this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2025
679 points (96.1% liked)

Today I Learned

26172 readers
423 users here now

What did you learn today? Share it with us!

We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.

** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**



Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Digit@lemmy.wtf 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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 -1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

How're you going to imprison, drug, and profit from kids without physical coercion? Get a clue.

[–] Digit@lemmy.wtf 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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 -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Yeah, your worthless comments keep piling up.