• 0 Posts
  • 31 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 8th, 2023

help-circle


  • This isn’t a problem with “my” definition of cure. I’m using the commonly understood definition. If someone is successfully managing their type 1 diabetes with insulin and a healthy diet we don’t say they’re cured. They still have diabetes. If they stopped taking their meds and ate a ton of carb heavy foods they’d wind up in the hospital in a matter of days.

    Same goes with mental illness. If you stop taking your meds, going to therapy, etc. your mental state will decline again. They’re still mentally ill, they’re just managing it.

    Perhaps some people have acute moments of distress to the point where it’s clinically significant and treatment helps them weather that moment. Eventually they may return to their baseline of not needing drugs or therapy. But given the context of this thread (a woman killing herself after a decade of unsuccessful treatment) I figured it was fair to assume chronic mental illness. Something to the tune of major depression, bipolar disorders, schizophrenia, etc.

    The word cure isn’t a fluid term to me or most people. It’s something that connotes permentant relief of a person’s signs and symptoms of a given illness. Something that often isn’t the case for mental illness



  • Did you read the article? She’s been in intensive care for her mental health for a decade. This wasn’t some spur of the moment decision. Its taken 10 years to get to this point. To state that mental illnesses are curable and non-progressive is pure ignorance and you would do yourself well to learn how poor the prognosis is for people with severe mental illness. There isn’t a cure. You never feel whole or normal. Medication is a shot in the dark most of the time. Therapy doesn’t help everybody. Some people are truly and completely untreatable, and she is one of those people











  • BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.eetoMemes@lemmy.mlYeee yee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    The entire point of the video is Engles misunderstood what constitutes “authority” in a libertarian framework. He created an overly broad conception of authority and proceeded to (poorly) attack that. If you’re going to critique an ideology you should at the very least have an understanding of what the core concept your criticizing means. Engles made some shit up, put that in the mouths of anarchists and acted like a little piss baby about it. How on earth did you get 15 minutes into the video and not pick up on that very obvious point?

    Pure ideology? You’re hilarious. Like y’all haven’t been sucking at the teat of Marx well past the point of his half baked ideas being useful. It never occured to you geniuses that maybe there was a bit more at play than capitalism and anachronistic conceptions of class warfare? Marx’s ideas of power and complex systems are overly simplistic at best, and Engles is a bourgeois pig that somehow deluded your big “scientific socialist” brains into thinking he was one of the good ones. But go ahead and tell me how childish authoritarian conceptions of authority are righ and how I’m a big dumb guy for thinking otherwise


  • BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.eetoMemes@lemmy.mlYeee yee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    Wasn’t sure if that was a legitimate question or just another example.of the usage of authoritarian. But if it was a question, I’ll leave this video. It’s an anarchist critique of on authority. Short answer, yes. It is possible to have organization without an authoritarian structure


  • BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.eetoMemes@lemmy.mlYeee yee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I just wanted to clarify, I’m not an authoritarian. I’m an anarchist. And the left/right distinction still does matter very much along the authoritarian/libertarian axis. I don’t think much of auth-left ideologies but I hold them in much better regard than fascists. There are similarities, but they are no where near the same. And liberalism is a center right authoritarian ideology


  • BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.eetoMemes@lemmy.mlYeee yee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    The first use of authoritarian is in 1852, in the writings of AJ Davis apparently. Here’s the quote:

    1856 A. J. Davis Penetralia 129 Does any one believe that the Book is essential to Salvation? Yes; there are many externalists and authoritarians who think so.

    Authoritarian was also increasing in usage well before the cold war, beginning around 1910 or so. An example from Nationalism and Culture by Rudolf Rocker, written in 1933:

    Nietzsche also had a profound conception of this truth, although his inner disharmony and his constant oscillation between outlived authoritarian concepts and truly libertarian ideas all his life prevented him from drawing the natural deductions from it.

    That’s a thoroughly modern use of the word authoritarian, written almost 15 years before the start of the cold war. Authoritarian is used to describe those who support hierarchial systems of government. That’s the short and sweet of it, perhaps not a perfect dictionary definition but it illustrates the distinctive bit. Auth-left ideologies get equivocated with fascism because there’s an undeniable ideological throughline between the two, no matter how much they hate each other.

    "The working class […] cannot be left wandering all over Russia. They must be thrown here and there, appointed, commanded, just like soldiers […] Compulsion of labour will reach the highest degree of intensity during the transition from capitalism to socialism […] Deserters from labour ought to be formed into punitive battalions or put into concentration camps.’

    Trotsky wrote that. It may not be 1:1 but the similarities between his ideas and those.of fascists are pretty obvious.

    All of this, written before the cold war. Tell me again how authoritarian is a made up word that serves only to slander “communists”?