Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

1

TimmyCatChores wrote

Also, 1. do you think social justice activism takes solidarity?

Solidarity is intrinsically collective.

  1. Where do people get justice from, if not collectively?
3

amongstclouds wrote

Yeah, solidarity is a collective agreement... among individuals.

1

TimmyCatChores wrote

yeah, that's the point. We can only create autonomy for the individual collectively.

We need a certain volume of shared beliefs specifically to understand how we fill each others psychological needs.

It's a matter of being on the same page about social psychology.

If you think your needs are different from other humans, let me know why.

We all get different experience, but we all have the same needs.

4

Pop wrote

Pretty sure that just saying that we have the same needs is ableist

-1

TimmyCatChores wrote

Is saying we all breath oxygen abelist, and that we all eat food is abelist?

Have have psychological needs. google it. Don't be afraid of social science.

Words either mean things or they don't.

We have human brains. We aren't all different species or whatever we think we are.

There is objective reality to human existence.

Don't be afraid of the truth, because truth serves the people.

3

Pop wrote

Humans have more and more varied needs than that

Also, regarding the human, this is a great short reading. Even though it is applied to law.

-1

TimmyCatChores wrote

I'd like to know if you think a children can live in a closet by themselves without human interaction. That's a universal need.

I'd like to know if you think children can live without education, because that's also a universal need, that is only provided collectively in humanity.

-1

TimmyCatChores wrote

yeah, I understand positionality, but your seem to think all human brains are different.

I'm not sure of the scope of relevance here.

Are we talking about human brains as the scope of attention?

At that point we're talking about what all human brains needs.

I get the gist that you don't see the basic function of the brain is the same for all humans.

If you disagree, I'd like to read the rationalization.

3

amongstclouds wrote

I just really love and respect myself. I hope that doesn't sound snarky, but your line of thinking is borderline authoritarian so I will remain skeptical out of my own self-interest.

It's easy to think ALL of our needs are the same, but we don't all share the same mind.

-1

TimmyCatChores wrote

How would you define dignity?

Dignity is something only the culture can afford you.

That's dependent on your position. In other words where any one individual winds-up in society.

Wherever you are in in the 'positionally', you're going to want dignity.

We need to be on the same page about that since we're all looking for the same thing.

5

amongstclouds wrote (edited )

Yeah, no, I totally like the article you shared, but I don't care about your moralism. You wish to dictate other people's lives in disregard to their unique individuality and try to hide it behind 'human nature' and 'dignity' which literally mean nothing. It's a little reactionary if you ask me.

As I said, we fundamentally disagree on plenty of things, but we're still pushing in somewhat similar directions. <3

-1

TimmyCatChores wrote

You are calling me authoritarian for asking questions?

Do you follow a specific form of psychology?

I don't know where you are coming from at all.

You seem to not be able to explain yourself.

-1

TimmyCatChores wrote

it's basic psychology. psychological needs.

this is the mental health forum

5

amongstclouds wrote

Yes, and great job reducing peoples unique experience to 'bullshit' in comparison to your authoritarian desire to dictate what those individuals should be thinking.

Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.

-1

TimmyCatChores wrote

I don't know what you think because you won't explain yourself.

What is your expertise in this forum?

3

amongstclouds wrote

Are you in a forum about Radical Mental Health while still committing yourself to dogmatic scientism and merit-based authority? I've explained myself just fine. You just keep bringing up new moralistic terms to try and make me feel lesser than you because you hold some great knowledge I have no access too.

-4

TimmyCatChores wrote

That is fancy talk man, but doesn't say a thing.

You can't prove you know anything about providing mental health support.

This isn't new to me.

Tell me what you know about child-psychology and child development. Tell me something, beside that adolescent right-wing sophistry.

3

amongstclouds wrote

Now you're just being condescending. Have a great day. :)

-4

TimmyCatChores wrote

I knew I would clash with right-wingers here.

5

________deleted wrote

Valuing individualism and collectivism equally doesn't make them rightwing, it just means they're an anarchist.

-3

TimmyCatChores wrote

You just defined an anarchist as one who values individualism and collectivism equally.

Do you think every anarchist on earth will agree with that definition?

3

________deleted wrote

I made no attempt to define every anarchist on Earth, talking in absolutes is ridiculous.

-4

TimmyCatChores wrote

Can you tell me something about mental health?

2

________deleted wrote

Demanding credentials from someone who disagrees with you on the internet isn't very healthy.

-1

TimmyCatChores wrote

Yeah but, we are talking mental health. That takes some level of experience.

It's not just whatever anyone think it is.

3

________deleted wrote

Most of the people who come to this forum need suppport because of the horrible shit that happens to them. They don't come here to be told they're 'rightwing' and have you demand they prove they're qualified to disagree with you.

-1

TimmyCatChores wrote

If you disagree, you need to explain yourself.

That's solidarity. You're supposed to be helping me understand why I'm wrong.

4

________deleted wrote (edited )

They repeatedly explained their reasoning but you chose to ignore it and instead kept demanding a different explanation and called them names. I'm starting to think you're trolling.

-2

TimmyCatChores wrote

I'm getting 'tone policed', and no one is on topic whatsoever.

That's right-wing shit.

4

________deleted wrote

You're the one attacking people for disagreeing with you. Rightwing politics have nothing to do with any of this.

-2

TimmyCatChores wrote

You need to give me some idea of what you know about providing mental health support, because that is the topic.

I'm not attacking anyone. I'm here to learn.

3

________deleted wrote

I'm not providing mental health support, I'm intervening after seeing you repeatedly attack someone and creating an unsafe space.

-4

TimmyCatChores wrote

Now you are making false accusations and I'm going to alert the mod.

3

amongstclouds wrote

By all means, alert the mods.

-2

TimmyCatChores wrote

yeah. You're not providing information, you're just trolling me. I don't take that level of discourse. I'm not blocking you, because you should be able to show-up with bullshit.

That's not activism, it's just adolescent nonsense. I'm not having it bud.

2

amongstclouds wrote

Disagreement doesn't equal trolling. You're still doing exactly what you're claiming NOT to be doing. You literally have no room to be in this kind of space.

-1

TimmyCatChores wrote

This is what I wrote to the admin

TimmyCatChores wrote to falita a few seconds ago

I'm new and would like to know how to deal with attacks. I'd like you to look at my recent thread when you can.

I recognize the problem.

Basically in my experience right-wingers who troll discussions of psychology also don't make pro-feminist and anti-racist arguments generally.

If whatever a right-winger thinks is proper mental health in that forum, I'd just like to know.

Should I just keep banning people who piss me off?

-2

TimmyCatChores wrote

well that's authoritarian! wow!

You still didn't say a thing but gobbledy gook.

That's trolling my thread. It's an insult to me, and activism.

Stop with the adolescent bullshit.

Block me first. I don't take trolls.

1

________deleted wrote

For someone who knows everything there is to know about child psychology, you sure are down on 'adolescents'.

-1

TimmyCatChores wrote

Block me, or I'll call your ass out now.

You don't know shit about mental health.

you're a phoney

3

[deleted] wrote

-3

TimmyCatChores wrote

I take my words seriously, and I'm going to defend them against nonsense.

I know what I'm looking at. On Facebook I have control of pages and groups.

I recognize the argumentation style, and right-wing psychology. It's like mysticism. That's post-left and egoism, which are really just forms of right-libertarianism posing as anarchism.

They referred to mainstream psychology as Scientism, which is typical of right-libertarian argumentation.

On facebook I separated myself from right-wingers.

This is my first thread in this forum, so I want to figure-out how to deal with this stuff.

3

[deleted] wrote

-2

TimmyCatChores wrote

I'm not here for adolescent banter. I need to know if I need start blocking people.

The shame is idea that "anything anyone says is true" passes for anarchism and social justice activism.

3

leftous wrote

I think you're missing the point here.

We're all here trying to learn from eachother. If you claim to have complete dominion on the truth and respond aggressively to people, you're never going to be able to convince or teach people anything. There are ways to civilly and fairly disagree.

Although I do think the labelling of your ideas as authoritarian was unfounded and unfair. I also think your characterization of anarchist individualism is also unfair. I recommend checking out Emma Goldman's (who is an anarchist known for her blend of collectivist and individualist ideas) explanation where she describes right-wing "rugged individualism" as antithetical to true individualism.

0

TimmyCatChores wrote

If you're going to write this:

"I also think your characterization of anarchist individualism is also unfair"

You need to define "anarchist individualism".

Why do you think your definition is a rule?

This is a problem of subjectivity.

The only way any one learns their identity is through the culture, we can only have our psychological needs filled by other people, and we can only get justice from the system if we act collectively. That's the beginning of collectivism.

Where does "anarchist individualism" fit in that?

3

leftous wrote

I am not saying my version of individualism is a rule, but rather that right-wing individualism ("rugged individualism") is self-contradictory since it oppresses the individual. Anyone who actually values the individual would oppose it. So associating it with anarchist individualism doesn't make sense.

Anarchist individualism on the other hand values free association and self-determination. It opposes the oppression of individuals.

The desirable form of collectivism is one which acknowledges, and doesn't suppress, the individual. So in this sense, individualism can work in concert with collectivism. When the collective is all that matters, and the individual's ability to choose how to live is disregarded, it leads to oppression and harm (psychological and otherwise).

0

________deleted wrote (edited )

Time to ban this troll, mods.

-1

TimmyCatChores wrote

Why would you demand they ban me, instead of just block me?

That's really reactionary.

I really want to look into who is policing me on my first thread.

I want to know what authority you have over my threads.

It's really toxic bullshit you're posting.

-1

TimmyCatChores wrote

You didn't say a thing on this thread man.

I wonder if you know anything about anything.

Can I follow you to see what you say about feminism and racism?

I'd like to know where you're coming-from.

If right-wing bullshit is 'good' on Raddle, tell me now.

Ban me, cause I'll leave anyway.

2

________deleted wrote (edited )

Stop calling me "man". I can't ban you, I'm not a mod. You can follow me all you like. "Everyone who has a negative view of my behaviour is a rightwing racist anti-feminist" is shitty second-rate trolling. Stop.

-2

TimmyCatChores wrote

Tell me what I should know about anti-racist activism.

That's what I want to see. I want to know what you believe the function of anti-racist and feminst activism is, to anarchism.

Tell me how to do that right.

What is your interpretation of intersectionality?

-1

TimmyCatChores wrote

Fine. Ban me, if this passes for mental health support in this forum.

This is my first thread in this forum, and I want to know what kind of bullshit I need to put up with.

If mental health handled by right-winger, tell me now.

3

amongstclouds wrote

You literally have no room to be pretending to care about mental health.

-1

TimmyCatChores wrote

Explain your expertise please.

Tell me what I need to know please.

1

amongstclouds wrote

I've already explained myself. Tell me what you want me to say?

-3

TimmyCatChores wrote

What you didn't do is quote me to explain anything I wrote was untrue.

That's not anything like 'left solidarity'.

I should be in argumentation mode, cause that's another forum, but... Prove anything I wrote was untrue. Quote me, and explain why it was wrong.

3

amongstclouds wrote

I literally gave you my explanation. You choose to disregard it because only you can speak the truth obviously. When I first responded back to your request at further elaboration this is how you responded:

"Also, 1. do you think social justice activism takes solidarity?

Solidarity is intrinsically collective.

Where do people get justice from, if not collectively?"

Where did you quote anything from me? Why do you get to demand explanations while not willing to do the same in return?