But regardless, the same point could have been made about the Republican party in general for decades.
See The Baffler's article titled "The Long Con" for a history. It opens with a now shockingly unshocking list of all the lies Romney told and the prescient claim that this was necessary for Republican voters to like him.
> Mitt Romney is a liar. Of course, in some sense, all politicians, even all human beings, are liars. Romney’s lying went so over-the-top extravagant by this summer, though, that the New York Times editorial board did something probably unprecedented in their polite gray precincts: they used the L-word itself. “Mr. Romney’s entire campaign rests on a foundation of short, utterly false sound bites,” they editorialized. He repeats them “so often that millions of Americans believe them to be the truth.” “It is hard to challenge these lies with a well-reasoned-but- overlong speech,” they concluded; and how. Romney’s lying, in fact, was so richly variegated that it can serve as a sort of grammar of mendacity.
[...]
> All righty, then: both the rank-and-file voters and the governing elites of a major American political party chose as their standardbearer a pathological liar. What does that reveal about them?
-- 2012
You don't even need a study to prove you wrong, it should be common sense that being rear ended has a good chance of causing chronic neck injuries, let alone 8 of them. But I got you numbers anyway:
> NP pain is common after involvement in a motor vehicle collision (MVC) with 86% of injured occupants reporting NP pain.6 In Ontario 17.6% of those exposed to an MVC report a personal injury...
> Neck injury resulting from an MVC is associated with a high rate of chronicity. Prognosis studies indicate 50% of injured people continue to experience NP a year after the collision.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6899867/
> Anecdotal stuff / vibes are actually really useful.
You can just say you've already made up your mind despite not having personal experience, your anecdotes being biased, and having no statistically relevant evidence - and nothing will change your mind.
Don't waste people's time pretending to be genuine and poison the intellectual well by trying to normalize "feelings based reality".
> When you are know a doctor and overhear conversations with some ranting doctor friends you learn.
What a joke. If a retail worker serves 300 people in a day and then comes home and complains about some guy who yelled at them, it doesn't mean that there's an epidemic of people yelling. That person is 0.3% of interactions but will make up 100% of the complaints because they stood out
You don't even seen to have the gall of asking the doctors youry eavesdropping on if they concur, because surely that would have been your evidence instead.
Furthermore in the current political environment, such analysis-free rants aren't just chum that makes like-minded rambling uncles need more blood pressure meds, but rather can end up being fuel for someone-must-do-something-type destructionist rallying cries that only serve to facilitate more grift by the performative strongman administration - compounding the very problem!
Constructively, the difficulty is that reforming institutions and restoring societal trust is very hard. Here we've got at least four things that need to be done simultaneously -
1. restoring belief that the system will significantly punish you if you lie/exaggerate about having a disability
2. restoring trust in the system such that people, both internal and external to the institution, aren't inclined to panic over "xx% of students claiming disability"
3. reforming the general system for people without disabilities, eg testing methodologies and cramped housing accommodations
4. generally reforming what counts as a disability that makes sense to even try and mitigate
Fail at doing any one of these and we've still got similar pressure to cheat, so the problem will only ever retreat a bit rather than having formed self-reinforcing cultural values.
(I'm addressing the problem referenced by the article, not the adjacent problem you've described)
Sorry if my comment went over your head.
The comment was about the style of articles that were in vogue in the mid 10's.
A good sample here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewjosuweit/2017/10/22/5-ind...
If I need to condense it further the connection I see is that weird people feel a need to see new market trends and uses of the system as coordinated efforts of malice.
Instead it's probably just that young people aren't thriving. Better information lets people know more about systems of assistance.
Some defective humans really dislike any assistance programs and invent phantoms and weird statistics. Tale as old as time