KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
Oh Shit, we have a tankie.
what's a tankie?
Oh Shit, we have a tankie.
Commie apologist.what's a tankie?
Still not as good as commies from my young times.Their talk was something like tis :Commie apologist.
dictators are kings with a post industrial revolution skin and none of the romanticism of medieval era nostalgia so we'd have to get rid of that too.
Did you know Stalin's regime declared homosexuality a sign of fascism, the same way Hitler's claimed it was caused by socialism?
Because murderers who want to tell other people how to live their lives are pretty much the same.
That is why I noted "feudal monarchy", although I should note that even other types of premodern monarchies (e.g. Byzantine Empire etc.) were nothing like 20th century absolutist dictatorships. In some ways, modern democracy is closer to said dictatorships than traditional monarchies were, especially when it comes to powers, extent and influence of state apparatus in people's lives.
surrreee and the war crimes committed by the Mongolians were over exaggerations too.
Look at what British (parliamentary monarchy), Americans (democratic republic) etc. did in war. Such stuff is par the course, though Mongls were unusually brutal by standards of the time (half the population of China died during conquest). But Mongols, once they conquered you, were actually not that bad overlords... as long as you didn't resist or rebel. There was none of the "oh, I just killed couple million of my subjects by accident / by intent / for sh*t and giggles" so prevalent under Nazis and various Communist regimes. In fact, life improved for Chinese peasants under Mongols.
I am well aware of the controversies and inadequacies surrounding psychiatry and psychology; just as I'm sure you're aware of those that have surrounded religion. You will find no argument from me against the idea that Psychology, as it is practiced today, falls short of the descriptor; in that those who practice it are often more interested in engineering society than studying the mind and how it works. My contention is that's not the core intent of the field, and to imply otherwise, accusing Psychology of inherently being a threat to one's spirituality, as Zoe did, is intellectually dishonest.You are apparently not terribly familiar with the history of psychiatry and psychology as often practiced. Many schools of thought in these disciplines have been farm from scientific, and little more than 'scientists' attempting to justify what they want to be true, and often trying to program people into behaving how the 'scientist' thinks that humans should be.
Sigmund Freud, with his sexual issues, is one of the most infamous cases of this, but it's far from the only one. There was that article recently about an inmate in Juvie was given female hormones involuntarily to try to make his behavior more like what the people running the facility thought was 'right,' and he grew breasts as a result. This is a far from unique occurrence, where psychologists or psychiatrists try to control people through manipulation of their brains and bodies.
I consider Psychology an absolutely crucial discipline, that pretty much everybody should have a basic grounding in. I also have an intense distrust of many of the practitioners therein, because they're not actually out for the patient's well-being, they're in it to grind their philosophical and ideological axe.
I am well aware of the controversies and inadequacies surrounding psychiatry and psychology; just as I'm sure you're aware of those that have surrounded religion. You will find no argument from me against the idea that Psychology, as it is practiced today, falls short of the descriptor; in that those who practice it are often more interested in engineering society than studying the mind and how it works. My contention is that's not the core intent of the field, and to imply otherwise, accusing Psychology of inherently being a threat to one's spirituality, as Zoe did, is intellectually dishonest.
Honestly, I don't think even Zoe knows what her intent was when she wrote that; she has something of a history of saying things without considering their full implications first. For example; that time she announced she was a fascist, or that time she floated the idea of punishing anyone who said things regarding the Corona Virus she didn't want them to say.I think you're misreading Zoe's intent.
Also, I'm curious as to how you would define the 'core intent' of a 'field'?
Honestly, I don't think even Zoe knows what her intent was when she wrote that; she has something of a history of saying things without considering their full implications first. For example; that time she announced she was a fascist, or that time she floated the idea of punishing anyone who said things regarding the Corona Virus she didn't want them to say.
As for the core intent of the field of Psychology, it's the scientific study of the mind and behavior; of conscious and unconscious phenomena. Not of how to "engineer the human soul".
New York Post said:The results came from Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs survey, conducted earlier this month and released Wednesday, which found that only 34 percent of responders believed trans athletes should be able to play on sports teams that match their gender identity.
On the other side of the issue, 62 percent said trans athletes should only be allowed to play on sports teams that matched their gender at birth.
Four percent said they had no opinion.
However, Americans took a different position with regard to serving in the armed forces.
Sixty-six percent said they favored allowing openly transgender men and women to serve in the military.
That number is down from 2019, when 71 percent said they were in favor.
The biggest drop, Gallup noted, came from independents.
“Political independents, meanwhile, have become less supportive than they were in 2019 — down 12 percentage points. Still, two in three self-identifying independents favor allowing openly trans people to serve.”
I suspect most Americans are more ok with trans military members than trans athletes because the ones who join the military are volunteering to potentially get shot at.I don't support trans military members either, unlike most Americans, apparently.
Exactly. The military is not a competition. A trans soldier doesn't generally take the money and accolades that should rightfully belong to a biological woman, like it is in sports.I suspect most Americans are more ok with trans military members than trans athletes because the ones who join the military are volunteering to potentially get shot at.
With athletes: Someone FtM could easily be perceived as "a girl playing with the boys" and most people aren't going to make too much of a fuss about that. Someone MtF, on the other hand, is going to get a whole lot instictive "he's cheating" pushback unless the sport is one guys and gals already play with or against each other on even terms.
Given trans people's tendency towards suicide or self-harm, I question if letting them have access to all sorts of firearms and weaponry is a good idea. Well, that and it makes our military look like a jokeExactly. The military is not a competition. A trans soldier doesn't generally take the money and accolades that should rightfully belong to a biological woman, like it is in sports.
If men and women were about the same size and shape the reproductive organs an athelete has wouldn't matter. They're not: men are substantially larger and stronger.Exactly. The military is not a competition. A trans soldier doesn't generally take the money and accolades that should rightfully belong to a biological woman, like it is in sports.