Have you watched the movie Network (1976)? I feel like Russia is in the position of "the Arabs" right now (and I don't say more in case you haven't watched it).
Katrisia
joined 1 year ago
Yes, and I agreed with you except in two things. We shouldn't take it as the whole reality because there are other paradigms/frames living at the same time, and we shouldn't name things after this dominance in academia or academia-like discourse because knowledge is supposed to strive for the maximum impartiality possible.
Even for those extreme cases, it's understandable to wish for that, but I'm not sure it's healthy for the one wishing. Speaking only of people who don't believe in the death penalty, and are breaking their moral code due to an extreme aversion, maybe it is healthy as it may be cathartic; maybe it is not as it may reinforce rumination, stressful feelings, etc. Maybe it is healthy as they can reach a slight feeling of justice or equilibrium again in the world; maybe it is not healthy because they'll feel they themselves committed a moral transgression pushed by the atrocities of these people. I don't know, maybe it's different from person to person.
I like your comment. It's interesting to consider how the construction of gender varies not only across cultures (e.g. what is expected of womanhood in Canada versus in Japan today), but also across different cultures perception of each other.
In my country, women who are indigenous looking (physically speaking) are considered less elegant or classy than their white/whiter counterparts by these white/whiter people. These people see their femininity as not wide enough because a mix of classism and racism/colorism makes them believe that an indigenous-looking woman can only put a costume, an imitation of a high class woman, because they cannot really be one (as they think money comes only from European descent, and so being classy belongs to them) and that they don't fit those things due to their physical appearance anyways.
That's a widespread belief turned into an aesthetic perception. Show people who believe and now feel this way an indigenous woman in a gala attire and they'll feel something's wrong.
I wouldn't say this is a non-binary experience, though. I'd say this is the plurality of understandings about what is a woman and who is 'more woman' than who. It's not possible to establish what a woman is simply because it is an ever changing matter. Gender, in itself, is fluid. We expect different things from it at different times, often influenced by external factors (as seen in wars, for example). I wouldn't say this makes the people living these experiences non-binary, trans, etc. They're imposed a rule-set by their sex at birth, by their physical characteristics, just like everyone else. "You shouldn't behave this way", "you should not wear this", "do this instead", etc.
You can only say it's non-binary if you judge that the dominant ways are the standard. That is, that a woman of European descent with Western ways of life is the way women are, and that a deviation from that is non-binary. That's only true in countries like mine, like the U.S., like Argentina or the Philippines, and only for the white/whiter population. Thinking that everyone else is measuring against this standard is an ignorant and inflated vision of themselves. Sure, this standard is influential, but people have their own cultures and ideas of gender aside from possible cultural interference and influence from Western values. I'm sure an indigenous woman of my country finds the way she is criticized and scrutinized for wearing different clothes obnoxious, but that's not her whole experience as to say she lives non-binarily. She still has traditions, beliefs, and ideas of gender within her community in which she might be the epitome of womanhood. She's only living non-binarily according to white/whiter people. These people shouldn't be the ones from which names are given. It reminds me of the dichotomy of "white - POC". Why are people in the entire world categorized as "of European descent - any other" as if Europe should be the center and the defining criteria in human populations? While these divisions are common within groups ("Jews - gentiles", "Christians - heathens"), they shouldn't be used outside limited contexts and definitely not in science or any serious analysis. But that's Western egos, especially U.S.-American egos, I guess...
Are you thinking of Stalin?
And not just boys.
I mean, the people still exist and the need for honest opinions is still there. We just need to find a new place where money isn't such a big problem (although it will always be a problem to some degree). I really think a more stable and easy to use Lemmy could attract a large crowd.
Funny, but sadly, I've seen my best friend sharing these memes (neither from the U.K nor the U.S.).
Since the first time I saw them, I thought they were kind of rude and probably inaccurate as no national cuisine is dull. I googled and read... What seems to have happened is that we've normalized British cuisine because it is part of many countries now. We think British dishes are regular dishes. Anyway, I don't like these memes.
That's true. Even with all the evidence now available, current experts cannot diagnose A. Hitler with 100% certainty. He seemed to have some issues that remind us of narcissistic personality disorder, bipolar disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder, among others. We can only speculate (as with D. Trump).
Nayib Bukele, current president of El Salvador, describes himself as a philosopher king on his Twitter/X account.
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.
I think it's like saying that Marxism isn't... let's say, Nietzschean. Those are two ways of looking into problems. In some points, they'll coincide; in others, they won't. I'm bad at analogies. Anyway, if you're a Nietzschean (in this case, if you believe intersectionality is the proper way of looking at social phenomena), of course Marxism (probably in all its different branches) will look incomplete and like they're building from the wrong premises to you. But if you were Marxist, you'd think the same of Nietzschean philosophy (or intersectionality).
I'm sure both have excellent reasons to believe in a framework or another, but we should not forget they are just that, not truth™. I say this not to fall into an absolute relativism but to prevent any side from falling into a conviction of moral superiority. We cannot be so sure about it.