He once said âthere is no doubt that Mexicans, filled with dignity, willingness and ability to work, are doing jobs that not even blacks want to do there in the United Statesâ and generally was just a corrupt social conservative fuck who did nothing useful to deal with Mexicoâs problems
He was a sort of fiscal conservative for a country that has no love for that shit and a lot of history against it. He didnât go against LGBT people or anything but his completely fabricated image of being a salt of the earth type was extremely manipulative and poorly seen by the Mexican people who saw him for what he was, a bourgeois puppet for America.
He wanted to privatize Castillo de Chapultepec to turn it into some sort of resort??? he wanted to minimize benefits given to the elderly which was fucking utter horse shit, I believe he had problems with SEP (secretary of public education) as well as with teacher unions. I remember there was a lot of striking at the time.
He was openly religious which is terribly seen by an office holder. A president shouldnât have the pope come in and kiss his ring, for Mexican standards this was a terrible event because it was obviously done in an attempt to appeal to the catholic majority and specifically to religious rural workers except rural workers arenât idiots and Mexican people have no tolerance for using religion in politics.
Mexican leftist groups and Lopez Obrador himself, who was jefe de gobierno of Mexico City at the time (no idea how to translate that) criticized it very heavily.
Mexico had really hoped to abandon PRI in favour of a more left leaning part and of abandoning American influence (read: American ownership) over us but instead PAN brought us closer to America, they made the peso go up after decades of devaluation but only for the benefit of the elite which ultimately means more foreign power and less support for worker control.
This duck got himself all in a flap after inadvertently straying into the path of a giant Shoebill while heading towards water.
But it was all water off a duckâs back for the imposing 4ft tall bird which instead of eating his smaller friend, carefully picked him up in his beak and moved him aside.
Despite its fearsome reputation as a predator around water, the Shoebill seemed more concerned with completing its journey than tucking into a feathered snack.
These extraordinary pictures were captured by 51-year-old amateur photographer Mark Kay, at the San Diego Wild Animal Park in the U.S.
âI thought the Shoebill was going to eat the duck, but soon realised he was moving him out of the way.
âAfter the duck fell to the ground, he seemed flustered and just walked away. The Shoebill just carried on.â
âThe result was the killing of 237 African Americans.
None of the perpetratorsâparticipants in mass murderâanswered for their crimes. No one was charged, no trials were held, at least not of those who had killed blacks.â
The Red Summer of 1919 still is one of the longest seasons of domestic terrorism in the US that goes unremarked for most.Â
My grandfather had kin in Elaine Arkansas. He never got to meet them (they died in the riots), but he told me that the stories about what happened is part of why he raised his family in the North. Chicago had race riots that year too, but Elaine is considered one of the worst in history. In part because they literally tortured survivors to get them to testify against each other.Â
The turing test, developed by alan turing in 1950, is a test to see whether you are here to stay, or passing through on your way to travel. đ i also wanna not
His whole weird theory about penis envy and children being sexually attracted to their parents and secret desires and all that shit actually came straight out of an attempt to ally himself with wealthy and influential rapists and was a direct form of victim blaming.
He had started the research looking into âhysteriaâ which at the time was really usually referring to womenâs symptoms of PTSD. It turned out that the reason so many woman had these symptoms is because so many of them had experienced sexual violenceâ especially CSA and incest at the hands of their fathers.Â
At first he was making real progress, and it was through working with these women that he discovered that talk therapy could be used to treat trauma. The symptoms of PTSD were lessened when women were able to safely speak about their experiences out loud and be believed.Â
But it wasnât the women who paid for the therapy. It was their fathers, husbands, the same men who were perpetuating the violence in the first place. And Freud didnât want to validate his patients (the women) if it meant making his clients (the men) unhappy.
So he came up with a new idea. These symptoms werenât from trauma. The memories werenât real. These women were just sexual beings as children and had penis envy and it made them lust for their fathers and fantasize about the rape that they had reported to him. Thatâs where the shittiest parts of Freudâs theories emerged.
Another part of it besides just the monetary aspect, though, was that there was a feminist movement on the fringes starting up at the time and by publishing work about womenâs CSA he would be aligning himself with it and therefore losing support, respect, funding, prestige from his male peers and from the psychological community at large. He literally made that gross victim blaming shit up to keep his own reputation with these fucks and to make sure he still got publication and fame.
By coming up with fake theory about little girls fantasizing about incest he not only fucked over generations of women, the feminist movement that was arising, and the entire psychology field for years to come, but he also completely swept away any progress made in understanding trauma and so we didnât have any clue why men coming back from war had âhysteriaâ like women during WWI.
And our research on PTSD and trauma is still lacking to this day, especially because of the stigma that maybe traumatized people deserved it or wanted it or imagined it. People donât want to believe itâs real. Perpetrators of traumatic violence want everyone to forget about it, not acknowledge it, or trivialize it.
And they have Freudâs cultural legacy to help them.
Can you provide academic citations for this? This is really neat.
If you want some more, just google, âSigmund Freud Seduction Theory Problematic.â Thereâs lots of academic and non-academic discussion on the topic, but TLDR Sigmund Freud is basically disregarded in almost all aspects of psychology by anyone who actually cares about their patients, so fuck that guy for holding psychology back.
Words cannot express how much I hate Freud. His theories have been entirely disproven by current psychological research, but using him to interpret literary texts is still a widely accepted technique in the field of literary study today.
English departments across the country will not bat an eye at tenured professors bringing Freud into lectures and citing him in scholarly articles and books. Doing a âFreudian readingâ of a literary character or theme is regarded as a valid means of understanding and drawing meaning from works by authors as diverse as William Shakespeare, James Joyce, and C.S. Lewis. And it is based entirely on this guyâs unbelievably sexist, flat-out fraudulent, and thoroughly disproven research. Itâs insane.
I need people to listen to this, because although his methods might be of use, his entire theoretical work is just fucking lies and bullshit misogyny.
And more importantly (at least to me), it was an utter fucking tragedy and failure of courage. He had his reasons: he was a Jewish intellectual working in Vienna in his day and age. He was in a risky position, and I think that is important to recognize (especially in terms of talking about him vis any and every other subsequent theorist/etc in the field who wasnât a Jewish man working in a hugely anti-semitic society, okay. *coughJungcough*). His choices were difficult.Â
But he was still then given the confidence and trust of a whole population of people who also marginalized – who had been hideously victimised and brutalised – and instead of finding solidarity with them and serving the truth, the truth he knew, he sided with their oppressors (who were, for the most part, also his, as they were mostly wealthy white Christian men of money and repute), and reaped the benefits.Â
And he did it in a way that revictimised the people who trusted him and led to years of further victimisation and harm, almost always of those who were already vulnerable, already victimised, as people were misled by his capitulation rather than led by what he had originally found – what we now know to have been true, but which we basically had to re-fucking-build from scratch through the rest of the century.Â
He was in a risky position, and he chose to bend to the status quo, to bow to the powerful, to betray the already violated women who trusted him, and set up generations of women of all backgrounds, and of young men, for further violation and betrayal and thatâs a fucking tragedy.Â
And I think itâs important that all parts of that be known and considered, especially by those going into fields where they might have to make the same kinds of choices. Because itâs easy to condemn him outright, and donât get me wrong: I think he failed his patients and he failed the field he started and left us with a huge fucking mess (and yes ye gods if I never have to fucking hear of âFreudianâ analysis in literature again* it will be too fucking soon) but it is also important to remember, I think, that other part:Â
He was someone at risk in society, who was handed a very dangerous decision to make, that could have had serious consequences for him personally (beyond those of a European Christian man or intellectual) if heâd made the other choice, so he stuck with safety – and it still had all the consequences it had, and harmed all the people it did.Â
Itâs something to think about, I think. Long and hard.Â
Has anyone else noticed how, when you have a chronic condition of some kind, that thereâs always the basic assumption from people around you that youâre not already doing everything you can?
Itâs all about the illusion of control. People who are healthy like to believe they can always keep being healthy if they do the right things. They donât want to think about how good people get struck with terrible circumstances for no reason.
So they keep assuming that if they got sick, they could do something to make it better.
And if youâre still sick, that must mean youâve done something wrong or not done enough.
Nail. Head. The same attitude can be seen in how a lot of people talk about poverty.
And sexual assault. All they have to do is not go there not drink that not wear that not date them and theyâll be fine, right?
The Just World theory – that as long as I do everything right, Iâm safe, and everybody who isnât safe is at fault for not doing everything right – is perhaps the most harmful and widespread mindset today
if you ever see a conservative and wonder just how in the world they have so little compassion? Â they are genuinely convinced that most – not all, but most – bad things that happen are the fault of the person affected, because then they donât have to feel bad
somebody explaining this to me as a young adult was, quite literally, the start of me seeing the world in a new way and moving considerably to the left politically. by letting go of the just world mindset my conception of reality shifted considerably
this is why people NEED TO STOP saying things like âyouâd never say that to someone with cancer/MS/whateverâ to try to advocate for mental illness. itâs not TRUE they DO say that, all the time.
recently I saw someone claim autism is the only disability where people question your diagnosis and ask invasive questions. it really, really isnât.
the Just World fallacy is so pervasive. it seeps in anywhere. if you ever feel inclined to say âyouâd never say that to [person from a marginalized group you donât belong to]â in order to highlight injustices to [group youâre a part of]âŚ. donât. literally super donât.
When I was a kid, my stepdad needed surgery for liver cancer, which had spread there from an earlier bout with colon cancer. The number of people who couldn’t wait to make assumptions so they could blame him for bringing it on himself through problem drinking really amazed me at the time. Because liver, don’t you know
(And of course that wouldn’t be remotely right if someone were also dealing with alcoholism. Nobody deserves that kind of treatment, much less to get kicked when they’re down and trying to cope with an already difficult situation.)
That’s just one example, involving cancer and not a more chronic condition.
Urocyon's Jaunts 2.0 
You must be logged in to post a comment.