this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
6 points (87.5% liked)

Liberty Hub

285 readers
47 users here now

  1. No Discrimination, this includes usage of slurs or other language intended to promote bigotry
  2. No defending oppressive systems or organizations
  3. No uncivil or rude comments to other users
  4. Discussion, not debate. This community is exclusively for genuine logical debate, any comments using whataboutism or similar will be removed.
  5. No genocide denial or support for genocidal entities. Anyone that supports the mass murder of civilians will be banned.

These guidelines are meant to allow open discussion and ensure leftists and post-leftists can have a voice. If you are here to learn, then welcome! Just remember that if you're not a part of the left (Liberals don't count) then you are a visitor, please do not speak over our members.

founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
Cassa@lemmy.blahaj.zone
TwiddleTwaddle@lemmy.blahaj.zone
6
Apoliticism is a mental disability (medium.com)
submitted 3 months ago by Grail@lemmy.world to c/libertyhub@lemmy.blahaj.zone
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Spicy title, I know, but please read on. I'm not using the phrase "mental disability" like an ableist liberal would. This isn't an insult, it's an examination of psychology and appropriation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] x_cell 2 points 3 months ago

Sorry for the delayed answer.

I think we're disagreeing on the definition of a "person". I'm using the word to refer to a mind and its subjective experiences inside its own head. You're using the word to refer to a body and other people's relationships with a mind. It's internal vs external.

Yes. You're right. However, I would argue that there isn't such thing as a "mind and it's subjective experiences inside it's own head" without a social reality supporting it. You're coming from a Descartian point of view, and I'm going through a Hegelian one.

This is not dehumanizing high support needs disabled people who can't communicate effectively, but pointing out that they are still part of our world, and we're part of theirs. Even if neither us and them recognize that.

As you say, consensus reality is a social construct. If someone is not socially impressionable enough to be taught this construct, then they are not a member of reality.

That's where I hard disagree beyond philosophy. Because it doesn't matter if You don't understand or recognize a social construct, it will still affect you and produce reactions, ingraining itself in you. As long as someone can experience anything at all in this world, they will experience the consequences of social decisions, and by consequence, a mirror of decisions made by this society. And as long a someone can produce any behavior at all (save reflex), they can and will communicate.

This consciousness is always imperfect even with NTs, but it's always there.