. A regular person made the post to which we’re replying in the comments. This whole thing exists because every post is socially sourced.

A website with a comments section isn’t social media because only the website owner gets to decide what’s posted.

This IS social media because a rando posted this, and without a huge social network of randos making posts, Lemmy or Reddit (or Facebook or Tiktok) fail to exist as there would be no media.

Your arbitrary suggestion that being anonymous is a key factor in determining whether it’s social media or not is nonsensical and incorrect.

This is what Wiktionary says:

noun Interactive forms of media that allow users to interact with and publish to each other, generally by means of the Internet.

You can have a made up definition of what “social media” is and use it to support any argument that you’d like, but you can’t make any sort of compelling case for Reddit or Lemmy not perfectly fitting the generally accepted definition.

My guess is that by defining “social media” to be Facebook and Instagram, telling yourself and others, “I don’t use social media,” allows you to feel some unearned superiority or integrity.

You’re communicating to me right now in the comments of a media post, shared to a social network. Stop making up definitions of terms and expecting anyone else to accept them.

Your ratio says otherwise

drives a truck everywhere

“I don’t use cars like everyone else. This is a different means of conveyance altogether.”

People often quote RATM’s “some of those who work work forces are the same who burn crosses.” It’s informative.

They have other, inspirational quotes, too:

“Can’t waste a day when the night brings a hearse, so make a move and plead the fifth cuz ya can’t plead the first.”

and

“Return the power to the have-nots, and take a shot.”

deleted by creator

Are the pens and paper drawn or is this a picture of a notebook drawing?

Xanth was very special to me when I was young.

Supernintendo Chalmers

When Rudy’s dad tears up seeing his son on the field