I don’t remember the scene, but the caption and something about it makes it feel like decisiveness, maybe frustration finally made into a plan.

This might sound pedantic, but it isn’t, it was actually naive: I expected a better environment in academia when I was young.

Why? Because academia is supposedly full of bright people, and I assumed they would be bright enough to be cooperative (because academia advances more when we are, and they supposedly love knowledge); unattached from superficiality (like judging people by their looks, money, etc., because they should know an interesting person can come in any “package”); relatively ethical (as bright people should figure out something close to the categorical imperative, although with unique details); a non-dogmatic, eager to learn and correct their ideas —over preferring recognition and pettiness— attitude (again, just because I assumed their intelligence must guide them towards appreciating knowledge and authenticity over much more ephemeral and possibly worthless things such as prizes, fame, etc.).

I was wrong, so wrong. It’s painful to remember how I felt when I realized it…

But I think the premises weren’t entirely off, I just imagined people much wiser and more intelligent than they are, myself included. Anyway, I fully understand why others are shocked too.

The thing is there are negative aspects in NPD and ASPD, and those can be overcome, so support for these disorders does not mean celebrating but guiding toward remission.

I thought it was him, William Whewell, in response to an almost rant from Samuel Taylor Coleridge about “natural philosophers” (today’s scientists) not deserving to be called “philosophers”.

I just googled it and found:

Coleridge stood and insisted that men of science in the modern day should not be referred to as philosophers since they were typically digging, observing, mixing or electrifying—that is, they were empirical men of experimentation and not philosophers of ideas.

[…]

There was much grumbling among those in attendance, when Whewell masterfully suggested that in “analogy with artist we form scientist.” Curiously this almost perfect linguistic accommodation of workmanship and inspiration, of the artisanal and the contemplative, of the everyday and the universal –was not readily accepted.

Yeah, that was the story I’d heard.

Another source says:

Coleridge declared that although he was a true philosopher, the term philosopher should not be applied to the association’s members. William Whewell responded by coining the word scientist on the spot. He suggested

by analogy with artist, we may form scientist.

It’s funny because nobody remembers S. T. Coleridge as a philosopher but only as a poet. I’ve read that his philosophical writings were like an eccentric and almost immature version of German idealism. The thing that haunts me is that famous F. Schelling is well read but often misunderstood, so if they both were part of the romantic movement and they were both close to idealism, it could be that they both suffer the same fate.

Anyway, I digressed. That was the story I knew. Basically, a gatekeeping poet separated philosophers and natural philosophers.

It’s even curious because there are rumours about men like Coleridge being “half-mad”, and recently there have been studies on it. It would be ridiculous (just as history tends to be) if an old mad poet had divided these branches of knowledge on a fit of bad moods.

Yes, my psychiatrist told me how his adult patients had some patterns in their lives. I started to pay attention and I can’t believe how similar our stories can be. Anecdotes that are the same, the same challenges… Now I can kindly suggest an evaluation when I see someone struggling 👍.

Edit: I just realized I posted on the autism community. I am not autistic, sorry. I hope it’s okay.

I’ve heard the argument based not on structural power but average physical capabilities and biological structures. [I’m going to use the terms meaning sex and not gender]. The man is most likely the person that can gain control during the act, and he doesn’t risk being in pain as much as the woman. Therefore, the man holds more power and is more of a threat on average.

This is also technically true, and I don’t think it is about consent but freedom. [I’ll keep using the words for sex and not gender]. Sexuality becomes another form in which women can become subjugated, so it’s a matter of precaution, I guess (especially since men are being socialized to be entitled or even violent, which is the other part of the picture).

I’ve also heard the extreme version of this argument saying that penetration is what I just described, always, without exception.

In both cases and in yours and in others, I don’t think the meme is correct because the reasons are very different from puritanism.

Technically, Mexico has had only two presidents from a right-wing party. Before, they were from the centrist party. The current president is a very well known leftist.

The country was bombarded with religion for centuries, so maybe you are thinking of that, but even so, the majority support a version of religion that mixes a “social concern for the poor and political liberation for oppressed peoples” with spirituality. It is similar to the recent declarations of Pope Francis about Marxists and Christians having a common goal It is called liberation theology.

Also, Mexico tried to legalize drugs back in 1940. It was promoted by a psychiatrist that informed the government that substance abuse was a mental disorder, which was very progressive for the era. Here is the story.

Of course, if you dig deeper, you’ll know the United States basically coerced Mexico into criminalizing drugs again.

Around half the population still supports drug legalization, even after years of propaganda. The commenter below was shocked about abortion legalization. Abortion is legal in many places. Same-sex marriage is also legal, even in some more right-leaning states. A couple years ago, a transgender clinic with free care was opened in Mexico City. Similarly, free healthcare and many other welfare initiatives such as free education (including universities) are common and not negotiable for the average Mexican.

So, yeah, I guess you’ll find homophobic old people, religious nuts, or lately, U.S.-influenced right-wing supporters, but Mexico is overall progressive as I see it. Even historically:

Slave abolition was one of the first things Mexico did as an independent country, around 1810-1817. The first black president in 1829. Safe place for U.S. slaves to escape and live as free people during the 19th century. First native (indigenous) president in 1858. The Constitution has been protecting native populations’ rights since 1917. During the 20th century, there were big movements in favor of socialism (e.g., agrarian socialists called zapatistas, or students’ movements in the National Autonomous University of Mexico). The list goes on… The first woman president is probably happening this year.

I hope this puts things into perspective, and sorry for infodumping!

I doubt Jessica McCabe and her team know about Lemmy. This kind of reminds me of a fandom.

This was very sweet. Thank you!

I’m not an expert, but I believe it’s more of a North American thing (Canada, U.S.A., Mexico) due to the mountain systems along the three countries. The Rocky Mountains, the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Velt, etc. are all part of the North American Cordillera. This, and the occasional deserts.

I’d guess ponchos, jorongos, and similar pieces of clothing were adopted by non-native settlers (Spanish, English, etc.), including non-native cowboys, because they are good against the changing weather during the day and the cold nights, as you said.

I mean, Central America must have cold spots along their own mountains and South America has the Andean Mountain Range (enormous system), but I do not know about their traditional clothing, except they share the poncho, and I do not know which of their clothing we still wear to this day.

I use TikTok (I know…). There, when there’s rivalry, it is frequently ‘gen Z’ the one bullying ‘millennials’. They criticize the way they use technology, their fashion sense, their attitudes, their musical tastes, etc. Studies are noticing that ‘gen Z’ tend more to the right-wing, so I guess there’s a part of them also criticizing previous generations for being too leftists or whatever.

I use the quotation marks because this whole generational thing seems to me arbitrary and U.S.-centric. I’m in the years that are considered the transition between these two generations and I share characteristics with both. It’s silly how serious we’ve taken this thing.

Some areas or fields have a difficult time reaching men, including young men, and it’s not because they are not wanted. Let’s take psychiatry, for example. Many people already believe psychiatry is nonsense; add to this the common idea that psychiatric treatment is for cowards—and that cowardice is mostly for women (because women can be many bad things, but men can’t)—, and that’s a recipe for men scoffing at the idea of visiting a psychiatrist (and a psychotherapist, by extension).

I’ve also heard people complaining about a lack of role models, but there are excellent role models. I hope I am not wrong about them, but I admire Stephen Fry, John Oliver, Keanu Reeves, Bill Nye… I also like many small influencers. Some of them talk about being a man with great insight, such as @watchfulcoyote on TikTok.

I cannot say with certainty how free these radicalized young men were to choose a better path than the one they are on, and it probably varies from case to case, but I know there were and are normal and decent people watching out for them.

It’s so silly. People around the world explain their culture and don’t assume everyone knows about it, give their location appropriately, and do not believe they are the center of the world. It’s like:

Random question posted: Why is eating octopus more and more popular?

Random user: In my region, we really don’t eat much octopus. I am from Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico. We eat red meat much more. But I guess octopus is growing in popularity worldwide due to [expanation].

Another random user: Where? Here in Portugal it has always been “popular”.

Average American user: Midwestern here. I don’t see octopus much and I don’t like it. Call me stereotypical, but I love my meat and T-Ravs. Anyway, I believe the popularity is due to Biden’s administration. [Details about Biden’s changes]. …So that all America has seen this rise, especially on the East Coast."

🤷🏻‍♀️ …Why?