• 2 Posts
  • 88 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 7th, 2023

help-circle

  • Cool, dass du den Artikel geteilt hast. Finde ich ist ein guter Artikel für Unterhaltung.

    Ich bin sehr zwiespältig zu dem Artikel. Ich mag die Idee, dass Polarisierung zu weit geht und dass echte Neutralität etwas Wichtiges ist. Das es nicht darum geht in allen journalistischen Formaten einfach nur noch die vollkommenen Extreme einzuladen. (das ist aber natürlich toller content - wuhuuu content!) Dass man feinfühlig sein sollte und auch Polarisierung frühzeitig erkennen sollte und auch einige social media die auf reine Polarisierung abzielt eher meiden sollte.

    Es hat für mich aber auch ein ganz klares „centrist mindset“ Geschmäckle. Es wird schon darauf eingegangen als Beispiel, dass man gerne allen Wohnungen geben will, aber es gibt ja nicht genug für alle. Und dass man dann eher empathisch zuhören sollte ohne unbedingt zu fragen, was man tun kann. Verstehe ich, würde ich auch gerne so sehen, ich habe dennoch das Gefühl, dass es einfach gesellschaftliche Themen gibt, wo man schon mehr machen muss als nur: „oh nein ich wünschte es wäre anders für uns alle :)“. Also viele Themen, die auch hier für Demokratie gerühmt werden, wurden halt erkämpft. Frauenwahlrechte als eines der klassischen Beispiele. Natürlich entwickelt sich da auch eine „stille Mehrheit“, die dann eher dafür ist, aber so eine Bewegung und ihre Erfolge leben natürlich davon dass es wirklich Pusher gibt. Dass wir einen Diskurs haben wo auch Positionen herausgearbeitet werden. Auch das gebrachte Beispiel mit der Ukraine und den vorhanden Spannungen, natürlich wichtig, dass man ein Land nicht einfach spaltet in zwei Lager. Toll wenn man nicht ein Schwarz-Weiß erzwingt, aber ich finde die Idee, dass mehr Neutralität dann alles lösen wird auch etwas reduktiv. Es erinnert mich sehr an Psychotherapie Ansätze wo die Prämisse immer ist, dass Patienty ein Problem hat und dieses losgelöst von Umfeld oder Kontext lösen sollte/könnte.

    Vielleicht bin ich da einfach zu links für (?), aber das finde ich einfach nicht richtig. Gegen zu wenig Wohnungen kann man was machen als Gesellschaft. Gegen Klimawandel kann man was machen als Gesellschaft. Während der Pandemie hätte man mehr machen können, um uns alle vor den Konsequenzen der Maßnahmen mehr zu schützen. Privat/persönlich ist das aber jenseits meines Aktionsspielraumes auch wenn ich damit persönlich mit den Konsequenzen umgehen muss.

    Wie gesagt zwiegespalten. Ich find den schwarz-weiß Diskurs schlecht. Das overton Fenster verschiebt sich dadurch auch einfach nur weiter, ich sehe hier schon einen Weg um das vielleicht besser anzugehen.


  • I agree, I think in the context of the comic with „stoic and strong“ it does feel weird to say that they do not make you weak, because he is obviously struggling.

    Like you I think the point should be more about generally building up to better deal with all our emotions - even unwanted ones - and be more comfortable while experiencing them.

    But I also see how in the comic it‘s easier to say to a buddy that he is not weak to comfort him to open up and then later on circle back to his ideas of strength and stoicism. But I think we have to rethink standards and ideas about masculinity and emotions for sure.


  • valentinesmithtoScience Memes@mander.xyzResources
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    22 days ago

    I mean, I get that you don’t like how they talk on Lemmy about it, but the quote from the study even talks about how the surplus could be used for additional consumption and everything. Study is here

    I think we all have different things we want in life and with such a big surplus there is room for most of us to regularly enjoy that. I do not believe that they argue that we will NEVER be able to enjoy different food. That is as you have mentioned not functional or good for people to work together and live together. Disregarding the many people with different cultures that have moved somewhere else.

    I think the study more clearly argues that we can afford to take care of everyone on the world if we wanted to. That there is a viable way and that that way is not as you are implying necessarily a deprived space with tight margins. Because living is about more than slaving away like a 12th century peasant to accumulate more wealth for a king somewhere far off.


  • Sounds like a tricky question.

    I would say that if my partner would basically do everything for me in housework I would feel uncomfortable if I was not also on some level giving back to the relationship. Not that I like traditional roles but I feel in those there was at least the assumption that both work, one at home and one for another boss.

    In a scenario where someone really just does everything for you and there is nothing to contribute that would also feel grating and uncomfortable to me. Just hearing about a partner who would cozy you up for a while though sounds chill to me and something that has happened to me and I have enjoyed. Especially if it feels contextually appropriate: you having a rough patch and getting more support from them.

    So when I first read it, thinking about my partner and me just chilling and me not having to do much of anything that did sound slightly tempting on some level as a fantasy.

    Maybe that helps as a different perspective?







  • For what it‘s worth I think you are correct. Even if I feel triggered in feeling that you came in hot, but you are speaking truth and in a mental health forum I think that is most important.

    I think in my response I should have rather touched upon that what the other poster is touching upon is that for a Glimmer we sometimes have to learn to experience them fully, which is not a clear distinction between the two. There can also be negative triggers you do not catch up on.

    So yes, I drew a false dichotomy and should have approached this differently, thank you for correcting it.


  • I mean I think we are joking here and I did chuckle, but I would agree that there is a clear distinction.

    A trigger is a conditioning you have that brings up negative past experiences and associations.

    These glimmers are basically you conditioning yourself to check-in with yourself and appreciate a moment and be more conscious of positive emotions or associations. So yes both conditioning, but one is a totally involuntary conditioning and the latter is a trained conditioning.

    And I would say in their intensity they will also be very different. We are just very wired to feel negative emotions incredibly visceral to immediately change our behaviour. The same is not really true for conditioning ourselves to appreciate a moment or perspective.




  • valentinesmithtomemes@lemmy.worldI'd like that
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    Possibly, but I also honestly find it an interesting idea.

    The way it is described it doesn’t sound like they recommend doing it with total strangers but have a conflict/discussion with a group that can chime in but is not focused on resolving the conflict but more processing it together. And honestly I think for some people that could be a good way to potentially learn and hone their way of speaking to each other.

    I also really like the contra-culture idea they establish that conflict does not have to be uncontrollable and that we are responsible and accountable for our behaviour in conflict. So I think this could be an experience where you are able to air things that unsettle you while reaffirming that you bring it up because you care about the other person.

    But I‘m sure this is not for everyone and is most likely a potentially energy intense way. I think the meme as well is more aimed in: I wanna butt in and say my piece without really having skin in the game.


  • Hmm okay I think I get your point but I don‘t know if I follow the premise that a narrow definition of rape is ultimately better for rape survivors/victims.

    I think I would argue that especially in public discourse opening up what sexual harassment is and how we define rape allows more victims to step forward and share their experiences.

    In the example for male rape survivors for example a common contention to not believe them is that they could physically overpower their abuser. And awareness work aims to show that even strong men can be forced and coerced. (The actor from Brooklyn 911 was an example for that discourse)

    So that’s why I would not feel its a disservice if we call it rape because as the others have mentioned, it hinges a lot on the fact that we have learnt that the victim was dead at that time.

    Just wanted to share my perspective but I feel I get yours a bit better now


  • Thanks for posting this!

    As a cis man I have to admit I always enjoy it when experiences of women are put in the spotlight in discussions. I think if we keep our ears open and listen empathically we can learn how to do better and the knee-jerk reaction of: „But men also suffer!“ Always feels so weird because I think why isn’t our reaction: „God this really is happening to all of us, let’s finally combat it!“

    Thanks for bringing the topic up and I hope future discussions will not be met with such a barrage of trolling and opposition. Thanks for the moderation as well.

    I think I also wanna highlight that WHEN we listen we also hear that the demands and wishes being proposed by women especially in a health setting are not only totally achievable and doable but would also improve service for EVERYONE. So there is also a lot of good stuff to gain from listening and acting on it.



  • I mean I can kinda see the point of using kings instead of oligarchy. But using oligarchy is a bigger stab at the billionaires in the room as well so I still think it captures a bigger part of the problem.

    Otherwise I think I‘m down for her saying that she wants to get stuff done but I mean is she? I‘m totally uninformed but being highly ignorant it reads a bit like a whatever statement. Like you mentioning it is also just a performative act so yeah shrug

    I do think the Dems have a problem in establishing words and totally losing the plot or narrative control over their words. Woke totally slipped into an insult and I don‘t think that was an unavoidable thing. I think if Dems would go for more public social policies they would get a lot of the votes back they have been shedding but I think their oligarchic interests are in their way. Like Harris could’ve just campaigned on getting SOME change done and I think more people could’ve warmed up to her but that particular ship has sailed.

    Thanks for linking the article and centring the discussion.