(Me, remembering the fall of the Soviet Union.)
My take is that if the group at large keeps making the same stupid mistakes over and over again in rapid succession, time itself isn't experienced properly or rather in a narrativizable-enough manner to relate to sensibly.
When everyone goes through the 'Groundhog Day' effect at the same time, no one in the group can adequately make reference to time progressing in a logical, sequential order and years may pass nearly completely unnoticed.
For instance, if I took a movie and kept repeating a certain section of it 50 times in a row, and you know that it should progress a little bit in some meaningful way, you'd begin to notice less and less each time it reoccured unless you're really locked in. Even to describe it, you probably wouldn't relay the scene back to me using the same description each time, you'd just say, 'and the scene repeated 50 times' and no new information would be necessary (or possible). Even if you were locked in, if there were no changes to the scene each time, what could you possibly tell me about the repeated scene without repeating yourself?
I would mentally check out from the description of the scene just as I would to the scene itself.
Many have warned about the boy who cries wolf but few dare speak about the girl who cries boy.
Considering the volume of each how do they have time to do both?
> why do our one-dimensional games keep losing money?
*surprised pikachu*
This really isn't about parents though, it's about getting the parents to inform on their own children if they're acting American.
If it goes forward, no one with a head on their shoulders would talk to their relatives unless they knew their ideological frameworks coincide.
Divide isolate eliminate. It's what they do.
For any fans of 80's Asian history: a recollection of a precursor to the Chinese Student Protests.
There were multiple racially motivated attacks against African students between 1985 and 1986, and the Chinese police would arrive but not protect the students. In 1988, officials in Hehai University built a wall around the foreign students hall, ostensibly to protect against theft, but actually to ensure that African students did not bring Chinese women to their rooms. When the African students knocked down the wall, the university officials informed them that funds from their stipend would be docked in order to pay for the damages, and the students staged demonstrations. It was during this tumult that the university decided on December 24, the day of the Christmas Eve dance, that all foreign students must register their guests at the university gate. Two African students, from Benin and Liberia, wanted to bring two Chinese girls with them to the dance, and went to the main gate at Hehai. After that, what actually happened is bitterly disputed, as illustrated by two passages in Michael Sullivan’s article:
[T]he entrance guard asked the two girls to register, the two African students and refused to let them do so. At that point, several other African students came over and started a quarrel with the entrance guard. In the ensuing brawl, eleven staff members were injured, one of them seriously, including a university vice-president who had one of his ribs broken when he tried to persuade the combatants to stop fighting.
The African students … claim that the security guard permitted them and their guests to enter the campus after he saw the women’s Hong Kong passports. When the Benin student later returned to the front gate to wait for another Chinese friend, a group of heckling Chinese students attacked him, chanting “Black Devil, you must respect the laws of China!” and “What do you want, Black Devil?” The African students then ran to the foreign students’ hall to inform their friends of this attack after which several African students “began to arm themselves with wooden sticks, empty Jinling beer bottles and stones.”
African students faced difficult choices some 30 years later. Kaiser Kuo had been in Beijing during that winter and had heard about the protests, and he graciously took to the time to share his recollections in a personal email correspondence, from Washington DC, on December 20th, 2012:
I was actually in Beijing in the winter of 1988-1989, not in Nanjing, but there were some anti-African protests that spread to Beijing as well, and there was (back in those days, without the Internet or any more reliable means of transmission) all sorts of confusion as to where the actual events took place to spark anti-African demonstrations …
… We kept hearing stories, filtered of course through a very unsympathetic international student crowd, that they started simply because some African students in Nanjing (other versions said Hangzhou, and sometimes these stories were repeated with Beijing as the setting) had taken some Chinese girls to a dance and weren’t allowed in, or had trouble with the security or with male Chinese students at the door. These stories escalated into tales about fistfights, about sexual assaults, even about a woman who was supposed to have been (in the exact words I was told) “fucked to death” by African men whose penises were too large for her, so she bled out. I was very skeptical, and was horrified when there were actual marches in Beijing protesting against African students.
Incidentally, there appeared to be a connection between the Nanjing Anti-African Protests and Tiananmen in 1989, as it fused nationalism, racism, gender and youth movement into a powerful force.
Note: this is from an article pushing back against "anti-black violence in China."
*opening scene*
> "Yeah no fucking way."
*drinks both poisons*
*~fin~*
Let's pretend words represent things instead of them being things in and of themselves.
Pregnancy isn't what is aborted, the embryo is. If you destroy the embryo once fertilized, it is abortion, no matter what environment it is in when it is aborted, no matter whether or not it has been inside of a womb.
If they are frozen and still viable my definition has not changed.
If they are frozen and are not viable, then yes, they are aborted without ever having been inside of a body.
Under your definition, if you put your glasses on and look really closely, giving birth itself is abortion because it "terminates the pregnancy."
Problem with your definition: a pregnancy doesn't cause an embryo.
Abortion refers to the event which caused the state of pregnancy.
Wrong: "I am pregnant therefore I have an embryo inside me!"
Right: "I have an embryo inside me therefore I am pregnant!"
The state of pregnancy is over once the embryo is aborted.
Pregnancy ends as a consequence of aborting an embryo.
> Increase diameter by 1mm
> Still misses heart by .5mm
Sworn enemies reeled in their catch from opposite banks; the fish each blamed the other for their hooks.
Not even a minute in my family has a blow up if I mention anything like this. We don't talk much anymore.
What was the argument besides 'white=bad'? I really don't want to rewatch that again ever in my life.
Piggyback: stay aware of anyone that you don't know very well who is more interested than usual in where you are and what you're doing, assessing habits or routine movements.
Take note of anyone who is 'steering' you where you don't want to go. Avoid them if you can and let someone else that you trust know about the situation if you think it is a bit 'off.'
Kissinger cajoled, lied, and manipulated. In the end, he got what he wanted: a deal that gave Israel its most peaceful border until the Syrian civil war changed the game. He also achieved an American monopoly on Arab-Israeli negotiations that abandoned comprehensive peacemaking in favor of what he called “step-by-step” diplomacy. The steps led to the Lebanese civil war, Israel’s many invasions of Lebanon, the creation of Hezbollah and the expulsion of Israel from Lebanon, unrestricted Israeli colonization of the West Bank, the Palestinians’ intifada uprisings, and the continuing degradation of Palestinian life. Indeed, the situation is worse than it was when Kissinger left Harvard for government service in 1969.
The Middle East may seem a minor infraction compared to Kissinger’s crimes in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Bangladesh, Chile, Cyprus, and East Timor. The man who advised Nixon to deploy “anything that flies on anything that moves” in Cambodia was photographed in May sitting beside another American president, whose policies are dangerous enough without advice from the old desperado. My late friend Christopher Hitchens, whose book “The Trial of Henry Kissinger” presents sufficient evidence for an indictment, wrote in 2010, “Henry Kissinger should have the door shut in his face by every decent person and should be shamed, ostracized, and excluded. No more dinners in his honor; no more respectful audiences for his absurdly overpriced public appearances; no more smirking photographs with hostesses and celebrities; no more soliciting of his worthless opinions by sycophantic editors and producers.”
His birth was indeed unfortunate.
tacitly accept the demoralizing subversion of reality or else you'll never work again
Why not are you at glorious work station today?
Go back to reddit, shill.
and then added nothing else.
What was I supposed to add? It explains the phenomena fairly clearly regarding the OP. I had nothing to say about the replies you were going to leave. I could have maybe estimated the potential amount of disgust you would have had from seeing a marxist's name and perhaps I could have altered it to remove the triggering element you found displeasurable.
The point made in the passage itself is key when the left begins its desire to throw 'invalid' political entities in reeducation camps.
Did you see the comment I was replying to? The topic of the post this comment is under? Pointing out the flaws of the left from the leftist perspective illustrates the hypocrisy more clearly.
You understand the difference between a meth head stabbing people at a bus stop and a person with a different political opinion being thrown into a psych ward, right? Because that was the first example you used in a post about the example I just compared it with in the last sentence, the topic of the OP.
Can you define what your point was? Because from my perspective, it just seemed like you're totally fine with the state going after differing political views by comparing them to actual psychotics. "No man, we need to ensure the state has ultimate control, bro." is what I read in your comments. Just read through them again and I can't not see it that way.
Go read my comment in reference to the OP and you'll begin to understand why I posted it:
I reject the notion that the state should be able to censor or imprison people for political opinions.
Am I to understand that because Cooper was a Marxist that the above bolded statement should be abandoned?
Did the scary man at the bus stop make you want to use the state to enforce your will on others?
The other poster made no argument from which a strawman could be derived. I posted source material from a psychiatrist and he hand waved it away using a bus stop generalization and Terry Davis as anecdotal examples. I countered with almost identical counterpositions of similar weight and dialectical style.
without any context about them as a person
What you have done in this small snippet is exactly what schizophrenia is in most cases. I mean, the rest of that sentence is just you making shit up trying to categorize shit you barely even understand, to use your words.
It's much safer for most people to hold onto the belief that schizophrenia is purely a genetic disorder and not a sociopolitical designation of someone incapable of being placed into the machinery of industry without a mental or linguistic collapse. Without any change to our population, I predict that with the increase of 'socialism' there will be identical increases in the rates of 'schizophrenia' - just as it was in the USSR.
Heck, I know a 'schizophrenic' that is only deemed so because he was going to expose a secret that his brother kept from their family and it was more expedient to just have him committed rather than his brother losing his job, his wife and his kids. The brother with the secret is much more 'insane' than the brother who 'has schizophrenia'.
People's denial about the continuing abuse of X doesn't invalidate that X is still being abused.
If you don't care about how a person comes to a state of mind that scares you, you should have no say in what happens to that person or what they are called because you are acting from an emotional state of fear and ignorance.
I have not. Do you recommend?
Schizophrenic symptoms are virtually whatever makes the family unbearably anxious about the tentatively independent behavior of one of its offspring. These behavioral signs usually involved issues such as aggression, sexuality, and generally any form of autonomous self-assertion. These signs may well be the customary expression of the needs of an adolescent person, but, in certain families, even these are quite unacceptable and must, if necessary by some desperate means, be invalidated. A most respectable and readily available form of invalidation is to call such behavior 'ill'. The ill patient is then removed from the family, with the co-operation of various social and medical agents, and the family is left to mobilize all of its resources into pitying itself for the tragedy that has befallen it. Befallen it, of course, due to the hand of God which moves inexplicably and without relation to the actual needs of other people in the family.
The process of getting rid of someone is, of course, denied, usually by some form of assertion of the inherent peculiar badness and madness of certain individuals. This denial, which operates both in the family and in the wider society, is that most sterile, tortuous and yet all-pervasive piece of social illogic, the negation of the negation. The steps of the process are as follows: First, there is a negative act, an act of invalidation of a person by others; this may involved diagnostic labelling, passing sentence, physically removing the person from his social context: second (concurrently, rather than chronologically after), this negative act is denied in various ways; it is held that the person has invalidated himself or has been invalidated by his inherent weaknesses or disease process, other persons have nothing much to do with the matter. By means of this double negation the social group conceals its praxis from itself. The 'good', 'sane' people, who define themselves as such by defining certain of their number as 'mad' and 'bad' and then extruding them from the group, maintain a safe and comfortable homeostasis by this lie about a lie. The elected scapegoats often collide with this process, often finding that the only way they can feel needed by others or confirmed in a definite enough identity is by taking a mad or bad social role.
— David G. Cooper, psychiatrist, 1967
UMC is definitely corrupted beyond repair.
It's fairly widespread but there is not an even split as to how it is experienced.
Those who do notice report that it feels a bit weird (an understatement, frankly), like time became disjunct in roughly around 2020, and those who don't notice seemingly completely accept the lack of novel social input since (and probably weren't paying very much attention to time in any meaningful sense prior to The Event anyway).
There is a fierce rigidity in those who don't notice relative to their nonacceptance that anything seems off, a complete rejection of any event unfoldment which had altered the social machine known as 'the public.' Furthermore, metaphorically, the wheat and the chaff are now subliminally (and openly) arguing with each other about who is actually the wheat in this scenario, which is why each group perceives the other to be acting a bit 'off.'
I've seen some on the left call for reeducation camps and some on the right calling for asylums to be reopened, and neither is a great sign of the times to come if we can't have honest conversations about what actually happened and what that happening has done to the public's psyche.