I love Market Efficiency UwU. Isn't the Rule-ing class just so responsible with their power? 🥰
I love Market Efficiency UwU. Isn't the Rule-ing class just so responsible with their power? 🥰
When society falls, the great femboy regime will rise from its ashes. All children will take puberty blockers. We will teach you to love your neighbor through the shared trauma of forced feminization. We will know peace in our time 😌
(If anyone is mad at me, please know that ARF ARF BARK ARRROOOOOOOO AROOOO ฅ•ﻌ•ฅ I'm just a dumb puppy. I'm committing to bits beyond your comprehension✨ I mean UwU)
You're viewing a single thread.
oh golly, oh joy! i sure do love assigning all of the people i don't like into the same group of people with a mental disorder, thus perpetuating the artificial class divide of the mentally well versus the mentally ill! surely this will have no unintended consequences on swathes of the population who have that mental disorder or are otherwise considered disordered but are also "functional" enough to blend in with less-marginalized society!
OwO What if there is an observed correlation? Would it truly be a benefit to ignore that? Especially when the observed groups have all the power and the mental disorders are ones defined by their lack of empathy, their disregard for relationships, and their ability to self-rationalize harmful behaviors?
"Sociopath" isn't even an official diagnosis anymore, and certain abusable positions also get noted for their tendency to have high-empathy people working in them - the levels of empathy, in the end, only determine the way the abuse comes through. Empathy is a tool like any other, and trying to insist that it's a thing that can define the goodness of a person is as absurd as any of the other times people have tried to associate a particular feature with some kind of moral position - not to mention how it only ends up harming marginalized demographics. The wealthy and powerful are not going to care if you deem them low-empathy monsters, but some people around you may feel less safe knowing that you associate low-empathy with evil.
I associate low-empathy with immoral, and I think that's a common position. These oligarchs are evil but areprotected from public visibility and scorn. If those protections were removed, then they'd face pressure to make more empathetic decisions that value the people they profit off of.
Funnily enough, empathy doesn't always apply to all other people! Many often learn to only utilize their empathy to gain social advantages by leveraging an understanding of others, or practice selective empathy in that they have functioning, typical, empathy - just only within their bubble. It's why some of them get uncomfortable when they're forced to perceive poor people in a more humanizing way - they have empathy, they're just choosing not utilize it in a way that benefits larger society. I feel I should also point out that a number of people fit the qualifications for being considered low-empathy, but are regarded as leading admirable lives by otherwise choosing to be good to their fellow human beings - James H Fallon comes to mind.
Being a sociopath doesn't make you a billionaire but being a billionaire makes you a sociopath.
Solving our mental health problem won't prevent billionaires from existing.
Making excuses for billionaires isn't a mental health issue, it's an intelligence issue.
I'm not suggesting solving all our mental health problems will stop billionaires from existing (though in truth, class disparity creating the stressors it does would definitely make stopping billionaires help population mental health), nor am I suggesting that billionaires should get any sort of excuse. I am pointing out how people in abusive class positions (i.e. billionaires) can still be high-empathy people, and how sociopath literally isn't a diagnosis anymore. I believe you are having a reading comprehension issue.
No. There are no "high empathy" billionaires. There are most certainly still people diagnosied with sociopathy.
I don't know why you feel the need to make such baseless arguments, blaming it on my reading comprehension is doesn't seem to fit. I'm reading you fine, I'm simply calling bullshit.
Solving our mental health problem won't prevent billionaires from existing.
Didn't say it would. I have no idea where you pulled this from.
Making excuses for billionaires isn't a mental health issue, it's an intelligence issue.
I alsi wasn't giving any slack to billionaires. I also have no idea where you pulled this from.
Both of the above statements from you imply you either didn't read my comment or understand what it said, primarily because they feel like arguments intended for an entirely different comment. Please tell me how I can best rephrase it if I communicated my ideas unclearly at all.
Also, please refer me to the part of the DSM-5 where it lists "sociopath" as a possible diagnosis.
Yeah this meme is pretty bad. Technically, the rich don't own the political system. They have an undue influence over it but not as perverse as an individual owning legitimate armies and wealth without checks and balances.
No.
Oh okay if u say so
Mercenary ate problematic in their own way but their legitimacy depends legitimacy of their employers... So... No.
Okie I beliebe u that's it not what u meant. I personally grrrr academi grrrr 😠