Keven posted:Frankly u shouldnt read shit. That's for nerds.
half the people on this site actually are nerds.
tpaine posted:i think i'm going to apply to italian medical school guys
great Cake track
tpaine posted:it's almost like, regardless of the mission statement, anytime you get people together to try to do something they reveal themselves as petty little backstabbers who really don't have a place in any kind of fair or just world. weird!
this is why you need pj in a giant gatorade cooler and someone put something with mint in there so there's no illusion left
10utJGbQQLs&start;=1199
Edited by laika ()
karphead posted:did you ever get around to reading R.D. Laing? i'd be curious as to hear your opinion on him, however brief...
A little. He has some interesting ideas but is not the be all end all as far as I can tell. I am mostly interested in the relationship between mental illness and culture.
swampman posted:Schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder are not totally distinct illnesses, not from each other and not from normal human thought and behavior. They cannot be diagnosed by reading someone's posts alone, especially by you. The planet's mental health care system is kind of shit, so it's likely that, either through underreporting or overdiagnosis, the stats are wrong. Also, one could just as easily claim tHE r H i z z o n E has a comparatively low incidence of mental disorder compared to the rest of the internet, and when it does crop up here, it doesn't go ignored, whereas the posters at most other comment systems are truly a hive of fucking insane people trying to yell over each other. So if you ask me, this forum is a psycho-emetic environment, adding digital commie fiber to the breakfast of life
Schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder not being clearly distinct is technically true, I was just trying to make the most generous estimate. That would make the probability even lower and is really more nitpicking than invalidating my argument. It's true that they cannot be diagnosed by posts alone, I'm not the one that suggested it in the first place. Not really sure what "especially by you" is supposed to mean.
I'm sure you make better estimates about the occurrence of psychotic disorders than people who do it for a living. It isn't solely based on coming into contact with the mental health system. You could claim that but not very seriously I don't think.
E: As far as "dealing with it" goes most people in Real Life in general and in the mental health system in particular don't have the same smug sense of superiority and undertake the brave and selfless task of "owning" people who are not in very secure contact with reality to bring them back to Reason. It doesn't work and I would throw in Einstein's definition of insanity if it weren't so horribly cliched.
Ultimately, I think having people break with reality is adaptive here because it helps some people here feel better and less insecure about themselves and more normal.
Edited by laika ()
So pretending revolutionary defeatism is a universal ideology for the sake of white first worlders who need to feel like a cartesian subject in control of the world is perfect, since in practice it means opposing your own imperialists. What you think Syrian communists should do is about as important as what you think NASA should do on the next moon landing.
Urbandale posted:are you trying to invite them to one big meeting irl or is the plan to approach individuals to try and get them to write? if the latter i wouldnt bother telling authors who all is writing for ya tbh. inter-socialist rivalries are usually over personal shit masquerading as political issues and youll want to avoid getting in the middle of that nonsense imo
we're having a small meeting with a few people in a week but we want to also approach people individually. theres no necessity for people to know who else is writing but it would be nice to have a meeting each month and discuss things in person with people. create an actual community around the paper. i dont know.
babyhueypnewton posted:Revolutionary defeatism is the best thing to reify though because trots don't exist in the third world where anti-imperialism is hegemonic. Like in Syria the correct line is already supported by all the communist groups and the majority of the population, and the radical idea that U.S. interests and ISIS might align is already common knowledge.
So pretending revolutionary defeatism is a universal ideology for the sake of white first worlders who need to feel like a cartesian subject in control of the world is perfect, since in practice it means opposing your own imperialists. What you think Syrian communists should do is about as important as what you think NASA should do on the next moon landing.
babyhueypnewton posted:Revolutionary defeatism is the best thing to reify though because trots don't exist in the third world where anti-imperialism is hegemonic.
there are lots of trots in the third world huey especially places like india where there is significant uneven geographical development and an urban university educated petite bourgeoisie.
laika posted:E: As far as "dealing with it" goes most people in Real Life in general and in the mental health system in particular don't have the same smug sense of superiority and undertake the brave and selfless task of "owning" people who are not in very secure contact with reality to bring them back to Reason. It doesn't work and I would throw in Einstein's definition of insanity if it weren't so horribly cliched.
Thank you for at least acknowledging my bravery.
babyhueypnewton posted:and partially seeing "maoists" who are in reality pro-imperialism.
what are you talking about. does anyone on this forum actually read maoists that aren't proprietors of blogs
babyhueypnewton posted:Revolutionary defeatism is the best thing to reify though because trots don't exist in the third world where anti-imperialism is hegemonic. Like in Syria the correct line is already supported by all the communist groups and the majority of the population, and the radical idea that U.S. interests and ISIS might align is already common knowledge.
So pretending revolutionary defeatism is a universal ideology for the sake of white first worlders who need to feel like a cartesian subject in control of the world is perfect, since in practice it means opposing your own imperialists. What you think Syrian communists should do is about as important as what you think NASA should do on the next moon landing.
I see what you are saying. But to me, teaching people that its all about their relation to their own government reinforces the same myopic Cartesian hubris.
It also sets people up for backing the mad bombers of humaitarianism if and when they despair of replaying the storming of the Bastille or the Winter Palace. Because,so that train of thought runs, if you are not actually going to engage in political insurrection, it seems merely scrupulous to object to people who are "really going to do things."
(not saying that repetitions, in different forms, of those events are impossible, history is often lethally unkind to people who pass such judgement, but I'm sure you would understand why many, normie or not, in the first world would be skeptical of seeing such spectacles happen anytime soon)
Educating people into knowing and respecting the histories of the various peoples, and emphasizing the value of both the state and international legality to global development,by contrast, provides a basis for anti-war sentiment that endures the waxing and waning of domestic revolutionary possibilities. And whatever advances respect for others in spite of a profound lack of similarity in background advances socialism, if we are thinking of the transition out of capitalism as a long march instead of a the effect of any conceivable coup de main. An increasingly socialized world economy necessarily a culture that can match its broadness. And just as we would not appreciate people who only cared about us because we were useful to their schemes, one should be loathe to become habituated into thinking of whole societies as only having value because their victories can help "us." One can think tactically like that of course; Connolly certainly did. But he also had a strong admiration for his slave-driver's enemies ("a healthy instinct, and makes for freedom"), which was a sign of his internationalism as much as it was an effect of his concern for the workers of his own nation:
" If labour controlled your destinies, conjure the picture of what might have happened when after Gray and Asquith had plunged England into war, there arose a clamour for Redmond. And Redmond, without consulting you, the people of Ireland, pledged us to war with as kindly, gracious a nation as God ever put the breath of life into – what happened then? Redmond when they shouted for him might have sat still and let them shout, then before another sun rose got a measure greater than Grattan dreamed of Redmond, as spokesman of the majority of the Irish people might have risen and said: ‘I and my colleagues will go to Ireland and consult the Irish Nation.’ Then would Ireland be a nation in reality. ‘We have waited and now Germany has come, and we will start our own Parliament. Stop us if you can.’ Help would have come from all sides. Why the R.I.C. would have acted as a guard of honour!
Whether my speech is pro-German or pro-Irish, I don’t know...."
https://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1914/09/wrsotbrk.htm
I cede that those more involved in organizing than I am would know what public stance would work best for their particular org.
But I also would say that it was in part because not enough Bolsheviks had the capability for imaginative sympathy of a Radek that Nazism occurred instead of anti-capitalist revolution.
Edited by methlabretriever ()
RedMaistre posted:I also admit that Lenin's Russian frigidity got more bang for its buck than Connolly's Irish enthusiasm.
how so?
swampman posted:Thank you for at least acknowledging my bravery.
I wasn't talking about you.
Whatever, odds are pretty good that it will happen again and when it does everyone can continue to be surprised and dumbfounded.
Edited by laika ()
Edited by ilmdge ()
methlabretriever posted:RedMaistre posted:I also admit that Lenin's Russian frigidity got more bang for its buck than Connolly's Irish enthusiasm.
how so?
The guns and ammunition that the Germans that were supposed to aid the Irish republicans plotting the Easter Rising were captured enroute.
By contrast, the Bolsheviks not only got that train ride, but were by aided by German funding through Gatskensy and Parvus. In addition, because Germany's efforts in the East, over and covert, were more devastating than they were against Great Britain, more immediate tactical opportunities were created for the reds in Russia than for the republicans in Ireland (though of course from a strategic the strain put on the British Empire by the costs of World War I also benefited the latter too). Pl
I don't see any shame in this, in and of itself. The Bosheviks were not mercenaries, reactionary Quislings, or hapless dime-a-dozen liberals parroting fashionable nostrums, but earnest, organized radicals who, in the midst of the anarchy created by great power struggles, played their own game and won while their sometime patrons were swept away. By the fruits you will know them.Nor should we cede to persistent Anglophone prejudices about the special evil of the Germanic"Huns" or the high-minded benevolence of the Entente's cause during WWI.
RedMaistre posted:methlabretriever posted:
RedMaistre posted:
I also admit that Lenin's Russian frigidity got more bang for its buck than Connolly's Irish enthusiasm.
how so?
The guns and ammunition that the Germans that were supposed to aid the Irish republicans plotting the Easter Rising were captured enroute.
By contrast, the Bolsheviks not only got that train ride, but were by aided by German funding through Gatskensy and Parvus. In addition, because Germany's efforts in the East, over and covert, were more devastating than they were against Great Britain, more immediate tactical opportunities were created for the reds in Russia than for the republicans in Ireland (though of course from a strategic the strain put on the British Empire by the costs of World War I also benefited the latter too). Pl
I don't see any shame in this, in and of itself. The Bosheviks were not mercenaries, reactionary Quislings, or hapless dime-a-dozen liberals parroting fashionable nostrums, but earnest, organized radicals who, in the midst of the anarchy created by great power struggles, played their own game and won while their sometime patrons were swept away. By the fruits you will know them.Nor should we cede to persistent Anglophone prejudices about the special evil of the Germanic"Huns" or the high-minded benevolence of the Entente's cause during WWI.
I guess they were kind of the Islamic State of their day, huh.