Psychological therapy is a fraud.

Are you overworked and squeezed dry by your boss? Therapy, bro.

Stuck in an abusive relationship? Therapy, bro.

Maybe you are buried in legal bullshit or hate seeing the ads or living in a world where war kills thousands of innocent people every year and all the media does is lie. Maybe you hate living in a world where trillions of dollars / euros / insert currency are spent on total bullshit while you can't affect it. Maybe you hate living in a world where the food, air, water, and shopping items are all poisoned and making you sick.

Therapy, bro.

Therapy is a way to turn the fundamental problems of the world into the failure of someone's mindset. Pretending if you just "think better" or "feel better" they will all disappear.

"Becoming the best version of yourself" is another version of this idea, popular in youtube influencer circles.

It's an idea I feel like the elites would like to spread. But I have no proof at this moment.

diggy

Psychological therapy is a fraud.

Are you overworked and squeezed dry by your boss? Therapy, bro.

Stuck in an abusive relationship? Therapy, bro.

Maybe you are buried in legal bullshit or hate seeing the ads or living in a world where war kills thousands of innocent people every year and all the media does is lie. Maybe you hate living in a world where trillions of dollars / euros / insert currency are spent on total bullshit while you can't affect it. Maybe you hate living in a world where the food, air, water, and shopping items are all poisoned and making you sick.

Therapy, bro.

Therapy is a way to turn the fundamental problems of the world into the failure of someone's mindset. Pretending if you just "think better" or "feel better" they will all disappear.

"Becoming the best version of yourself" is another version of this idea, popular in youtube influencer circles.

It's an idea I feel like the elites would like to spread. But I have no proof at this moment.

"A month without food, 3 days without water, 5 minutes without air, a moment without hope". Ultimately oneself is all one is sure(?) to have control over. It's not a bad idea to start looking for change at that level. But modern psychology and psychiatry increasingly attempts to reject the very idea of agency, so instead of beginning to change the world from oneself, one is encouraged instead to passively seek explanations, justifications, and excuses for their behavior and condition. Statistics, sociology, and biology can make decent after-the-fact explanations, but once you start attributing your behavior to factors beyond your control, you have effectively lost agency.

In short, I don't think it's surprising or even particularly wrong that being confronted with unpleasant realities seemingly beyond one's control would lead them to turn inward. The proper approach, then, is to admit personal agency, and from there seek to change one's world, even if only in whatever seemingly insignificant ways are possible. But modern psychology seems to me to seek to extend that sense of helplessness to even the self.

It's worth noting that this is what animals do. Faced with a hostile environment, they either perish or adapt themselves to it. They do not seek to change their environment, like humans do. In a sense, then, this is an attempt to lower humans to the level of livestock, a comparison that many, many writers have made before me. Such an arrangement is clearly more compatible with... well, pretty much everything - a world full of creatures that affect nothing and passively change themselves in response to whatever happens has little conflict. The more people there are, the less each individual can affect the world without causing conflict.

If anyone actually wants a sense of inner peace regardless of the state of the world, he should seek God. If one just wants someone to talk to... well, I don't have a good answer for that. The internet doesn't seem quite fitting, and I'm told it's harder than ever to make friends or even acquaintances in person these days. I'm fortunate to have family around.

lastaday

It's a common saying in Washington that one can change their party, but it's super rare and it can only be done once.

Not exactly Washington but Jim Justice (the current West Virginia Governor) changed his party 3 times. AFAIK there is no prohibition against changing party a bunch, other than looking like a moron.

diggy

Psychological therapy is a fraud.

Are you overworked and squeezed dry by your boss? Therapy, bro.

Stuck in an abusive relationship? Therapy, bro.

Maybe you are buried in legal bullshit or hate seeing the ads or living in a world where war kills thousands of innocent people every year and all the media does is lie. Maybe you hate living in a world where trillions of dollars / euros / insert currency are spent on total bullshit while you can't affect it. Maybe you hate living in a world where the food, air, water, and shopping items are all poisoned and making you sick.

Therapy, bro.

Therapy is a way to turn the fundamental problems of the world into the failure of someone's mindset. Pretending if you just "think better" or "feel better" they will all disappear.

"Becoming the best version of yourself" is another version of this idea, popular in youtube influencer circles.

It's an idea I feel like the elites would like to spread. But I have no proof at this moment.

Therapy in terms of having a counselor is mostly just having someone to talk to about your problems, which can be helpful I think. I don't know if it's a 'fraud', but perhaps is overly applied to issues with different root causes.

In patient therapy (like for anger management and stuff) I know less about, but usually they give a regimented schedule along with the counselor thing to get you off the ground in not doing <insert bad habit>. It's not a miracle, but far better than sending, say, a drug addict to prison.

unmush

"But modern psychology and psychiatry increasingly attempts to reject the very idea of agency, so instead of beginning to change the world from oneself, one is encouraged instead to passively seek explanations, justifications, and excuses for their behavior and condition. Statistics, sociology, and biology can make decent after-the-fact explanations, but once you start attributing your behavior to factors beyond your control, you have effectively lost agency.

unmush

But modern psychology seems to me to seek to extend that sense of helplessness to even the self.

unmush

In a sense, then, this is an attempt to lower humans to the level of livestock, a comparison that many, many writers have made before me.

I read a book once by the name of "The Freedom Model" which is about "addiction" and it argues that "addiction" is actually a choice in pursuit of happiness, for better or for worse, based on reasons that you believe substance use may make you happy and it also points out that right now the top addiction experts are seeing "addiction" in a deterministic point of view, meaning they attribute reasons as causes and deny the autonomy of a person by denying that they have free will in their decision to use substances (literally seeing you as an inanimate object). This deterministic view actually worsens the conditions of the substance user as they now believe it is inevitable that they use substances and must use willpower all their life to abstain from the inevitable. This sounds very similar to the situation you are describing.

unmush

Such an arrangement is clearly more compatible with... well, pretty much everything - a world full of creatures that affect nothing and passively change themselves in response to whatever happens has little conflict. The more people there are, the less each individual can affect the world without causing conflict.

Sounds like a behaviorist's dream world lol

Well the elites have always used psychological and psychiatric research to their benefit for over a hundred years now. It was crucial in their development of advertising that would satisfy people's desire for autonomy and individuality by providing them a false sense of those things, which would make people become greater consumers and more dependent upon their consumption of products, to the point their ability to express themself would only be through some form of consumption. The Rockefeller Institute, in particular has been heavily associated with numerous projects to manipulate the human mind that were linked with MK Ultra research. They've produced this hellish world and offered therapy as a solution.

Therapy would be extremely beneficial to the elites. Therapists all have the same process. First they talk to you, and try to assess your personality and life experiences which could be deemed traumatic. Then they formulate their "plan" for dealing with your particular case. If some shit happened in your life they will have you talk about it over and over again at almost every session for years on end. How you feel about it. If you feel indifference after years they'll imply that you do not feel indifference and are repressing your emotions. They'll also have you talk about your everyday life and things that could be stressing you, anything at all, and the therapist will make things out to be more than they are in order to justify their presence in your life. They will not allow you to get over things that happened in the past, they will ensure you that the experiences have made you into who you are now and that you basically are powerless to change yourself in ways. When the therapy doesn't work they'll blame you, and imply that you have not been committing yourself to the therapy, and that you need to engage more. They will not encourage you to solve any problems in your life, even your own flaws sometimes, if the solution comes about through extreme effort and involves risk/danger. It doesn't matter what the problems may be. They'll instead give you "coping" strategies e.g square breathing (as if that'll help) in order to help you cope with life. They will encourage coping over solving. Soon thereafter they'll push pharmaceuticals on you, saying they'll help you deal with life better, make you feel better. And then you'll be morphed into this apathetic, SSRI-numbed, therapy goer.

Anyway it's easy to see how this would benefit the elites. I've heard in some areas therapists have seen a lot more clients recently, and it's due to the fact that life is becoming increasingly difficult. People's stress in life has grown with their inability to pay bills. A lot of people feel as though they don't have anyone to talk to about their struggles. Where once somebody might go to speak with a priest, or elderly person they knew, or even confide in friends and family about normal issues, now they'll just talk to a therapist over the internet or make appointments to see them in real life, costing them thousands of dollars sometimes. But if it's expensive and time-consuming then it must be working. I think a lot of the people seeing therapists are stressed directionless slightly upper-class people, upper-class in the sense they can afford to pay for therapy without insurance, but not so well-off that they live free of financial danger. People have been brought down to a level where they can't even just talk to one another about life and their problems, now instead they'll go to see a university/state-offered therapist, or pay to see a private therapist, and tell that person all of their problems so they can decompress. That cathartic reaction produced by confiding in a close friend or wise community member is being commodified by therapy since community is dead and friendship is dying. And it'll make people weaker for where it leads. I don't know how people can fall for therapy, it's a complete scam, you need to be a little self-important or just dumb to actually continue doing it.

Haven't posted in here for a long time. I guess I just don't have many new ideas anymore. But I wanted to share what I've noticed in my years of analyzing political communities. This has been sitting in my brain for a while, so let's go:

I think - considering the standard classification of "left" vs "right" wings - the left wing is winning in terms of the ideological value. For example:

- The left wing is fine with breaking the law at times, the right wing worships the law and will not dare step out of its chains even for a millimeter. It's enough to watch them complain about the "burning and looting", etc. Basically they end up working as gatekeepers for the elites here. Fighting the police, etc is tradition in the left wing. Though I feel they are becoming a little too soft lately, but they are still miles above the utter cuckery to the system of the right wing.

- The right wing loves the "pull yourself by your bootstraps" mindset, the left wing has, I dunno, empathy. You didn't walk 30 miles to your job today? Then how dare you complain. Again, this ensures perpetual abuse by business, etc. The right wing hates anything that would improve the life of the person at the bottom, the UBI, the free medical care; they are being cucks for the rich. And no, this isn't exclusive to Americans, I've seen this mindset in the Polish Wykop, for example.

- The right wing doesn't see a problem with things like casinos, junk food producers, advertisers or any other institutions with bad influence. They all think it's a "choice" to get affected by those things. Even though this allows justifying infinite things, eg grass or sky ads or maybe ads displayed in the mind for monetary reward (when tech gets good enough for this). And if someone gets rich running a casino (etc...), then so be it. Good enterpreneurship. The left wing realizes the reality of conditions and that some ways of making money are evil.

- The left wing cares about the environment more, the right wing traditionally doesn't (from what I've seen anyway).

- The right wing doesn't see anything wrong with eating meat, and the cruelty of the chicken sitting in a cage for two months bathing in its own shit, being pumped full of hormones so that it grows faster, only to have its throat sliced finally. For some, it's "manly" to support this, and the left-wing "soyboy" is unmanly. hahaha.

- The left wing at least wants free medical care for everyone, the right wings thinks you should just sell everything, go into debt, or just die if you dare to become sick. But, modern medicine sucks so much and none of the wings have realized it so I'm not sure if I should use this as a point towards the left wing. But at least it shows empathy.

- The right wing justifies war quite often, the left wing universally hates war though during the Ukraine situation some of them fell for the propaganda, sadly.

- Oh, and I almost forgot this one. It's universally the left that cares about internet OPSEC, privacy issues, etc. They are the ones hosting the XMPP servers, private email providers like RiseUp, etc. The right wing just utterly cucks (hosting their communities at Discord...) and has ZERO technological skills. It's quite funny. BTW, others have noticed it too, even those sympathetic to the right wing, not just me.

Of course, I'm not making a website article here (yet?), so I've skipped most of the nuances in this comparison. There are many left and right wing camps after all, and some deny some of these points. The neo-Nazi camp realizes the bad influence of some businesses and well, they are better than the standard right-wingers IMO. Leftists say some dumb things at times too, for example their subreddits are full of Pfizer worship, and they deny most conspiracies (while right wingers are more sympathetic to ones such as white genocide); but again there are nuances here, too. Many right wingers will skip any business conspiracy as it's all just the free market at work, and acceptable. Most right wingers hated Covid restrictions but sadly it was usually for the "I can't run my business anymore!" reason. Both wings failed here, as none have focused on the nutritional approaches. There are many things both wings don't realize...both worship the schooling system, etc... But overall in the main points I feel like the left wing is running circles around the right wing; which IMO is in the mental stone age. In a football analogy, the left is scoring all the goals even if they have gaps in their defense, etc. And they're winning 6-0 or so; even if the right wing can execute some flashy passes, the ball just isn't ending up inside the goalpost.

This pretty much summarizes my thoughts on "left" vs "right" wing:

"At that time the humans still knew pretty well when a thing was proved and when it was not; and if it was proved they really believed it. They still connected thinking with doing and were prepared to alter their way of life as the result of a chain of reasoning. But what with the weekly press and other such weapons we have largely altered that. Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to have a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn’t think of doctrines as primarily ‘true’ or ‘false’, but as ‘academic’ or ‘practical’, ‘outworn’ or ‘contemporary’, ‘conventional’ or ‘ruthless’" - Screwtape, "The Screwtape Letters" (C.S. Lewis)

but to dive a little deeper...

diggy

- The left wing is fine with breaking the law at times, the right wing worships the law and will not dare step out of its chains even for a millimeter. It's enough to watch them complain about the "burning and looting", etc. Basically they end up working as gatekeepers for the elites here. Fighting the police, etc is tradition in the left wing. Though I feel they are becoming a little too soft lately, but they are still miles above the utter cuckery to the system of the right wing.

The "right wing" is, as you pointed out later, rather composed of many subgroups; few people would most directly use the phrase "right wing" to describe themselves. At least where I am, it's common to use words like "conservative" instead. That particular subgroup does indeed love civil peace and lawfulness. They have been particularly inspired by tales of "nonviolent systematic change", having grown up with tales of peaceful (the phrase "fiery but mostly peaceful" comes to mind) "civil rights" movements drilled into their head routinely year after year in public school. We see that, for example, they seemed quite eager to offer civil disobedience where masks were concerned recently. They genuinely believe that peaceful protest and the like can cause change in institutions controlled by their enemies, even though all the evidence has suggested that, rather, most protests are deliberately spawned by the ruling class to try to push support into the media spotlight for what they already wanted to do.

As such, it's been commonly observed that those who call themselves "conservatives" seldom have both the will and understanding necessary to have any great effect. They end up conserving very little; a conservative is just a progressive walking a bit slower and whining along the way.

I'd also like to note that here in the states, there is a dramatic asymmetry in the justice system along racial, ideological, and geographical lines that has been especially highlighted since 2020. A mulatto kicking a seated white man's skull from behind with a massive windup in Portland gets 2 years in prison (look up Marquis Love if you don't believe me), while Trump supporters near the capitol in DC get decades. The left is allowed great leeway in their lawbreaking and given light sentences. Under those conditions, you're a lot less likely to see the right wing openly breaking the law.

diggy

- The right wing loves the "pull yourself by your bootstraps" mindset, the left wing has, I dunno, empathy. You didn't walk 30 miles to your job today? Then how dare you complain. Again, this ensures perpetual abuse by business, etc. The right wing hates anything that would improve the life of the person at the bottom, the UBI, the free medical care; they are being cucks for the rich. And no, this isn't exclusive to Americans, I've seen this mindset in the Polish Wykop, for example.

"Pull yourself by your boostraps" is a healthy mindset to have... toward yourself, provided it's tempered with reality. It's a poor mindset to have toward others. I think the right wing is generally skeptical of central planning of society, which of course includes things like UBI and free (some would say not really free, rather, collectivized) medical care. Truly free medical care is essentially charity, which I would consider a highly noble thing. But then, someone is still doing the donating of time, supplies, etc, so I suppose if I'm being fair that's not "truly free" either, but it is at least voluntary.

diggy

- The right wing doesn't see a problem with things like casinos, junk food producers, advertisers or any other institutions with bad influence. They all think it's a "choice" to get affected by those things. Even though this allows justifying infinite things, eg grass or sky ads or maybe ads displayed in the mind for monetary reward (when tech gets good enough for this). And if someone gets rich running a casino (etc...), then so be it. Good enterpreneurship. The left wing realizes the reality of conditions and that some ways of making money are evil.

I could say the same about the left and drugs, prositution, strip clubs, and... also casinos? Where I live gambling is banned IIRC aside from a state lottery, or at least was until very recently, and so was marijuana (you can thank the California refugees for this changing). If you've ever driven through the midwest United States, you'll know that far and away the most obnoxious roadside advertisements are for gambling, drugs, and lawyers. Now billboards are popping up all over the more densely-populated parts of my state of that nature. Concerning "institutions with bad influence", the one institution that the "right wing" is rightfully highly skeptical of (at least where I live) is the government, and these days more and more are becoming aware of its corporate connections, particularly to tech giants.

diggy

- The left wing cares about the environment more, the right wing traditionally doesn't (from what I've seen anyway).

"Conservatory". "Conservationist". "Conservative". One may expect, by simple linguistic argument, that these words are highly related, though of course this is no proof. In my state, the "right wing" lives primarily on farms or in small towns, where the yards are so full of trees that the satellite view resembles looking at a moderately-thinned forest with occasional narrow lines where roads are, the backyards very often have gardens, bunnies and squirrels are everywhere. I suppose you could argue that this isn't "true" nature since it's not wilderness, but I would nonetheless consider it a relatively healthy environment.

The "left wing", by contrast, lives primarily in a few dense cities where most of the ground is covered in concrete, there are few trees, and few wild animals save for abandoned cats and dogs. The air is often not great, especially near the busy roads and industrial zones. The only place like that anywhere near me is a single feed lot, which I'll admit I am not fond of.

diggy

- The right wing doesn't see anything wrong with eating meat, and the cruelty of the chicken sitting in a cage for two months bathing in its own shit, being pumped full of hormones so that it grows faster, only to have its throat sliced finally. For some, it's "manly" to support this, and the left-wing "soyboy" is unmanly. hahaha.

I don't know about chicken, but we get our beef from an uncle who raises them on pasture. I don't know if "cruelty" is the right word for what you're describing; cruelty is associated with malice, while factory farming seems if anything like an extreme apathy toward the animal. If there were an alternative that could produce the same results with the same constraints, and they willingly went with factory farming anyway, then I suppose it could be called cruelty. I don't know of any such alternative, especially if we were to get pedantic about those "constraints". I intuitively get the feeling that it's not proper to treat a chicken that way, but I don't have a thorough system for confirming the correctness of that feeling. It's an unpleasant ethical question: most would probably be fine with factory farming of worms or insects, which are also not human, but there is a natural tendency to treat chickens, cows, pigs, etc differently. Is this because of the bond domestication has created between us? Did humans, while trying to select for compatibility with humans in the animals they bred, also end up selecting for compatibility with those animals in their own children? Or is there some quality that makes those animals "closer" to human? What, in general, does make an animal "closer" to human? Do gorillas deserve to be treated as equals?

These are hard questions. But I think I can explain why the "soyboy" would be viewed as unmanly. It has little to do with questions of factory farming and whatnot, and more to do with the idea that someone looked at an animal and thought "it's wrong for me to value my life over its". Such a thought must either stem from an extreme level of self-loathing, or a state of extreme emotionality (can't bear the thought of committing violence, even justified, or saw bambi and cries every time he thinks of animals dying or something). Such rigid adherence to emotions appears highly feminine. There is a reason that hunting has long been associated with rites of passage of manhood: it displays both the ability to fend for oneself, and the ability to commit violence when necessary.

(the above is of course not always accurate, but that's true of all perceptions)

Also, the "soyboy", as far as I understand it, isn't a caricature that's exclusively applied to vegetarians or vegans; it has less to do with animals and more to do with consooming a technocratic manufactured sludge that leaves you weak and undernourished, to my understanding.

diggy

- The left wing at least wants free medical care for everyone, the right wings thinks you should just sell everything, go into debt, or just die if you dare to become sick. But, modern medicine sucks so much and none of the wings have realized it so I'm not sure if I should use this as a point towards the left wing. But at least it shows empathy.

Whenever I ask why medical care is so expensive, the answer I get seems to depend heavily on what sort of people the responder hangs around. Some say it's because hospitals aren't allowed to turn away people who can't pay, and consequently some people who are never able to pay just use the emergency room as their own version of free medical care, driving up costs for everyone else. Some say that it's because the hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and doctors are greedy bastards. Some say it's because of overregulation making medical school too expensive. Some say it's the fault of health insurance companies. Some say it's due to the cost of liability insurance. Some say it's due to the aging boomers using up all the medical resources trying to live a few days longer.

I have yet to ever hear anyone say "it's fine, this is about the price it should be". Why do you think it's so expensive? What does your version of "free medical care" look like? Do the doctors and suppliers get compensated in any way?

diggy

- The right wing justifies war quite often, the left wing universally hates war though during the Ukraine situation some of them fell for the propaganda, sadly.

I dunno about your left, but our "left" puts tranny flags on bombs. I don't have much else to say because "justifies war" can mean anything from "Bin Laden toootally did 9/11, so we're going to go attack his regional enemy" to "Israel just tried and failed at pulling a false flag attack on a US military ship, we should probably do something more stern than shower them with money".

diggy

- Oh, and I almost forgot this one. It's universally the left that cares about internet OPSEC, privacy issues, etc. They are the ones hosting the XMPP servers, private email providers like RiseUp, etc. The right wing just utterly cucks (hosting their communities at Discord...) and has ZERO technological skills. It's quite funny. BTW, others have noticed it too, even those sympathetic to the right wing, not just me.

Don't remind me, it hurts. I will never understand why a group that ideologically values independence would act the way they do on technical matters.

diggy

The neo-Nazi camp realizes the bad influence of some businesses and well, they are better than the standard right-wingers IMO.

If you weren't already purged off reddit I think this statement alone could make it happen again. I'm curious what the leftist camps you do hang around think of that statement.

diggy

Many right wingers will skip any business conspiracy as it's all just the free market at work, and acceptable.

This is especially painful when you combine it with a lack of understanding of technology. It's infuriating watching some do backwards mental gymnastics like "look, you say that this provides no technical value, but they are clearly selling it, and people are buying it, and that means it provides value".

diggy

Most right wingers hated Covid restrictions but sadly it was usually for the "I can't run my business anymore!" reason.

Yes, it turns out that when you lock people up, the thought of proving that they shouldn't be locked up quickly gets covered up by "oh shit I can't feed myself or my family".

Now granted, it was probably just me hanging out in non-mainstream places at the time, but I saw a lot of right wingers be very skeptical of Covid, from pretty much every angle (bioweapon, doesn't exist, it's the flu, it's the meme flu, it's 5G, it's an election year). Heck, I'm pretty sure I got linked to your site from... was it 4/pol/?

diggy

There are many things both wings don't realize...both worship the schooling system, etc... But overall in the main points I feel like the left wing is running circles around the right wing; which IMO is in the mental stone age. In a football analogy, the left is scoring all the goals even if they have gaps in their defense, etc. And they're winning 6-0 or so; even if the right wing can execute some flashy passes, the ball just isn't ending up inside the goalpost.

Well, if it's football, a single touchdown can turn it around. But if it's soccer, I suppose the analogy makes more sense.

Regarding the schooling system, the left here usually keeps insisting that we just need to pay teachers more, mo money fo dem programs, just need to dump even more money into it and surely we'll achieve better results. The right tends to favor private schools, charter schools, school vouchers, and especially homeschooling. Homeschooling is, in my opinion, the best option by far right now (note that homeschooled doesn't have to mean "self-schooled", though that's what I did).

What makes an animal closer to a human? I doubt there is an exact criterion except maybe percentage of genetic similarity, but according to some geneticists that's not that much of a valid criterion actually. We can compare organs, limbs, behavior, range of emotions, diet compatibility, length of life, or even whether we can stick their organs inside of us and have them work. I guess everyone's doing this intuitively anyway, where a worm is less close than a frog, which is less close than a dog, which is less close than an ape, etc. But in some lesser known ways a pig is actually very similar to a human.

The bigger question is what makes a human a human at all? Or if there is even a hard line dividing humans and animals. We've covered this topic in the MUC before and well I now doubt that there is. Even inside what's considered "humans" there is big variability, even in terms of intelligence, behavior, etc. And in terms of limbs, organs, etc we're basically very similar to certain animals. So, well, I don't see the hard line unless you believe in religious narratives (which I know you do). But what if someone doesn't?

With increasing development of genetic modification we might see horrors (or fun / interesting creatures depending on your mindset, I guess) beyond current comprehension. Half human half ape things, 1/4 human and 3/4 ape, or basically stitched together Frankensteins with traits from many distant species. Hell, there are already reports of hybrids of humans and various other animals but I guess it's too out there and requires a separate topic.

But anyway, I guess I went off topic, which originally was the cruelty of factory farming. Factory farming is just the profit dragon let loose, and it seeks the highest efficiency while still selling a product people will buy. Perfect efficiency leaves no place for ethical considerations. Hunting is obviously a lot better, at least the animal was free, not pumped full of crap during its life, and it's also healthier for the human that eats it, etc. But anyway, right wingers seem to skip these considerations at all. At least some of them (again, hard to generalize with so many camps of basically billions of people).

Anyway, after posting I realized I've skipped some issues which might make it seem like I've been too favorable towards the left wing. The stance towards free speech (which leftists often mock) might give some points to the right wing. The same as the stance towards abortion though that's debatable and I think abortion is really mostly a thing because of poverty and worry your child will get a shitty life, but I might be wrong. It's definitely some leftist camps that still believe in a mostly nonsensical thing like female oppression, men as the oppressors, etc. So I guess that's a point towards the right wing. Transgenderism is another heavily debatable thing that's handled differently by the wings, or even camps inside the wings. Skywave told me once that "there are a few transgender types and they all hate each other".

But well, I guess it's why I don't feel like I belong to any "wing". The leftists would also kill me for that neo-Nazi comment of course; certain topics to them are simply hard barriers to even consider. That's the main reason why I don't belong to the left too much; I like analyzing things, considering other options, or just giving people the benefit of doubt.

Still to me, most issues really come down to the profit dragon, and whether you want to let it rampage, or tame it and hold it on a leash. Right wing wants #1, left wing wants #2 (this is a generalization). This is why I feel like the left wing is superior (again, as much as can be generally stated).

The medicine, well I don't care too much to discuss that, as I think it's a rotten system anyway, and good nutrition could fix most problems and deprecate it. All I wanted to point out was the difference in empathy towards the sick between the wings. Again though, the profit dragon rears its ugly head and squeezes the sick for as much as possible.

Thanks for the big reply and sorry I don't have a response to some of the things you've said, I guess this post has gotten long enough, And I don't feel that informed about some of the issues.

Actually, let's cover some of the other issues, while there is an opportunity:

Basically my main problem with the bootstraps ideology is that it allows the elites to crank up the abuse infinitely. Whether it's in terms of job conditions, advertisements, CCTV spying, or anything else you can think of. It's all going to be accepted because you're supposed to be strong and take it all. So, what might seem like a positive at first actually ends up hurting us all in the long run. The more the bootstraps ideology spreads, the higher level of abuse becomes "normal". I think that's why it's shilled so hard recently - the rich elites benefit from it. And it's seen all over the place in the wild, with the right wingers calling people useless, stupid, weak, spoiled, entitled, whatever; because they dare to be bothered by something. E.g mocking the "meditation rooms" at Twitter, or wherever that was. Do they really not think that one day, something will break them too? Do they not realize the psychopathic elites are laughing behind their backs? Maybe this is the core psychological difference between left wingers and right wingers. That the latter is fine with the higher-ups being able to do anything they want to, and enduring or ignoring it. While the left winger wants to prevent it, mitigate it, ban it, etc. Maybe it's the same trait that makes left wingers less sympathetic to free speech.

One interesting thing adjacent to this is how ferociously the right wingers mock the idea of having feelings. Oh I'm such a macho I didn't cry at my mom's funeral :D. It seems that for the right wingers, the entire existence is just a fight, a fight against perceived "weakness", or well, just a fight in general. A challenge to rise up to. I mean, there is a place for fighting but I don't think it should be a default, just a backup. Being in a fight or flight state at all times can't be good. So we should aim for a world where we don't have to be. This principle can even be seen in the kinds of video games the right wingers like, and their way of playing them. They hate story games, they hate immersing themselves in a world. Just press buttons fast enough and clear the challenge. Seems like a sad way to live, but whatever. Or maybe it's all a facade and they are really weak but want to seem strong. That has to be traumatic, to keep holding it all, then. If the macho shtick of the right wingers is just a defense mechanism against a cruel world, then wow, it changes everything. Maybe this behavior is simply adaptive. I somehow didn't take this possibility into the account before. But I doubt that's really true for most right wingers. Though, it would make a nice movie, the big macho right winger is revealed to be soft in the end, just pretending to not be so in a society that shuns weakness. Maybe this movie already exists somewhere. Anyway, moving on...

Why is medicine expensive? Probably because the businesses have made it so, as they wanted to earn more money. And they can, if the medicine is essential. There was a situation when some corporation had the only available drug to manage a very rare disease, which only about 20 (or so) people suffered from. And they sold one dose for millions, or whatever. Again, they do it because they can, no deep reason. And the bought media of course talked about it as if it was some kind of necessary evil (if they even admitted it was evil). Or they gave some stupid explanations other than greed. It's a one big mafia. It doesn't have to be like this, for sure.

Edit: another reason is that modern medicine has a legal and informational monopoly on healing, pretty much. Only a medical doctor can perform medicine, and he's limited to the approved medical therapies. And I don't have to tell you how attacked other types of medicine are, right? On Wikipedia, "skeptical" websites, etc... I mean the information is still findable if you dig deep enough, but a regular person will not and will only see the attacks, get discouraged, and go back to modern medicine. And so since it's the only one that is allowed to exist, it is able to crank up the prices easier.

I will say the right wing generally has a info literacy problem. This is well documented all over the internet. Questioning the narrative is good but placing the official narrative with blatant falsehoods isn't much better. How many people fell for the Qanon psyop? How many people fall for sites like x22report and realrawnews? Why is "2 more weeks" a popular conservative phrase? (It's because people are tired of the outlandish claims).

Say what you want about the left, but few leftists believe in theories like all politicans being body clones and secret executions at gitmo. They can have a biased and inaccurate view of the world, but not an entirely false one.