• 1 Post
  • 45 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
Cake day: December 18th, 2023
  • greencactus@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.ml•Remade for clarity
    3·
    3 months ago

    Psychology student hère.

    In short, our professor explained to us that there are two approaches as to how subconscious thoughts and emotions work. The first one is that sometimes thought processes are subconscious, but they can be “brought to light” relatively easily; this perspective has been well-validated and compatible with modern psychology. The second approach is the psychoanalytic one - that some thoughts and emotions are forcefully kept away from the consciousness in order to self-regulate. This position has been debunked and doesn’t seem to have empirical basis.

    That’s why classical psychoanalysis today, where you dig deep into thoughts and feelings in order to go beyond the “defensive forces” of the mind (in German also called Abwehr), is seen as outdated.

  • greencactus@lemmy.worldtoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world•george skibidi
    9·
    3 months ago

    That is true only to some extent. Frances Wright, who admittedly lived later than Washington (1795-1852), was one of the most vocal public abolitionists in the USA to the extent of my knowledge. Specifically, she was a feminist and abolitionist. Both she and Jefferson were Epicureans and knew the sources well, but she drew other, more ethical, conclusions, and supported the fight for abolition.

    It is important to keep in mind that she was living later than Jefferson, and thus had access to different sources than he did. However, her example demonstrates that it was not impossible, even back then, to recognize that owning slaves was wrong and unethical. While I agree that it was typical for the elites to do it regardless, I want to emphasize that the sources to recognize that slavery was wrong were already there. Many people simply chose to ignore it.

    Thus my stance is that it definitely was a sign of the times that it was widespread, I think the defining feature of the time was that people chose to ignore ethical conclusions. It isn’t just a sign of the time that people kept slaves - it was sign of the time that people chose to keep slaves even though they could’ve recognized that it was wrong and unethical.

    I hope my point is understandeable. Just adding my two cents :)

  • greencactus@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.ml•Capitalism and fascism
    27·
    4 months ago

    Fun fact: The nowadays conservative (and IMO right leaning) German CDU has originally considered capitalism to be the reason for outbreak for WW2. They wanted to form a new Christian Socialism, which would’ve united Christian ideals with a socialistic (not marxistic) economy. The so-called Kölner Erklärung was written in 1945 as a basic idea for where Germany should head from perspective of the CDU.

    These ideas didn’t last for long and got replaced by a conservative fiscal policy. But it is good to keep in mind that even in the CDU there were people who recognized that capitalism ultimately has a strong tendency to fuel fascism. In Nazi Germany, the main capitalists worked closely with the NSDAP - Krupp, Bosch, Hugo Boss (who famously designed the Nazi uniforms), Volkswagen were all lead by rich capitalists who saw (and gained) profit by the actions of the Nazis. It makes me sad that even the SPD, the so-called Social Democratic Party, long forgot what it means to fight for socialism and equality, and instead embraces neoliberalism with a touch of social politics.

  • greencactus@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.ml•Rishi Sunak announcing national service plans
    31·
    5 months ago

    Yes, exactly - it is the idea of “well, you can gain life experience and serve for the state”. However, it is (rightfully IMO) criticized as just a cheap way of gaining labor forces. I think that German culture is generally more connected with respecting authorities, rules etc., so this attitude of " you need to return something to the community who raised you up" is still prevalent.

    Since 2011 the service was not enforced anymore (but not abolished - in German it’s called “ausgesetzt”), but now there is a debate again to reintroduce it in light of the war. I personally am highly skeptical of it, for the exact reasons you outlined. A year ago I have went through the process of refusing to serve in the military in a defense case. We have something here called Kriegsdienstverweigerung: you can refuse to be drafted and serve under arms if it is incompatible with your conscience. I am glad to have went through the process, but I wouldn’t have done so if I were younger; in fact, I probably would’ve been absolutely okay with serving in the military. So instead of training people to shoot, I advocate for providing opportunities for people to learn medicine and science and stuff and leave war to professional soldiers, who aren’t 18- or 19 year old enscripted boys. It is also widely known that lots of guys cheated their way out of serving (e.g. drinking a lot the evening prior, so they make a bad impression on the recruiting officer), so the system was weird anyways. So I think the current debate is between “Russia and China are a threat, we need to get ready to fight, let’s pump up our military production” and “War is no option, our infrastructure is in a state of disrepair, we need to invest into schools and hospitals instead of arms, and drafting teenagers can’t be the solution of the problem”.