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.
Perhaps influenza H1N1 was a virus created in a laboratory that got out of control, originally being meant as a military weapon.
Perhaps tomorrow there will be fish flu, because sometimes we produce viruses by controlling them. It is a commercial business. Capitalist companies produce viruses so that they can generate and sell vaccinations. That is very shameful and poor ethics. Vaccinations and medicine should not be sold. In The Green Book, I maintain that medicines should not be sold or subject to commercialization. Medicines should be free of charge and vaccinations given free to children, but capitalist companies produce the viruses and vaccinations and want to make a profit. Why are they not free of charge? We should give them free of charge, and not sell them.
— Muammar Gaddafi (1942-2011), 64th UN General Assembly, 2009
Apologies if I've posted this before:
From Reason and Violence, R.D. Laing & D.G. Cooper, 1964:
The survival group is first a practical invention in each of the permanence of a common unity through each other. It is freedom wishing to become inert, praxis seeking a way of metamorphosing itself into exis [a way out]. When a multiplicity of freedoms makes common praxis in order to find a basis of the permanence of the group, it produces by itself a form of reciprocity mediated by its own inertia. This new form of reciprocity Sartre calls the pledge. The pledge takes different forms. The historical act is not the necessary form of the pledge. It can be seen as the resistance of the survival group against separationist action, whether of going away or differentiation; as guarantee of the future through a lack of change produced in the group by freedom. Paradoxically, as provision of stability, as promise of permanence, and so forth, it affords the basis of all separation and differentiation. The pledge, however, is not a social contract, in Rousseau's sense, but the necessary passage from an immediate form of the group in danger of dissolution to another more reflective permanent form.
The pledge, as an invention of praxis, is the affirmation by the thirds of the permanence of the group as negation of its permanent possibility of negation through the multiplicity of alterity [the state of being different]. The threat to the permanence of the group is, of course, not necessarily the physical extermination of its members. By the pledge the group seeks to make itself its own instrument against seriality, which threatens it with dissolution.
The pledge is not a subjective determination. It is a real modification of the group by my regulative action. It is my guarantee to the others that it is impossible for serial alterity to be introduced into the group through me. This guarantee cannot, however, annul the permanent possibility that I can 'freely', that is, by my individual praxis, abandon my post, go over to the enemy. Treason and desertion can never be annulled as possibilities, but I have sworn my loyalty, I have given my pledge as guarantee against this exercise of my own freedom. I seek to utilize my own and everyone else's presence in the group as a third, as regulator, as my common-being, as a fact that cannot be transcended. I seek to convert my free being-in-the-group into an exigency that there is no way through or round, by the invention, as far as it is possible, of an inorganic, non-dialectical, rigid future. This rigid substantiation of my future is endowed with the triple characteristics of being the exigence, container, and ground of all my subsequent praxis. But there is no new dialectic.
Now, thus far two developments of the group-in-fusion have been distinguished for clarity—survival group and pledged group. We must now consider more closely the intelligibility of the pledge. The individual and the group praxis of the group-in-fusion have been seen to be comprehensible. Is the re-invention of the pledge in defined circumstances a process that is dialectical and comprehendible? The pledge becomes intelligible as the common action of the group on itself. We said above that the group undergoes a transformation in and through the common action of the pledge. How then does the unity of the group-in-fusion compare with that of the pledge group? The former is a fusion in the face of material danger. In this fusion, real work is done. In the pledge group, on the other hand, nothing material binds the members, the danger is not real, it is only possible. The origin of the pledge is anxiety. Once the real menace from outside has passed, the danger to the permanence of the group is from dispersion and seriality. A reflexive fear arises.
There is not enough to fear to keep the group together now that the danger seems remote. The condition of the permanence of the group is thus the negation of the absence of fear. Fear must be reinvented. The fundamental reinvention, at the heart of the pledge, is the project of substituting a real fear, produced by the group itself, for the external fear that is becoming remote, and whose very remoteness is suspected as deceptive. And this fear as free product and corrective action of the group against serial dissolution is terror induced by the violence of common freedom. Terror is the reign in the group of absolute violence on its members.
The essential basis for this transformation is the risk of death that each runs at the heart of the group as possible agent of dispersion. The pledge group is a common product of reciprocities mediated under the statute of violence. Through this form of unification, the being-in-the-group becomes a limit that can be breached only with the certitude of dying. [REMEMBER THIS WHEN READING THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THE PASSAGE BELOW]
Traced back to original praxis, man is in the position of absolute power of man over man. But in the vicissitudes of alienation, God can be substituted for the guillotine. The pledge, the oath of loyalty, backed up by violence, is the original free attempt to strike terror into each by each, in so far as it must constantly reactualize violence as the intelligible negation of individual freedom by common praxis.
This is the pledge. Its intelligibility is complete, since it is a question of a free transcendent of elements already given, towards an objective already posited. My pledge offers him and them a guarantee and invites violence as his and their right to suppress me if I default. By the same token the unmitigated pledge creates Terror, and invents treason, since there is now no excuse for defection. While the circumstances are not particularly constraining, I can remain on a level where violence-terror, loyalty-treachery, are not experienced in ultimate form. But the fundamental structure of the pledged group is violence-terror since I have freely consented to the possible liquidation of my person. My right over the other is my obligation to them, and contains in itself, implicitly, death as my possible destiny.
"Vaccination as biopolitics and social practice from the German Empire to the Federal Republic"
The initial reluctance to vaccinate evidently reflected a programmatic contradiction in Nazi health policy: the contrast between “racial hygiene” ideas that aimed at optimizing hereditary biology on the one hand; and a prevention policy on the other, which envisaged population and defense policy goals. More than ever, vaccination raised the question of how the “national body” should actually be understood and treated. Therefore, in the discussions since 1933, medical considerations have by no means been in the foreground. Rather, it was about the weighting of the needs of the "national comrade" compared to the requirements of the "national body" as well as threatening dangers from which the "national community" had to be protected. Answers to these questions seemed more urgent than ever “in view of the […] low risk of smallpox” 64 and the growing criticism of vaccination, as observed by the Reich Ministry of the Interior. Interior Minister Wilhelm Frick therefore assumed at the beginning of 1934 that a "revision of the vaccination law [...] would probably bring the conscience clause" 65. 66 This revision also makes sense because it takes “a far-reaching popular feeling into account” 67 so that previous measures against vaccination opponents “should be lifted as soon as possible” 68.
Such considerations formed the starting point of a commission in the Reich Ministry of the Interior, which worked on a revision of compulsory vaccination in March 1934. In this meeting, Johannes Breger from the Reich Health Office summed up the fundamental dilemma. If the motto used to be that possible damage to the individual was “the price” “with which the German people pay for their protection against smallpox” 69, then after the “seizure of power” one had to “check whether it corresponded to state ethics to demand such a sacrifice”. An examination is all the more urgent because "a large part of the German population rejects compulsory vaccination", as Ministerial Director Arthur Gütt from the Ministry of the Interior added. His colleague von Kapff took another step further, when he stylized the compulsory vaccination as a touchstone of the National Socialist world view: "Should the compulsory vaccination continue", "the majority of the people will doubt that in medical policy [...] National Socialist principles are decisive". Kapff received support from the President of the Dresden State Health Office, Weber, who saw “limited voluntariness” as a contemporary answer to the vaccination question. After all, “the conditions today are very different than they used to be. Thanks to the education of the National Socialist government, the people's views had changed so that more could be achieved voluntarily than previously with repeated forced vaccinations. Not all members of the commission could agree with this view. From Hamburg, Professor Paschen protested that the state was carelessly giving up its powers. Vaccination should “not be left to the discretion of the individual” but should “be enforced by law”.
The objection of the army medical inspector Anton Waldmann weighed more heavily. A personal decision of the "comrade" when vaccinating would contradict "the leader's principle" and thus increase the risk of epidemics "among the people", which "in the event of a future war forced upon us [...] would prevent the army from freedom of movement". At the end of the meeting, these military-political reasons led to the realization that there were still reservations about the abolition of compulsory vaccination. The commission therefore did not come to a conclusive conclusion, from which an important finding can be gained: in 1933 there was no concept ready for a main instrument of modern population policy. After the "seizure of power", an unusually open discussion was held about the modern precautionary measures70. The fact that the self-responsibility of the “national comrade” was an important argument, and that state coercion was even seen as a contradiction to National Socialist ethics, shows two things: the programmatic contradictions of health policy and the ambiguity about the legitimacy of state coercion vis-à-vis “national comrades”. One could summarize that vaccination mutated into a litmus test for the “consent dictatorship” 71 in the early phase of the “Third Reich”. After all, when it came to vaccinations, it was the “completely normal Germans” who one wanted to win for the “National Community”.
Add a mildly unintelligible word to a reasonable question to see if the person asks you what you meant.
If there's a group task, do something in an odd way, knowing it's not the most effective, to see if someone tries to 'correct' you.
Poisoning the well is one type of logical fallacy that occurs when negative information about a person is presented to an audience in an attempt to discredit the following arguments made by that person. It’s a variation of the ad hominem fallacy; it attacks directly the source of an argument instead of addressing the argument itself.
> why do our one-dimensional games keep losing money?
*surprised pikachu*