Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine #votebluenomatterwhat are you having fun al? are you having van al? gaolang > your fav i refuse to pay my taxes imagine thinking trump is the good guy is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? it's over for trump life goal sister harem loli mfw kamala harris can actually win real madrid tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you worst thread ever
It shows that we have made progress to fight racism since this is not acceptable today. :)
Also lets see :
I will need reliable sources for all of that. I'm not a Spain specialist, so I won't believe you until there are evidences. Also, a lot of things here are "They did that, but I did not see the impact or the reasons, so they obviously just did that to stay in power"... yeah.. I won't believe this kind of rethoric.
THose guys where close to his ideology, so yes, it logical. They were definitely not leftists.
I think you are confusing defending the elections and defending Maduro. The left do not necessarily defend Maduro.
Its not even Communist, its corrupted from all side. Maduro is trying to implement some leftist things but it seems that even he is corrupted. There are not saint in this arena.
How do you know that ? Do you have proof coming from an international investigation ?
I'm not saying its wrong. But what are the UNDENIABLE evidences ?
I did not say "left is good" I implied that the left was always on the left of the right side and ASIDE from obvious authoritarian gov on the left... the left will always be better than the right on every subjects.
And it still stand. If you are on the right side.. its really not targetting leftist will not be the bright move you think it is. Leftist on the other hand will be much more legitimate to do that.
But I know how to recognize a leftist when I see one. And I didn't see any here.
Again. Like Van, you are making the mistake than because I'm telling you that there are two clear side, you think that I'm telling you that there is no nuance.
This is not the case. Let me show you what I told to Van:
As you can see, two side, a dark and a bright one. BUT with nuance inside of them. And INSIDE those nuance (if you were to zoom in really close) you would find little cluster of color of the other side. Because even in the left, there are rightist biases and in the Right, there are progressive ideas.
My vision of politic.. in reality, in far for complex than you think. Its simply, clearly structured.
And for saying that. Its obvious that you are a [FIND YOUR LABEL HERE] and I'm not proud of you.
Also lets see :
I will need reliable sources for all of that. I'm not a Spain specialist, so I won't believe you until there are evidences. Also, a lot of things here are "They did that, but I did not see the impact or the reasons, so they obviously just did that to stay in power"... yeah.. I won't believe this kind of rethoric.
THose guys where close to his ideology, so yes, it logical. They were definitely not leftists.
I think you are confusing defending the elections and defending Maduro. The left do not necessarily defend Maduro.
Its not even Communist, its corrupted from all side. Maduro is trying to implement some leftist things but it seems that even he is corrupted. There are not saint in this arena.
How do you know that ? Do you have proof coming from an international investigation ?
I'm not saying its wrong. But what are the UNDENIABLE evidences ?
I did not say "left is good" I implied that the left was always on the left of the right side and ASIDE from obvious authoritarian gov on the left... the left will always be better than the right on every subjects.
And it still stand. If you are on the right side.. its really not targetting leftist will not be the bright move you think it is. Leftist on the other hand will be much more legitimate to do that.
But I know how to recognize a leftist when I see one. And I didn't see any here.
Again. Like Van, you are making the mistake than because I'm telling you that there are two clear side, you think that I'm telling you that there is no nuance.
This is not the case. Let me show you what I told to Van:
As you can see, two side, a dark and a bright one. BUT with nuance inside of them. And INSIDE those nuance (if you were to zoom in really close) you would find little cluster of color of the other side. Because even in the left, there are rightist biases and in the Right, there are progressive ideas.
My vision of politic.. in reality, in far for complex than you think. Its simply, clearly structured.
And for saying that. Its obvious that you are a [FIND YOUR LABEL HERE] and I'm not proud of you.
I know only me and probably @AL sama remember this, but the funniest convo I saw here was Logiko claiming anyone who owned a building is an oppressor. Al's family owns an apartment building and the back and forth was fucking priceless 
I know only me and probably @AL sama remember this, but the funniest convo I saw here was Logiko claiming anyone who owned a building is an oppressor. Al's family owns an apartment building and the back and forth was fucking priceless
he was also claiming everyone who owns a building is super rich despite me saying I m pretty much broke
lmfao yeah
he was also claiming everyone who owns a building is super rich despite me saying I m pretty much broke
he was also claiming everyone who owns a building is super rich despite me saying I m pretty much broke
People who owns building in Bangladesh will obviously not be as wealthy as people in France or the US as I don't see how you can be owning a building with appartments in the West, that you RENT (> it's important) and be broke.
But even without this notion, it don't change the fact that ...
I know only me and probably @AL sama remember this, but the funniest convo I saw here was Logiko claiming anyone who owned a building is an oppressor. Al's family owns an apartment building and the back and forth was fucking priceless
If owning a building is oppression then oppression is good and people should own more buildings.
Owning a building, is quite similar to being the boss of a business. But in this case, you are privatizing and exploiting the fundamental human right and human need need of people to have a roof over their head.
Again, its a form exploitation. I don't think I really talked about the word "oppression" at the time, but you can definitely talk about leeching.
People shouldn't own buildings, in no cases. And those people shouldn't be able to exploit the fear of other people who are afraid they they might not be able to pay a rent to have a roof over their head.
And if you ask me.. yes. This is a form of subtle oppression. From people who have economic capitals over people who don't.
No, that's how language works mate. It's a natural social process. Maybe I should add some linguistic ressources in the leftist library.
Wiki can be edited by random people, but all those edits are public. Which means that ALL the edits are controlled constantly by experts and specialist or people who value sources, which makes wikipedia the most reliable encyclopedia on the planet.
So you should really trust the article a minimum.
- If you want a study, there is this one that makes consensus and made what Anti-psychiatry what it is today:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4683124/
https://www.weber.edu/wsuimages/psychology/FacultySites/Horvat/OnBeingSaneInInsanePlaces.PDF
- Aside from that there is this one which observes a correlation between the rate of suicides and the level of psychiatric treatments:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24647741/
- Certain studies like this one confirmed a higher risk of suicide after an hospitalization without consent:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31162700/
https://www.madinamerica.com/2019/06/involuntary-hospitalization-increases-risk-suicide-study-finds/
- There is this one who observes an heterogeneity in psychiatric diagnostic and criteria that can prevent patient treatments
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165178119309114?via=ihub
"One of the main criticisms leveled against psychiatry concerns care without consent (the other concerns psychiatric medications)."
In France, for example, you can lock up a minor with a simple demand of the parents. For an adult, only two psychiatrist are needed and the judge is consulted only after 12 days.
-----
Anyway.. I'm kinda new to anti-psychiatry to be honest and yet, I can tell you with a quite reasonable certainty, that this movement is based on major facts, studies, ground and concrete realities.
As a "psychiatrized" myself, and someone who SEEMS to be victim of a false diagnotic and therefore of medication that could have ruin my life forever if I wasn't lucky.. I can tell you this:
Do not devalue the words of people who are telling you that psychiatry is an oppressive institution.
There is a VAST and documented research about the danger thata is psychiatry. I, myself, had to face it to understand that there was a problem and I'm not even that deep into it.
We are not talking simply about people who do they job badly.. but.. ONCE AGAIN.. of a system that is build in a way that it will alienate and oppress people like me or people with "stronger" situations.
A year ago .. I was on your side. For me, it was vital that people seek help toward psychiatrist.
I'm REALLY not so sure today.
Lel, like feck it was Ukraine acting alone. It was the Yanks, either directly or through a proxy.
Germany is currently a fully vassalised tributary state of the Yankeestan Empire, they won't do shit. You can find Scholz's spine mounted above a fireplace in the White House and his balls in a pickle jar on Biden's desk.
Germany is currently a fully vassalised tributary state of the Yankeestan Empire, they won't do shit. You can find Scholz's spine mounted above a fireplace in the White House and his balls in a pickle jar on Biden's desk.
Yeah, at the time I thought this forum was mostly full of Europeean and American so I really didn't care about the generalization.
There is obviously no reasons to think that people who own building in your country are richer than people in the west sadly.
That said, I still consider the fact of privatizing many housing (that people will need to live in) as an exploitation process.
There is obviously no reasons to think that people who own building in your country are richer than people in the west sadly.
That said, I still consider the fact of privatizing many housing (that people will need to live in) as an exploitation process.
I'm not talking about exceptions here. Of course there are always exception in everything.
I'm talking about a systemic problem
Is this so hard to understand ? Why can't people here understand the concept of systemism ?
Privatizing building with appartement and housing that are necessary for other people to get a housing (a human right) is a fundamental exploitative process. Not matter how much you gain from it. This is this precise problem that I target. This is what I called an subtle system of oppression.
Now, of course we can discuss the fact that some people are owning building that are inhabitable and therefore do not make money, but in large majority, people - in the west - are not in a poor wealth condition when owning such properties.
I'm talking about a systemic problem
Is this so hard to understand ? Why can't people here understand the concept of systemism ?
Privatizing building with appartement and housing that are necessary for other people to get a housing (a human right) is a fundamental exploitative process. Not matter how much you gain from it. This is this precise problem that I target. This is what I called an subtle system of oppression.
Now, of course we can discuss the fact that some people are owning building that are inhabitable and therefore do not make money, but in large majority, people - in the west - are not in a poor wealth condition when owning such properties.
I think people should be allowed the chance to buy the house after some time. Anyway houses primarily exist to house people, not for the (relatively) rich to farm money off the working class so it's a perversion of their reason to be. If we go off this tangent, someday in the future most of the houses will be owned by giant investment funds.
