The Soviet system used psychiatry as a weapon by diagnosing political opponents as mentally ill in order to confine them as patients instead of trying them in court. Anyone who challenged the state such as dissidents, writers, would-be emigrants, religious believers, or human rights activists could be branded with fabricated disorders like sluggish schizophrenia. This turned normal political disagreement into supposed medical pathology and allowed the state to present dissent as insanity.

Once labeled in this way, people were placed in psychiatric hospitals where they could be held for long periods without legal protections. Harsh treatments were often used to break their resolve. The collaboration between state security organs and compliant psychiatrists created a system where political imprisonment was disguised as medical care, letting the Soviet regime suppress opposition while pretending it was addressing illness rather than silencing critics.

  • unknownuserunknownlocation@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    It’s a problem for a hierarchical society that requires continual compliance for next to no explanation

    That’s simply raising children. Yes, you should ideally explain as much as possible to children, but some things you simply can’t because they’re not mature enough to understand it, it could traumatize them or there’s simply no time.

    I mean, imagine a child suddenly deciding to run into a busy road and you start explaining why they should stop instead of giving clear orders: “you know, those cars are moving very fast and…” * Splat *

    And even if you to have the option to explain, if the child simply says “I don’t care” and ignores you, then how are you supposed to raise them? That’s specifically what this diagnosis is about.

    • Digit@lemmy.wtf
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      It’s a problem for a hierarchical society that requires continual compliance for next to no explanation

      That’s simply raising children.

      I’m deeply concerned for the wellbeing of your children.

      I’m deeply concerned for the wellbeing of a society that’s even peppered (let alone prolific) with this naive-realist rationalised irrationality.

      “That’s simply” authoritarian totalitarianism, normalised.

      And of course, the totalitarianised psyche does not see this. Like the fish does not see water. Does not even know its a thing. Knows no other way. “That’s simply” how it is to them.

      A couple other things spring to mind:

      “If you’re old enough to ask the question, you’re old enough to handle the answer.” (And even before (and if not, plant the seed and they may get it later).

      and

      Should I Strike My Child Flowchart: Are they old enough to understand reason?  Yes?  Use reason.  No?  Then they're not old enough to understand reason you're striking them.  Stop hitting your child, asshole.

      Try explanation before dismissing it out of hand. Better pedagogy. Explanation’s not even a high bar. There are better yet. Invite exploring ideas.

      • unknownuserunknownlocation@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        I’m not even remotely taking about hitting kids, jfc. But way to completely miss the point that explanation and exploring ideas sometimes simply doesn’t work and create a strawman.

        • Digit@lemmy.wtf
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Just an example of not using reasoned explanations and instead conforming to “requires continual compliance for next to no explanation” that sprang to mind.

          Since I was not saying you were saying what you’re saying I was saying, that’s your own (both) strawman fallacy fallacy, and its own strawman fallacy. As I said, it’s just what also sprang to mind in that same vein of thought. At a stretch, maybe you could try claim it a slippery slope fallacy on my part, but again, I was not saying that’s the inevitable result from your line of thought(/dogma). It’s just a possibility [due consideration] within that philosophy.

          Also, while we’re on the case of detecting fallacies, you’ve moved the goalposts from “That**’s** simply raising children.” to “explanation and exploring ideas sometimes simply doesn’t work”.

          • unknownuserunknownlocation@kbin.earth
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Also, while we’re on the case of detecting fallacies, you’ve moved the goalposts from “That**’s** simply raising children.” to “explanation and exploring ideas sometimes simply doesn’t work”.

            Did you even read what I wrote literally one sentence later?

            • Digit@lemmy.wtf
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 hours ago

              I did.

              And responded (and, I thought, offered refutation) to that too…

              Are we playing the “did you read” game?

              Did you read what I wrote that responds directly to that matter?

              … Not a very productive way of going about this, is it. :/

              Always worth a double check of those three fingers pointing back, every time pointing a finger in hate. n_n

              • unknownuserunknownlocation@kbin.earth
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 hours ago

                Yes we are playing the “did you read” game, since you accused me of moving the goalposts when it was crystal clear in the sentence after that that the goalposts were there all along.

                Yeah, it’s definitely not very productive to argue in bad faith.

    • infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      It’s raising children in a hierarchical society that requires continual compliance for next to no explanation. Again, it’s not a problem internal to the child, and it’s not medical, it’s wrong to frame it as a medical condition.

      Busy roads that leave no nuance between safety and instant death, no safe introductory margin for a child to explore and understand, are a product of a hierarchical society. The only reason we require unwavering compliance from our children that bleeds into labeling them with medical conditions if they do not comply is because we have built a society that is hostile to them.

      To balk and protest at that state of affairs is not a disorder, it’s entirely healthy. It’s the state of affairs that is ill.

      • unknownuserunknownlocation@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        I don’t think you’re understanding the problem here. Busy roads were one example, there are plenty of others, train tracks, the mixer or blender in the kitchen, a fork in a power outlet - these have absolutely nothing to do with hierarchy. There will always be dangers. And even if there aren’t any, if you don’t have a grip on children to prevent them from injuring other children or even adults, you have a serious problem on your hands. If you don’t correct that, you get the kind of adults that make our society ill as you put it.

        And again, this is not about balking and protesting at the ill state of affairs, and the diagnosing factors make that very clear.