Auf englisch unter „butlerian jihad“ findest du eher was: „The Butlerian Jihad, an event in the back-story of Herbert’s universe, leads to the outlawing of certain technologies, primarily “thinking machines”, a collective term for computers and artificial intelligence of any kind. This prohibition is a key influence on the nature of Herbert’s fictional setting.“

Aber basically dass thinking machines verboten werden und ein hartes Limit darauf gelegt wurde wie weit Technologie gehen darf.

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.

aaay that’s so cool! Thanks for setting it up Kaity! I’m looking forward to giving it both a try and thanks for providing a space (again)!

uh interesting. I think I like the setup of the joke in this one more but it is basically the same joke yes.

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 see yes. Thanks for giving more context.

I do think they should actively start talking about candidates for sure yes. So I very much agree with her on this.

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.

Yes I get that. I‘m looking forward to reading the comment and article you have linked and thanks for the insightful perspective. I hope you have a lovely day

interesting, thanks for writing it down like this.

If you allow the random question, is this persistence of class between communes also the reason you shifted from anarchism to Marxism? Because I think you do make a persuasive point and would like to know what changed your trajectory/mind.

Ja genau, lass sie uns noch mehr normalisieren und so tun als wenn sie nicht den ganzen Staat aushebeln wollen. Sollte man definitiv entspannt und locker mit umgehen, is ja auch voll die legitime Partei /s

Ich habs wirklich nicht vermisst Spahn‘s Ideen zu hören.

Ich denke viele Leute werden dir da unterschiedliches Feedback geben, wann sie es als rassistisch empfinden. Es ist aber ein sehr typischer Moment von Alltagsrassismus. Vor allem weil ich als Empfänger der Frage ja auch niemals wissen kann, ob du es „nicht abwertend“ meinst.

Alleine die Erfahrung immer in eine andere Schublade gesteckt zu werden, ist meist schon die Rassismus Erfahrung.

Ich finde die Frage in vielen Kontexten legitim, wenn klar ist das mein Gegenüber wirklich an mir als Person interessiert ist und nicht versucht mich schnell zuzuordnen.

Leider fühlen sich halt auch viele PoCs (mich eingeschlossen) nicht wohl in dem Therapie Setting wenn unser Gegenüber weiß ist. Ich muss halt hoffen, dass meine Erfahrungen Ernst genommen werden und ich nicht in der Behandlung selber wieder mit ner Rassismuserfahrung konfrontiert werde. Ich denke diese Spannung sorgt auch dafür, dass je nachdem wie früh oder wie die Frage gestellt wird, es auch negativ wahrgenommen wird.

In deinem Beispiel ist es zum Beispiel real ein Dialekt, der die Frage triggert und nicht die assumption: ah andere Hautfarbe du kommst von bla. Manchmal sind es solche Kleinigkeiten an denen ich es zum Beispiel festmache ob ich die Frage komisch/weird/unangenehm finde oder ob jemand einfach interessiert ist. Aber auch PoC experience is natürlich kein monolith.

I think they are thinking of the statue of liberty because she was in the news recently that the one French politician asked for her back. But yes, totally not the same statue/person referenced

I mean yes sure couples have to communicate but relationship anarchy isn’t really about who does the dishes but if a relationship includes sharing finances, includes financially / emotionally caring for each other or if it is potentially a „purely“ sexual relationship. Or just a platonic relationship.

The anarchy is not meant in the same way as its political ideology counterpart but states that you do not adhere to established rules or hierarchies within traditional relationships.

Maybe as a relationship anarchist you want someone you only fuck from time to time but you also want to share finances but you don’t want emotional sharing. This would be an uncommon constellation that could be easier to make sense of using their concepts. You could also obviously get there with other means but likewise maybe this also generally just wouldn’t work/vibe with you - which is also fine.

I really just wanted to give people the chance to engage with potential tools to talk about their relationships differently and maybe that helps.

Either way connecting and communicating with people and partners is always complicated and you have to train it and keep the communication working. So yeah it might be more complicated but maybe thats why it might work for different folks.

I‘m not that deep in relationship anarchy and in a currently monogamous queer relationship.

I do think the difference lies in the traditionality you have touched upon in that you and your partner have a script / rough idea that has/is guiding aspects of your relationship and that relationship anarchist would want to explicitly frame/structure themselves in most of the relationships they engage in. This is more in the direction of: my romantic partner is also a partner I share finances with or plan to cohabitate with or think about offspring with etc.

I don’t think there has to be an inherent value judgment in this. Different people prefer different things so I think it always works out and either way you have to communicate with your partner in what works in your relationship. (Who does what housework, what do esch of you want out of the relationship, etc.)

I mean you can be heavily invested in a relationship as a relationship anarchist.

The anarchy part is that you do not take for granted how a relationship should be structured and that you are open to have very unique and consensually agreed upon aspects in your relationship.

If you want commitment and reliability and loyalty you can for sure ask for it and name it as something that is essential for your relationship and if they do not give it to you it might just be best to split ways.

Of course I understand that there will be people who weaponise relationship anarchy to just do whatever the fuck they want to and rationalise/justify their behaviour but I think the concept isn’t condemnable per sé. There are also people who weaponise therapy speak to gaslight and I wouldn’t want to generally talk bad about therapy.

Just wanted to give a counterpoint because I think engaging with relationship anarchy and for example looking at a smorgasbord can even help monogamous people to figure out what is important to them and what they want.

I think your comment reads quite combative.

I think with the context of the Meme, yes there are some people who call you and you just know its gonna be a huge annoying phone call that you should just avoid and text the person after because some people just wanna talk your ears off.

I dunno if we have to do the: omg millenials/gen alpha is too phone anxious thing.

And sure its called a mobile phone, but as an argument that feels somewhat pedantic nowadays. Primarily its a mobile internet connected computer nowadays I would say. I use the camera/ texting/ social media functions way more than the real phone capabilities. Maybe thats different for you but I don’t think it’s uncommon that its one of the lesser used functions.

Sure if people are too anxious to pick up the phone and it negatively impacts their life they should get help for it. I don’t think we should shame them in that case though. It feels to me like shaming depressed people when they cannot find the energy to shower, which I would similarly feel is inadequate input.

Ich hätte jetzt nicht erwartet, dass die Wirtschaftswoche einen so langen scharfen und vorwerfenden Artikel gegen Merz rausbringen würde :D

Vor allem die Vorwürfe und Verfehlungen der letzten Wochen nochmal so einzuarbeiten.

Ich denke aber auch, dass ich nicht sehe, dass Merz so gut ist im Taktieren oder generell in der Lage wirklich gute Koalitionen zu bilden geschweige denn vorausschauend zu planen oder Probleme wirklich anzugehen.

Aber das fühle ich bei der ganzen CxU schon nicht von daher ist es vielleicht auch nicht sonderlich nennenswert als Einwurf. Es werden/bleiben wilde Zeiten :(