Communities for underground music and the one for roller skating.
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 96
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 96
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
I get it now. I don't agree with your points.
you're claiming that these killings are spontaneous and only coincidentally helps the incumbents or the party leadership positions maintain authority.
I don't believe it benefits the party that today is dominant, not only because they are getting killed too but also because they are being accused of making Mexico violent and it is super important for them to prove that things are getting better.
This is not the same as saying that the killings are spontaneous, on the contrary, it is an unstable game of power grabbing because of very special circumstances in Mexico that allow this uncertainty of who is getting what in 2024. This in itself lets us see that there are powerful groups fighting and not a tyranny from the current government nor them only silencing opponents.
This isn't normal. This doesn't happen in other places of the world.
I don't know about normal; it isn't desirable, but perhaps it was to be expected. Why Mexico and not other countries? I think this is an oversimplification.
First, it does happen in other countries, but differently. Some have coup d'États, revolutions, extremist terrorism, etc. Of course if you compare Mexico to Germany, Germans are playing chess under the table. Compare Mexico to Arab countries, African countries, and even violent Latin American countries. Violence exists in many other places. Yet, secondly, you can only see similarities when comparing social circumstances, never mirrors. You won't find another Mexico in its details because no other country has Mexico's history. I repeat: it does happen in other countries, but differently. And that's why what you said was too simple.
For this to not somehow be organized or orchestrated would be completely illogical, because then it would be occurring elsewhere as well.
Following the last part, no, this can perfectly be complex. 'Heterogenous' is the word that is coming to my mind.
To me, it's more illogical to believe a single force is orchestrating this violence (which, again, is getting people from different groups killed) than to believe it is power grabbing from many sources. The first option even sounds a little conspiracy-theorish or paranoid, if I'm being frank.
It's late so don't mind me, but I didn't get your point. They're killing candidates from all factions, all parties. Perhaps different people are killing independently for different reasons. Mega corporations killing the candidates that want regulations on their use of water, deforestation, etc. Nestlé, Coca-Cola, and others are devastating the lands and I'm sure they're profiting nicely from that and don't want to stop. Organized crime. Corrupt politicians. It's not simple (or clear) to me, why do you say it is?
I've heard of Goldfish and Vidzy.
I didn't think I was ugly because I thought I was ugly. I thought I was ugly because no one wanted anything to do with me for reasons I couldn't comprehend.
I don't want to offend you or anyone in any way, I just wonder if it could have been a case of neurodiversity (you being neurodivergent in a way socializing didn't come as natural as for others).
In my case, I understood my own differences a little late. I was rejected a couple of times because I was apparently showing-off. I connected the dots years later: I was being too effusive and intense, which was read as arrogance or cockiness.
A friend of mine struggled with his autism. People during his school years thought he was grumpy (or worse), when in reality he was having a hard time coping with external stimuli and information.
People can see something is different, but many (even as adults) are not kind about the explanation. Instead of thinking that you are a shy person (or whatever trait they are judging), they might think you think you're better than them or whatever.
It's funny how many people default for an option in which the "weird" person is a bad person somehow, but there's probably some evolutionary adaptations to partially blame...
I also noticed how "pretty" people didn't have anywhere near as hard of a time socializing as I did. They were allowed to have bad personalities. Even if I was as kind and helpful as I could possibly be I'd never be treated the same way as a "pretty" person would.
Same as my last paragraph. It's human nature to make judgments based on taste, on personal preferences, etc. "Pretty privilege" is real, and we should outgrow it, but... yeah. It even affects people deemed attractive as they cannot trust the same, they cannot escape things like comparisons, etc. Let's not talk about the bullying for the other side. It's vicious.
I hope you're okay after that experience.
I believe they are talking about a specific community that has formed over TikTok, a very anticapitalist and cosmopolitan one, and not about the platform itself.
If your algorithm is favoring that content, your short videos will be full of people talking about all things wrong in our global state of affairs; alternatives and temporal solutions (that happen to harm corporations, ironically because the information is becoming popular thanks to one, so I guess it's the ladder to get to the rooftop); global situations that are not talked or barely talked on regular news (like Congo, Palestine, etc.); the truth behind Western propaganda and lies, especially the ones against populations and ideologies (e.g., "this country doesn't prosper because they're [whatever]" vs "we exploited and condemn this country to scarcity for decades and lied about it"); etcetera. In my time there, I've learnt a couple things.
I know that these content creators will find another platform if TikTok goes down. Lemmy has shown me that social media can be free of corporations, but that's something many people are not aware of yet, especially since the techy people that could explain it on TikTok are not there.
So... yeah, TikTok has some interesting sides content-wise. There's even the rumor that this is one of the reasons they want it banned in the U.S.
I don't want to fall into a slippery slope argument, but I really see this as the tip of a horrible iceberg. Seeing women as sexual objects starts with this kind of non consensual media, but also includes non consensual approaches (like a man that thinks he can subtly touch women in full public transport and excuse himself with the lack of space), sexual harassment, sexual abuse, forced prostitution (it's hard to know for sure, but possibly the majority of prostitution), human trafficking (in which 75%-79% go into forced prostitution, which causes that human trafficking is mostly done to women), and even other forms of violence, torture, murder, etc.
Thus, women live their lives in fear (in varying degrees depending on their country and circumstances). They are restricted in many ways. All of this even in first world countries. For example, homeless women fearing going to shelters because of the situation with SA and trafficking that exists there; women retiring from or not entering jobs (military, scientific exploration, etc.) because of their hostile sexual environment; being alert and often scared when alone because they can be targets, etc. I hopefully don't need to explain the situation in third world countries, just look at what's legal and imagine from there...
This is a reality, one that is:
Putting hundreds of millions of people into a state of hopeless depression
Again, I want to be very clear, I'm not equating these tools to the horrible things I mentioned. I'm saying that it is part of the same problem in a lighter presentation. It is the tip of the iceberg. It is a symptom of a systemic and cultural problem. The AI by itself may be less catastrophic in consequences, rarely leading to permanent damage (I can only see it being the case if the victim develops chronic or pervasive health problems by the stress of the situation, like social anxiety, or commits suicide). It is still important to acknowledge the whole machinery so we can dimension what we are facing, and to really face it because something must change. The first steps might be against this "on the surface" "not very harmful" forms of sexual violence.
The suicide rates have become one of the most popular arguments, which is a shame because it is incomplete. More men complete the suicidal act, but more women attempt it (apparently, they just own less guns, less substances in the garage, etc.). In other words—because I explain like sh*t in English: women are more suicidal, but less lethal in their attempts.
Both sexes, and intersex people, suffer a lot. The various genders suffer a lot.
I know influencers that talk about this problem without being Andrew Tate, but when I recommend them, I get downvoted as if they were worth nothing. I disagree. Of course, it is not a solution because life is always hard and confusing, but to listen to leftist men who understand feminism and other current social movements, and speak of the role of masculinity today considering those is very refreshing and it definitely helps and it is a step forward.
In a nutshell, they talk about caring about mental health. Many of them already are through their own journeys via psychotherapy or other means of introspection and emotional awareness. They talk about feelings and beliefs within the people that were told that they need to be a cartoon, an action figure, because vulnerability is for the lesser sex and a real man™ despises those things. They talk about healing, understanding, cooperation, etc. I don't know if you're a leftist, but that's behind other concepts such as anarchy or social welfare. It is nice to see the line of thought from healing the personal to healing the communal, and viceversa.
So... yeah, ostracism is not the solution. It's funny because I've suffered from agoraphobia and things like that in other moments of my life, and I understand the dysphoric feeling brought by just thinking about society. I have rejected society time and time again, but we are social creatures and we need each other.I need you because writing this comment is something that I feel I have to do. You're giving me some minutes of purpose and even hope that I can make you feel less alone in this world. We both need the person that is making Lemmy possible, and our instances, and many other people on that chain. We like having friends and romantic relationships and random interactions on social media. We like going to events and activities in our towns or cities.
As I see it, If society is not 'rejectable' without hurting ourselves and others, the next thing to do would be to interact healthily with our fellow human beings. It is an available journey, there are people willing to help in each step, but you need to trust and trust is hard as f*ck.
I've heard the argument based not on structural power but average physical capabilities and biological structures. [I'm going to use the terms meaning sex and not gender]. The man is most likely the person that can gain control during the act, and he doesn't risk being in pain as much as the woman. Therefore, the man holds more power and is more of a threat on average.
This is also technically true, and I don't think it is about consent but freedom. [I'll keep using the words for sex and not gender]. Sexuality becomes another form in which women can become subjugated, so it's a matter of precaution, I guess (especially since men are being socialized to be entitled or even violent, which is the other part of the picture).
I've also heard the extreme version of this argument saying that penetration is what I just described, always, without exception.
In both cases and in yours and in others, I don't think the meme is correct because the reasons are very different from puritanism.
The study of psychopathology in any form, particularly of severe mental disorders such as schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and bipolar disorder type I.
I like philosophy, mathematics, and arts more, but that would be my favorite field of science.
Wow! Pranks from 2004 are ads in 2024.
Exactly. I often post walls of text, and it is probably because it takes me a lot of words to express ideas in English, but I also feel like I cannot discuss something deeply in whatever number of characters are admitted now on microblogging. Forums and such are great and I love reading long posts and comments. Also, I get lost in who is replying to what on those sites, but here it is literally linear!
Technically, Mexico has had only two presidents from a right-wing party. Before, they were from the centrist party. The current president is a very well known leftist.
The country was bombarded with religion for centuries, so maybe you are thinking of that, but even so, the majority support a version of religion that mixes a "social concern for the poor and political liberation for oppressed peoples" with spirituality. It is similar to the recent declarations of Pope Francis about Marxists and Christians having a common goal It is called liberation theology.
Also, Mexico tried to legalize drugs back in 1940. It was promoted by a psychiatrist that informed the government that substance abuse was a mental disorder, which was very progressive for the era. Here is the story.
Of course, if you dig deeper, you'll know the United States basically coerced Mexico into criminalizing drugs again.
Around half the population still supports drug legalization, even after years of propaganda. The commenter below was shocked about abortion legalization. Abortion is legal in many places. Same-sex marriage is also legal, even in some more right-leaning states. A couple years ago, a transgender clinic with free care was opened in Mexico City. Similarly, free healthcare and many other welfare initiatives such as free education (including universities) are common and not negotiable for the average Mexican.
So, yeah, I guess you'll find homophobic old people, religious nuts, or lately, U.S.-influenced right-wing supporters, but Mexico is overall progressive as I see it. Even historically:
Slave abolition was one of the first things Mexico did as an independent country, around 1810-1817. The first black president in 1829. Safe place for U.S. slaves to escape and live as free people during the 19th century. First native (indigenous) president in 1858. The Constitution has been protecting native populations' rights since 1917. During the 20th century, there were big movements in favor of socialism (e.g., agrarian socialists called zapatistas, or students' movements in the National Autonomous University of Mexico). The list goes on... The first woman president is probably happening this year.
I hope this puts things into perspective, and sorry for infodumping!
I don't know, the world is depressing. Recently, details about Palestine have been disheartening...