RCs are a pretty common name, even among academics, at least in neurobiology (though it’s for sure recognized as “speaking in dialect/slang” as some would say... e.g., not everyone would immediately know what you’re saying).

I do agree that “compounds” or 5-HT agonists, or whatever are far more neutral (if overly broad) terms and those should be used if you’re being careful (perhaps with some added description).

> 5-HT agonists, or whatever are far more neutral (if overly broad) terms and those should be used if you’re being careful

Google ranking doesn't care how technical you are. If you do a google search about anything somewhat nutritional or health related, you get a slew of low credibility websites with dubious information. Getting to any scientifically rigorous papers is a real research project.

> If you do a google search about anything somewhat nutritional or health related, you get a slew of low credibility websites with dubious information. Getting to any scientifically rigorous papers is a real research project

It's a much easier project (though still requires some review and judgement) if you use Google scholar instead of the general search engine.

But that's true or any domain; if you are specifically looking for scientific papers, the general search engine is like going to the grocery store for lab glassware.

How would people look for that article on Google if it was named "compounds"?

> Haha you now know how they maintain their SEO -- by purging the politically incorrect stuff.

Curious, how do you know this as a fact?

Also, curious about your nickname - any story behind it?

What is SWIM?

For some while (maybe still), there was a common belief that talking about your drug experiences online couldn't be used against you in court if you pretended it was someone else. This could be done semi-convincingly if you talked about, say, your "roommate" using drugs, but pretty quickly people started saying shit like "my cat" or "someone who isn't me" and, finally, abbreviated that to "SWIM." Like, "SWIM wants to know where to buy LSD in Seattle." Yeah.

At least some forums are discouraging that now because it obviously won't hold up in court and provides a false sense of security, but I imagine some people are still attached to it.

That is similar to the stupid IANAL preface people insist on including. Quite frankly you can literally make a post stating you are a lawyer and the following is legal advice and there would not be a single repercussion.

I always assumed that preface to mean "I'm not a lawyer, please check with one before _you_ get into trouble", more so than "I'm not a lawyer, here's my opinion and don't sue _me_ over it".

Having talked to lawyers about this -- what they end up saying is "I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer and me giving you this informal bit of information does not constitute the formation of a privileged relationship. I'm not working for you. Also, I haven't done any particular research for you and this is just based on my general experience."

And then they typically shorten the whole thing to "I think you should talk to a lawyer."

I think pretending to be a lawyer (or a doctor) could actually land you in a world of legal hurt - that's one of the features of licensed professions.

(IANAL though, check with your local laws and all.)

There's fraudently practicing as a doctor, and there's posting bullshit on a website about bullshit. And I'd know, I'm a lawyer and a doctor.

That's not why people say "I am not a lawyer."

why do they?

Usually, it means "I believe this is accurate, but you should check with an expert before doing anything that might have consequences."

It's not about covering your ass, it's about trying to be a decent guy and not accidentally mislead people.

This sounds like legal advice - are you a lawyer :)

It's the same as those who believe that if you ask the person selling you weed if they are police, they are under obligation by law to tell you so.

They are not.

Eh, not really the same.

Cops are demonstrably not required to tell you they are cops. The idea that they need to was always ridiculous misinformation.

Meanwhile, as far as I'm aware, SWIM has not been the lynchpin in a court case yet, so it's hard to say one way or the other if using it as legal cover is actually a gross misconception.

It's a lot like the freemen-on-the-land folks. People think, against all evidence, that the law is a mindless machine, a slave to its inputs, unaffected by the human beings who actually administer it. They think you can hack the law by saying the right magic words, like Captain Kirk crashing an evil computer by saying "this sentence is false."

It doesn't work that way. If you try to buy 50 grams of coke off an undercover cop, no jury on earth is going to believe that you thought you were buying Coca-Cola. You're not going to get away with using a slang term universally understood to mean "me" and claiming it meant "someone else," either.

How about "I will sell it to you only if your life depends on it"?

What would that accomplish?

“Someone who isn’t me”, a term used when discussing something (usually illegal) the poster did or has experience with, but is using this term to hide that fact.

An annoying term that has no meaning and is completely pointless and would have no bearing in a court of law at all and everyone knows what you are saying is "I"

"Someone Who Isn't Me"