The Soviet system used psychiatry as a weapon by diagnosing political opponents as mentally ill in order to confine them as patients instead of trying them in court. Anyone who challenged the state such as dissidents, writers, would-be emigrants, religious believers, or human rights activists could be branded with fabricated disorders like sluggish schizophrenia. This turned normal political disagreement into supposed medical pathology and allowed the state to present dissent as insanity.
Once labeled in this way, people were placed in psychiatric hospitals where they could be held for long periods without legal protections. Harsh treatments were often used to break their resolve. The collaboration between state security organs and compliant psychiatrists created a system where political imprisonment was disguised as medical care, letting the Soviet regime suppress opposition while pretending it was addressing illness rather than silencing critics.
I’m deeply concerned for the wellbeing of your children.
I’m deeply concerned for the wellbeing of a society that’s even peppered (let alone prolific) with this naive-realist rationalised irrationality.
“That’s simply” authoritarian totalitarianism, normalised.
And of course, the totalitarianised psyche does not see this. Like the fish does not see water. Does not even know its a thing. Knows no other way. “That’s simply” how it is to them.
A couple other things spring to mind:
“If you’re old enough to ask the question, you’re old enough to handle the answer.” (And even before (and if not, plant the seed and they may get it later).
and
Try explanation before dismissing it out of hand. Better pedagogy. Explanation’s not even a high bar. There are better yet. Invite exploring ideas.
I’m not even remotely taking about hitting kids, jfc. But way to completely miss the point that explanation and exploring ideas sometimes simply doesn’t work and create a strawman.
Just an example of not using reasoned explanations and instead conforming to “requires continual compliance for next to no explanation” that sprang to mind.
Since I was not saying you were saying what you’re saying I was saying, that’s your own (both) strawman fallacy fallacy, and its own strawman fallacy. As I said, it’s just what also sprang to mind in that same vein of thought. At a stretch, maybe you could try claim it a slippery slope fallacy on my part, but again, I was not saying that’s the inevitable result from your line of thought(/dogma). It’s just a possibility [due consideration] within that philosophy.
Also, while we’re on the case of detecting fallacies, you’ve moved the goalposts from “That**’s** simply raising children.” to “explanation and exploring ideas sometimes simply doesn’t work”.
Did you even read what I wrote literally one sentence later?
I did.
And responded (and, I thought, offered refutation) to that too…
Are we playing the “did you read” game?
Did you read what I wrote that responds directly to that matter?
… Not a very productive way of going about this, is it. :/
Always worth a double check of those three fingers pointing back, every time pointing a finger in hate. n_n
Yes we are playing the “did you read” game, since you accused me of moving the goalposts when it was crystal clear in the sentence after that that the goalposts were there all along.
Yeah, it’s definitely not very productive to argue in bad faith.