We each have a Nazi in us. We need to understand the psychological roots of authoritarianism
We each have a Nazi in us. We need to understand the psychological roots of authoritarianism
Neuroimaging studies have shown that the amygdala, the tiny almond-shaped brain structure that mediates fear, is larger in people with more rightwing views
Neuroimaging studies have shown that the amygdala, the tiny almond-shaped brain structure that mediates fear, is larger in people with more rightwing views
You're viewing a single thread.
I noticed something for the first time, likely due to social conditioning that I'd missed it before: we have to stop dehumanization when speaking of large and small scale humans. They are not monsters, they are humans, like us. Perhaps if they'd been treated in s humane way, they would have enjoyed some happy coincidence of nature and nurture and not gone on to such egregious acts. "In the beginning was the word," and abuse starts with thoughts, progresses to belittling, dehumanization and then physical abuse.
As someone on the spectrum, I've been ostracized, humiliated, and dehumanized all my life, yet I did not become a Nazi. It only made me angrier at the people who want to put their boots on your neck.
I'mma guess the answer to your question, is no, Friend TimeSquirrel. Get on wit' yo' Bad Self!
Edit: My assessment is that your anger is righteous, so that's why I encouraged you to continue as you are. Peace.
Reactive abuse is still abuse. That's not saying don't defend ourselves. It is saying it's fine to remove myself and not seek to justify my behavior in becoming that which I found abhorrent. It happens. It's a l long journey of healing, before I could even about that to myself. Looking at ourselves need not be distorted for better or worse. I can only correct my behavior by hm, to borrow a 12 step phrase, "fearless and searching moral inventory." No justifications, no excuses. The abyss does indeed look back.
Lmao yes those poor nazis didn’t get enough love
I guess the headline was right after all
Tolerance is a peace treaty. You do not give tolerance to intolerance. If your core ideology is the rejection, dehumanization, or destruction of other groups of human beings, then your group does not deserve respect or consideration.
You do not give tolerance to intolerance.
This is the type of rhetoric I'm talking about. Call someone intolerant and you can do whatever you want to them. "Punch a Nazi!", etc.
The irony of this story going viral in this community specifically is astronomical.
This is just a slippery slope fallacy. We can agree to not condone literal Nazis without degenerating into calling vast swathes of the political landscape Nazis. Certain ideas simply do not deserve respect or consideration. If you want to have an "honest debate" about race science, I would rather have an "honest debate" about you jumping off a cliff.
That is all fair. Social ostracization or rejection from voters is fine, and in many (if not most) cases warranted.
But I think that is drastically different than calling for all Nazis to be jailed or executed, as some on the left would suggest. It's a pretty bad loophole, as if there's anyone or any movement you want to get rid of, all you have to do is call them Nazis, and into the incinerator they go.
Wasn't a free months ago I would have agreed with that mentality. Now I have work to do to correct myself. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/ostracism-hurtsbut-how-shedding-light-on-a-silent-invisible-abuse.html
Aww, does someone need a hug?
Maybe. How many times have you been hugged today?
I don't understand why people think that human and monster are mutually exclusive categories.
It's dehumanizing. Most of so-called monsters are made, and with proper social and holistic treatment could be rehabilitated and reintegrated. But it's work, and perhaps more importantly, money from the coffers of those with far more wealth than a hundred generations could ever meaningfully use.
Power gives people the freedom to act as they choose, and they choose a lot of nastiness. Does it not make sense that unconstrained choices represent who a person truly is?
Perhaps who they have become. What if these people had loving, supportive homes? Why can't we utilize* their wealth for everyone who doesn't or hasn't had, including them? What if we reimagine re-education as therapy, and education about their own trauma reactions and redirected them to healthier thinking and behaviors, for as long as it takes? Maybe some are too far gone. Are they not human beings deserving of humans care?