leftous

Reply to comment by /u/this_one in Friday Free Talk by /u/ThreadBot

5

leftous wrote (edited )

That sounds rough, and I've actually been there. The only way I was able to get over it was getting them off my mind. I would try to make it a habit to stop visiting it, e.g. by installing a browser redirector (like the one sudo mentions here). I learned the best thing you can do is create space and just work on yourself. Over time, I realized that there wasn't any real (romantic) "love" there, they were just someone strong and independent to latch onto due to my own flaws.

I know how tough it can be, so good luck. :)

5

leftous wrote

This is very insightful, thanks for sharing. Although it will always amaze me how assholes try to rationalize their bigotry and bullying as "concern"; "concern for the obese person", "concern for a strain on healthcare resources", or whatever bullshit excuse they come up with. The evidence has been clear for a while that shaming and being abusive isn't helpful.

1

leftous wrote

A recommendation I've got is Anwar Shaikh who has an entire lecture series on youtube. I heard about him from the leftist youtuber Mexie who covers some of his material in her videos. He also has a book.

Most of it is understandable, but there are times some of the points he makes go over my head. In that case, you might want to watch some of Mexie's videos, which are really well-researched and clear e.g. Monopoly vs Competition, Unions and Work ethic,Finance Crisis and Stagnation. (She includes more resources in the description).

4

leftous wrote

This is beyond sickening.

In wealthy countries, the institutionalisation of children has almost completely stopped. Instead, governments offer services that can help families keep children with them; if that is not possible, they seek adoptive parents or foster families. These solutions are imperfect. Some foster families are abusive; children, especially those most in need of a steady home, can get shuffled from one family to another. “But nobody is advocating going back to institutions,” [..]

Almost every poor country, by contrast, still puts children in institutions, even though the vast majority of those children have families. Wealthy countries, who consider orphanages harmful for their own children, nonetheless provide a stream of charitable giving that makes orphanages viable businesses abroad. And orphanages need “orphans”. Parents may hand over children because they have special needs, or because the family can’t afford to send them to school. “It’s a huge pull factor: if they can get food, health care, education, specialised services, parents make a decision they think is in the best interests of the children,” says Shannon Senefeld, senior vice president for overseas operations at Catholic Relief Services.

..

When volunteers turn up at an orphanage and children run to hug them, it’s understandable that they feel they are providing much-needed love and attention. But children shouldn’t turn to random strangers for affection. When they do, it means they can’t develop healthy attachments. And a parade of short-term adults to hug them makes it worse.

These kids are basically turned into products, at the expense of their psychological and emotional well-being, to sell westerners "feel good" and "meaningful" experiences. Then they get praise and awards for fucking people up and reinforcing the same systems they claim to be helping fight against.

1

leftous wrote

But is the logic wrong or just inconvenient?

It is the same as the logic that says guns cause violence. Social media is like a weapon in the sense that it can exacerbate issues, but I wouldn't call it the cause. The systemic issues that lead to hatefulness, violence, xenophobia, etc will still be present regardless of how regulated Facebook is.

The angling has been going on for a while. But in this case Facebook would serve as a catalyst since it will establish a pretense to crackdown on anybody who dares to "incite" online (however you define that).

1

leftous wrote

I have a few problems with this write up.

Researchers told the Times that Facebook’s algorithm tends to funnel users into like-minded bubbles where they are isolated from moderating influences, leading them to believe that support for violence is more widely shared and accepted than it truly is.

A lot of people use this logic to say sites like Raddle are dangerous.

Also criticisms of "incitement" have been used to attack Palestinians and human rights activists.

My only point here is that this seems less like anti-facebook propaganda, and more like pro-censorship propaganda. There is a push to help governments and corporations have greater justification and power to persecute any resisting voices. This just adds fuel to that fire.