🫧 @lambedordesuvaco - Tumblr Blog

i know reddit sucks in general but trans reddit is full of the most insufferable intersexist ppl in existence

I just saw this on Pinterest and for some reason I really want it

I think its insane tbh that the US doesn’t have mandatory military service or the draft anymore and hasn’t for years & people still bend over backwards publicly to beg for empathy & forgiveness for their poor brother or father or coworker or whatever

blackwoolncrown

then they're like 'well it was the only way to afford a house!' like that's not literally admitting you can be bought to do imperialist horrors. You still consented, hoe!

chasingtheskyline

"Joining an exploitative and imperialist organization was the only way I could have financial security" is not consent, though.

The military preys on poor people. Not acknowledging that and framing it as "consent" is both bad theory and bad praxis.

blackwoolncrown

The military can prey on poor people AND people consented.

We're all sitting here renting bc we're too 'poor' to buy a home.

Someone rolls up and offers you the chance at a house in exchange for engaging in imperialism and maybe even killing people and you take it?

You decided that you deserved to be a homeowner and the price could be paid in other people's lives.

A lot of poor ppl don't make that choice. It's actually more relevant to talk about the military trying to get ppl at 18 if you wanted to gotcha us about this.

At the end of the day, tons of 'poor' ppl DON'T make this choice and inscription numbers are down bc it IS a choice. I'm not about to infantilize someone for deciding the imperial bait was worth the fucking hook.

chasingtheskyline

Is manufactured consent actually consent? If you coerce someone into doing something by lying to them about the needs and benefits of their actions, did they do it willingly?

Few veterans actually got what they were promised. We were also lied to frequently about the purpose of the war as defensive. It was bait. But consent was manufactured, and you can't ignore that without being highly reductive.

blackwoolncrown

"Few veterans actually got what they were promised"

Again. They were promised something few have, in exchange for WAR.

That they got rug pulled only goes to show 'play stupid games, win stupid prizes'.

I still believe vets deserve care and rights but the fact of the matter is, someone said "Hey do you want more money/property than the average person in exchange for helping us do a war?" and they said yes.

The benefits could have been a steak to a house to a million dollars. You're missing the point. The exchange on THEIR end was supporting a war machine and they thought that was worth it.

again, to gloss over that to suggest that it's just too easy to talk someone into this (when again, numbers are down bc loads of ppl keep not choosing it) is disingenuous as hell. Do you think all the other people saying 'no' are some kind of unusual christ figures?

chasingtheskyline

Do you not believe home ownership to be something that should be guaranteed by a country?

I'm not saying America doesn't have a massive inequality problem that enabled this to happen. They were sold a good deal. The lies people still tell about military operations in the Middle East fuel the story that continues to emerge in recruiting circles to manufacture consent.

None of these people were Christlike, or whatever the fuck. They committed murder. But they were coerced into thinking what they were doing was proportionate revenge to justify that murder. And they were promised something few have, but which many believe to be a right, to get there. Frequently they were promised it before they were 18.

blackwoolncrown

You are particularly thick in the empathy department so I'm going to try and spell this out for you...

People SHOULD have access to home ownership (but first let us remember this is all stolen land).

However, they currently don't have financial access to it. Most people rent, and fewer and fewer people have the means to remedy this because of our economic situation.

So in theory, you, your neighbors, your friends, your townfolk, they all rent.

Someone asks you 'do you want to have what no one around you has? I can give it to you, but you have to help me invade and control other countries and even kill people'.

And you decided that you, yourself, personally, should have access to what is clearly systemically restricted for the low low price of war. That was a fair price to get out ahead of everyone else. That's the answer you decided on.

I don't know what family member you're trying to rationalize for but at the end of the day actions have consequences.

If someone talked you into imperial violence for a golden goose I'm still going to point out that you said a golden goose was a fair exchange for imperialism and your sword in a war.

If you're big enough to be a soldier for a house you're big enough to withstand fucking criticism and moral consequences.

blackwoolncrown

@chasingtheskyline

Addition: You're admittedly white so I really don't think you're going to get this soon, nor am I interested in investing any further energy into a person from a group of people who have systematically sought so consistently to rationalize mindless violence while upholding a concept of inherent innocence. Best of luck with your life. Blocked.

icedsodapop

It's frustrating whenever White American leftists pull out the whole sob story of the US military targeting poor people, becos so what? Poor Americans who signed up for the military still made an active choice to displace and harm poor Black and Brown pple overseas for money. They are still class traitors and a boot is still a fucking boot.

Also, most Americans who sign up for the military are middle-class. The whole "pple who join the American military are mostly forced to join becos of poverty" is literally a myth becos it allows Americans to not have to contend with what the US military actually does overseas and why most American servicepple wanted to sign up for the military in the first place:

Deployed around the world, the armed forces are a pillar of U.S. power and influence abroad. But many civilians are unfamiliar with their co

#save

guelwaar

person who doesn't like going to clubs and bars: i don't have good options for meeting new people because i don't like clubs and bars

person who met all of their friends by knowing other friends and not by going to public places and talking to random strangers: have you tried cafés and libraries?

guelwaar

this poser antipsych guy i have class with just told me he “determined [his friend] wasn’t autistic thru observation and interview” . and like. basically checked it against the dsm and decided but said that they should probably get tested by a professional later. this guy who is Proudly Antipsych 😭😭 he’s constantly referencing the dsm criteria for everything. like he talks about the dsm and how cool it is all the time. i fear the word is losing meaning

i talk about antipsych as having two major component positions: an epistemological critique of the knowledge-claims that psychiatry makes, and an ethical critique of its motives and rewards for making such knowledge-claims. to me these two positions go hand in hand and mutually inform one another, but plenty of people are persuaded by one and not the other, or are familiar with one and lack facility with the other.

people who advance an epistemological antipsych argument without an accompanying ethical critique will tend to focus on psychiatry's chronic lack of empirical evidence, its inability to even settle on a consensus position re: the degree to which 'brain disease' is an essentially metaphorical way of speaking vs a number of actual biological entities, the vagueness and overlap of clinical psychiatric symptom lists, etc. however, without an accompanying ethico-political analysis of the role and purpose of psy-sciences in capitalist society, these people may also turn around and argue that psychiatrised people are therefore faking/malingering, are lazy, are simply being told they're 'special', need to pull up their bootstraps and be normal, etc. think of eg thomas szász

on the other hand people who make an ethical critique of psychiatry without a firm epistemological grasp of what they're talking about will tend to express opposition to practices like medical incarceration, coercive treatment, ruling a patient unable to consent, etc; however, they may still agree that the dsm labels are identifying 'real' dysfunction/defects, and the trick is simply to design a more compassionate system to deal with such people. especially this attitude tends to come out wrt diagnoses considered more 'severe' such as schizophrenia, bipolar 1, or other presentations with psychosis; it's also popular in these circles to claim that xyz psych diagnoses (often autism, but not exclusively) are different because they are 'neurotypes'/developmental disorders/cognitive disabilities/etc. you can imagine how this might become a popular position in an effort to preempt the type of epistemological critique described above with its corollary assertion that the distress or dysfunction reported by psychiatrised people must not be 'real', because it's not empirically evidenced.

imo plenty of people holding versions of these two positions are genuinely committed to antipsych as they define the term, which is why arguing with them baffles them so much. but these critiques will never amount to anything until an understanding of what's wrong morally is integrated with an understanding of what's wrong philosophically in the psychiatric system

#antipsych

innerchildabortionclinic

this had me laughing

cleaningouttherooms

ok I got a take. recently I came upon this post on my dash that posited autistic people are more at risk of being overexploited at work and it had reblogs by autistic people claiming their interest in the themes they work with was taken advantage of and they had considerably higher workload than their peers because their superiors also noticed they could work for hours on end and that one day they finally got burnt out and it was brutal. The post also claims employers don't like hiring autistic people because they require a good justification for doing any task and that autonomy is disconcerting for their bosses. Then came other autistic people who added this isn't always the case and many autistic people have the opposite problem and don't question things a lot, which again makes them more at risk. So not only is the diagnosis supposed to encompass two opposite ends of a spectrum but burnout, exploitation at work and huge workloads for the more "productive" employees suddenly becomes an autistic exceptionality and not the norm that actually affects "neurotypicals" just as much and how that says a lot more about capitalism than it does about any neurodivergence. the post was so misguided it hurt. sometimes psychiatrized people see others as NPCs and trying to argue with "everyone can experience this" leads nowhere because then they will talk about intensity and frequency and oppresion and deny the reality that others can and often go through the same shit and it's just as bad and they're not being singled out due to autism everytime. in the post, many people reblogging didn't even suspect of the diagnosis when exploitation was happening, only years later. so they truly are working under the impression this is some inherent trait to them that will make them vulnerable even to people who don't know or suspect the diagnosis

the problem in those posts is that they use the term "autistic" to describe 1. a person who was diagnosed with asperger's as a young child and managed to graduate high school and get a job 2. a person who was diagnosed as a young child, is nonverbal, struggles to live independently and is immediately identified as autistic by anyone they meet 3. a person who was diagnosed as an adult but was psychiatrized and/or criminalized in other ways since childhood or 4. a person who has never had any interaction with the psych system whatsoever but recognizes themselves in the term autistic, and many other types. and you in fact cannot make any statement on the employment status of autistic people that applies to all of those people because autistic is not a coherent term or concept at all.

saying "autistic people are more at risk of being overexploited at work" to mean "having a formal diagnosis or being visibly disabled makes you easier to exploit since you have fewer employment options and can be fired very easily" is correct. but if by that you mean "any person that recognizes themselves under the label autistic will have a harder time finding and keeping employment than Neurotypicals" then that is a completely meaningless statement lol. any analysis of autism (/psychiatrization) and employment that rests on a supposed "mode of functioning" will immediately fail.

every couple weeks a post like this goes around that says "[diagnosis] people are more likely to [x] or more easy to [y]!" and then someone responds "that's not true, not all [diagnosis] people do [x] or are [y], that's a misconception!". meanwhile the possibility that the diagnosis being discussed is not at all a coherent category or does not in any way describe any inherent property is never brought up.

#antipsych

why is my bear so miserable

Hi! I was wondering, do you have any thoughts on the concept of ‘hypersexuality’ from a psych abolition perspective?

it's bad, it has no grounding on any real notion of 'normal' sexuality because there is no such thing, it fails to account for the way shame around sexuality arises from the cultural context rather than from the sex acts in themselves, it's grounded in eugenic and natalist moral panics about the wrong people having too many children and the right people having too few, it's grounded in additional moral panics about the idea women could find sexual fulfillment outside the confines of the bourgeois marriage as an economic unit of capitalist production, &c

#antipsych

cleaningouttherooms

it's so funny that patients diagnosed with BPD are so often told that the condition is treatment-resistant and that SSRIs and other psych meds "typically don't work" with them in a way that is specifically because of BPD (the implication being to try CBT or other psychotherapies instead). like I can see that you are an unruly patient who questions authority. therefore your identifying that meds are not helping and are making you feel worse are due to a difference in your brain chemistry. definitely would not want you to apply this framework to other patients and interrogate psych meds and the system as a whole. instead, try talking to someone who will convince you that the source of the problem is how you choose to react to violence, abuse and injustice 🤷🏻‍♂️

cleaningouttherooms

@girlcalledwhatsername exactly - and again it's crucial to blame it on an issue inherent to the patient to dismiss any input they might have! the specificity of what exactly the issue is can be tailored to anything the situation requires

#antipsych

cleaningouttherooms

it’s surely been said before and in much better terms but i almsot never see posts about this specific issues so

i don’t really see the point of the word “neurotypical” the way we’re using it now

1. an autistic non-schyzophrenic person and a schyzophrenic allistic person, for instance have… very little in common ? and their experiences in society are going to be widely different.

2. yeah, they’re going to be treated as “different” and “crazy”. so is every trans person, or sexually-active women, or gender-non-conforming people, to name a few…

3. mental illnesses/divergence are not har-and-fast categories - and sufferign from depression or anxiety during a time of your life does not mean you will your entire life, so, like are you neurotypical ?

4. obviously, marginalized people are affected by the system in a way that makes it impossible to be totally neurotypical or considered “sane”

#antipsych

cleaningouttherooms

I don't agree that neurotypical is even useful as a descriptor of social material forces tbh. I don't think it has any explaining power. it's true that none of those terms describe any ontological property but neurotypical, by its nature as a term arising from the neurodiversity paradigm, implies a "mode of functioning" or a "neurotype" that is inside the norm, which does not even, incidentally, tell you how easily this person can fulfill productivity expectations. thinking of people as "neurotypical" and "neurodivergent" is a liberalism in the same vein as seeing someone get arrested by the police and saying "and also, they were having a mental health episode!". it's espousing narratives about what people are sane and insane, can or cannot be trusted, are or are not threats.

now when you talk of "psychiatrized" and "non-psychiatrized" you are referring to a specific dynamic being imposed by a system of power. I know a lot of people use neurotypical to mean "can (for now) fly under the radar enough to avoid having their autonomy stripped" but naming it explicitly as to what degree the structure of psychiatry affects your life avoids implying anything about the interiority of the person it describes. it's also more clarifying for cases where someone, for example, does not particularly struggle to be functional according to expectations for most of their life, until a particularly hard life event makes them unable to get out of bed; they weren't psychiatrized then, they are now. i can't say i've ever met a neurotypical person (by which I mean the widely accepted definition of "does not and has never experienced debilitating sadness, worry, or alienation from others"), but i've met plenty of non-psychiatrized people - and plenty of ways and extents to be psychiatrized, from simply being prescribed antidepressants to being incarcerated for years.

I know that this is the exact same way that a lot of people use "cis" too - as an inherent property that people are born with - but I do think there is a wider movement to demedicalize transness and understand it as a relation contingent to the current gender structure. for psychiatric diagnoses this is not at all the case. the vast majority of people, including in circles critical of psychiatry, think of those diagnoses as an inherent property of a person ("neurotype") that is then unfairly maligned and oppressed by the establishment, instead of a post hoc imposition. which is how we arrive at understandings where people think of "neurotypicals" as a real class of person, essentially NPCs with no interiority and no struggles. sanity is not demanded, productivity is. those are deeply tied, but it's also possible to be awkward, unsettling, bad at social cues to some extent, and remain non-psychiatrized because you are able to work (or have the resources necessary to not need to) and live alone without attracting attention. moving away from using "neurotypical" at all, in any context serves to highlight the powers at play.

#antipsych

thebelovedlion

transmutationisms

i always felt like moralizing about children becoming more adapted to phone by “shortening attention span” or whatever was especially silly because maybe children are adapting to phone because… phone is a vitally important tool in society now and that’s not likely to change anytime soon? they’re literally just adapting to their environment? like just because you think it shouldn’t be that way doesn’t mean it isn’t (coming from someone who has never had a cell phone)

yeah i mean, i think it can be edifying to point out the ways in which this brand of technophobia oversimplifies or just fabricates psychological research, but the political response is arguably even more fundamental. so much of this anxiety about the supposedly deleterious effects of phones (or social media or chat gpt or whatever else) really hinges on assumptions about particular reading practices and skills being uniquely valuable, morally salubrious, indicative of 'intelligence', etc. it's worth asking ourselves where this defensiveness comes from... attention, focus, etc always vary depending on our lives and needs; we talk about these things like fixed psychological characteristics that the smartphone is newly and uniquely threatening to destroy, but in reality they are context-dependent and have always varied (over time, between person, in the same person over time, etc). i don't assume any changes catalysed or reinforced by smartphones etc are inherently good but i also don't assume they're inherently bad; i especially don't assume they're some kind of urgent irreversible damage to the human psyche, because i don't assume that any one particular skill or mode of attention or whatever is universal or necessary to human existence

#tech

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

🫧