It’s hard to admit, but I’m not healthy in that regard. I postpone the break-up so that time gives an opportunity to fix things, and when that fails I jump into another relationship right away, and not in a “using people to distract me from my pain” way but in a “falling in love with people who show me empathy and care, and who I imagine are a good fit without giving enough time to consider it thoroughly” way. Currently in the first step, waiting, wishing.

I have no advice. I can only say I am sorry you are grieving.

Edit: Grammar.

Similarly, people interested in philosophy (and other theoretical stuff) might take a break and think of different things like “but how’s the soap made, anyway?”.

I disagree. Generally speaking, psychologists aren’t competent either. Psychiatrists at least know about the human body, its interactions, and psychopathology in depth. Psychologists study the things you mentioned, but many fail to study the biological parts and how deep psychopathologies can go.

Therefore, I’ve encountered many psychologists who think that all problems are caused by the environment, by inner (often cognitive) processes, etc. They fail to understand severe mental disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and regularly make one of two mistakes (if not both in different contexts): downplay the severity of psychosis and mania/hypomania or think the mildest symptom is psychosis or mania/hypomania.

Also, many psychologists I’ve known and seen lean into the antipsychiatry movement. This may not be a problem when treating, say, mild to moderate depressions of a certain reactive nature. They might advise not to take medication and, indeed, medication may not be necessary for these cases. But to do the same for endogenous recurrent depressions and, again, severe mental disorders is borderline clinical negligence.

Finally and in the same vein, many psychologists do not understand how dependent on the physiological are phenomena such as behavior and beliefs. They often picture our mental experience as mostly free, perhaps influenced by many factors (e.g., psychoanalysis), yet ultimately driven by ourselves. I disagree. I disagree not only because there are many scientific observations to the contrary, but because my own experience has been ever-changing by the silliest of things, like medication for physical illnesses, food, weather conditions, etc. Anecdote incoming: >!Traits that psychologists would try to explain away, treat in talk therapy, and solidify as part of my personality were mere consequences of the physiological and went away immediately after I stopped the causes. The average psychiatrist would find this obvious, while psychologists were often surprised.!<

If I may add, both psychiatrists and psychologists face a profound ignorance about the things they study. Psychology has tried to explain them, and in this effort it has created dozens of different and incompatible schools of thought (e.g., psychoanalysis, behaviorism, cognitivism, etc.). Psychiatrists are also at a loss in the definitive hows, and I should add there’s also dense theory behind it (it did not stop with Emil Kraeplin or Karl Jaspers). If you ask me, I wouldn’t consider one more scientific than the other just because one created more paradigms/theories; if anything, remaining observant and pragmatic sounds to me more scientific (in both disciplines), but that’s a whole new conversation…

My understanding is that tankies believe that groups that have partially or completely followed far-left principles should be exempt from all criticism. I disagree. As long as it is honest criticism, it should not only be allowed but encouraged.

I’ve also heard that tankies are historic revisionists to an extreme. While I agree Western history is not telling us the real version of things, I don’t think other countries are either. I won’t say that an event happened one way or the other just because country A or country B says so. If historians and other experts are still debating an event and its details, I prefer to watch from a distance as I have no way to contribute to those debates.

So… no.

I don’t know how to post images, but Google “Dinosaur Liberty Security” or “Dinosaur Freedom Security” and that’s what came to my mind.

That’s an interesting idea. Thank you!

Nicotine, caffeine, alcohol, methylphenidate.

Nicotine once. Friends at the time said I needed to try it to say for a fact I didn’t like it, and I didn’t like it. Then I learnt there are extremely rare cases of illnesses from just one smoke, so that advice was stupid, IMO.

Caffeine was a regular as I was self-medicating with it. Nowadays, I drink mostly decaffeinated. I wish there were more flavors and variety for it, though, at least a chocolate one…

Alcohol has always been an occasional thing for me, once or twice per year. I try to keep it that way because my family has a long history of substance abuse disorder.

Methylphenidate once. I borrowed it from someone’s prescription. I thought it would help me get energetic, euphoric, etc. Well, it was calming, and for the first time in my life my mind was quiet. It was so strange to be sitting with no turmoil, no direction of what to jump to do or even say spontaneously. It was just me and the silent room. Tranquility, so much that it was uncomfortable as it was new and not what I expected at all. Turns out I have hyperactivity and the medication turned it down.

If I were to say, I prefer uppers and I’m curious about substances like cocaine, but I don’t want to risk my health. I’m fine.

Before (unless intended otherwise). Imagine the case in which the paragraph continues…

Roy fell when we were walking. 😂 It was kind of worrying.

vs

Roy fell when we were walking 😂. It was kind of worrying.

In the first one, it seems that you are laughing about the fall being worrying. In the second, the laugh is about Roy, and then the next sentence reads in a more neutral tone, which was my intent.

Maybe it doesn’t look as nice, but to me it makes more sense.

It is bold. Since antiquity they are getting in trouble (sometimes big trouble, like Socrates)…

I get it now. I don’t agree with your points.

you’re claiming that these killings are spontaneous and only coincidentally helps the incumbents or the party leadership positions maintain authority.

I don’t believe it benefits the party that today is dominant, not only because they are getting killed too but also because they are being accused of making Mexico violent and it is super important for them to prove that things are getting better.

This is not the same as saying that the killings are spontaneous, on the contrary, it is an unstable game of power grabbing because of very special circumstances in Mexico that allow this uncertainty of who is getting what in 2024. This in itself lets us see that there are powerful groups fighting and not a tyranny from the current government nor them only silencing opponents.

This isn’t normal. This doesn’t happen in other places of the world.

I don’t know about normal; it isn’t desirable, but perhaps it was to be expected. Why Mexico and not other countries? I think this is an oversimplification.

First, it does happen in other countries, but differently. Some have coup d’États, revolutions, extremist terrorism, etc. Of course if you compare Mexico to Germany, Germans are playing chess under the table. Compare Mexico to Arab countries, African countries, and even violent Latin American countries. Violence exists in many other places. Yet, secondly, you can only see similarities when comparing social circumstances, never mirrors. You won’t find another Mexico in its details because no other country has Mexico’s history. I repeat: it does happen in other countries, but differently. And that’s why what you said was too simple.

For this to not somehow be organized or orchestrated would be completely illogical, because then it would be occurring elsewhere as well.

Following the last part, no, this can perfectly be complex. ‘Heterogenous’ is the word that is coming to my mind.

To me, it’s more illogical to believe a single force is orchestrating this violence (which, again, is getting people from different groups killed) than to believe it is power grabbing from many sources. The first option even sounds a little conspiracy-theorish or paranoid, if I’m being frank.

It’s late so don’t mind me, but I didn’t get your point. They’re killing candidates from all factions, all parties. Perhaps different people are killing independently for different reasons. Mega corporations killing the candidates that want regulations on their use of water, deforestation, etc. Nestlé, Coca-Cola, and others are devastating the lands and I’m sure they’re profiting nicely from that and don’t want to stop. Organized crime. Corrupt politicians. It’s not simple (or clear) to me, why do you say it is?

OCEAN is useful.

For fun but also interesting because it is a piece of history? The four temperaments (Hippocrates).

I guess I only obscure little details here and there. I don’t say I like chocolate ice cream, I say I like “certain desserts”. If I were to spill all the details, I would be super recognizable.

If I were to create content, my reasons to choose the Fediverse over other social platforms would remain the same. I believe in this project! I think it is important to have free spaces, people’s spaces.

I’d add a Patreon link (or an alternative to Patreon) for donations. That’s it. Some money to compensate for the effort is okay, I don’t need and I wouldn’t aspire to get super rich from my content.

Those ideas get you banned, not downvoted.

Don’t you know? They rewrote history and geography so they get to be the only Americans, while the continent is divided into North and South. Forget all the maps, documents, letters, and stuff that referred to the New Word as “America” for centuries. Forget about the first national documents in countries like Mexico referring to themselves as Americans. Nope. They get to steal the name because #power.

So now it’s time to read the “but ‘United Mexican States’ is Mexico, so ‘United States of America’ deserves to be America”, ignoring the fact that Mexico derives from the native name of a portion of Mexico City, so it’s not remotely the same (see first paragraph).

This comment answers the AskLemmy about things that annoy me…