Katrisia

I personally do not care that much about the survival of entire species (including ours); I care more about the lives of the individuals. To illustrate this, it saddens me when we cause extinctions, but a little more because of the animals that suffered in the process and a little less about the whole "loss" of a form of life. Yet, it all is sad.

How do I deal with this climate change sadness? I guess I don't see it separately from other sad things from humanity (and existence, but let's focus on humanity). I have accepted the fact that most human beings are morally questionable in my book, this causes the world to be worse for everyone in it, and no amount of reasoning with most of them (about the benefit for them and others of being more conscious about their lives) will change it for now.

At some point, some have felt that a better society is just a step ahead of us because it's relatively easy in material terms, but now I feel it much farther as the social factors are not as easy. I guess I have surrendered to a certain idea of psychological determinism. If we imagine a person has an object we want at their reach, while it's out of our reach, and we could get it if they only cooperate, we can feel frustrated when they don't. "Why do they make it so difficult? It's as simple as reaching for the object and grabbing it for us. Just do it! Why are they waiting for? Ugh!". But if we start from the idea that there's a chance they won't help us because they simply can't be bothered (different reasons as to why), and that's probably not fixable, we won't feel that level of frustration for their inaction and we will strategize differently how to get that object.

By the way, I don't think selfishness or self-centeredness or whatever is individualism, nor that altruism is communitarianism. I'm inclined to individualism, but that's what makes me think that just as my life and freedom are valuable, so are others'. I do not like societies that are communitarian because they drown the individual (in false responsibilities, in fear of ostracism, etc.), and I hate that. We have one life and only one and we should be as free as possible, even if that means being unattached, different, whatever. The only rule for that freedom and for everything is ethics. And that's the difference for me, that's how I see it. Not individualistic people versus communitarian people, but people that live without an interest in being ethical (whatever that ends up meaning) and people who do.

So... I think I see a lot of these people and I don't get as frustrated as before. I sigh and continue my day. Reading this last part, it reads a little stoic (learning that I cannot change these parts of society and focusing on the ones we can change). Stoicism is like the ibuprofen of life; paracetamol is pyrrhic skepticism. I'm bad at analogies, lol, but you get the point (I hope).

Prioritizing my health (including my mental health) has helped a lot. Good levels of everything in my body do wonders for my energy, but also my resilience, my mood, etc. Emotional regulation skills, combating stress... I know these are just common recommendations, but I don't have more.

I'm sorry that you're feeling down. It's been a hard time...

Isn't FlyingSquid a she?

I suggest arrows to navigate main comments (I think they also call them "parent comments" or something). As an example, Sync for Lemmy and Now for Reddit have them.

As many have already told you, people need more than just physical companionship.

I'd add that some people cannot be happy even with a healthful environment because of internal or personal issues. For example, certain cluster B personality disorders or traits cause that people feel empty deep down. They will enjoy things for a while, but often return to feeling incomplete, disconnected, etc.

Yes. It worries me that you haven't found them. Either you have but you thought they were stupid anyway because of them being leftists, or you haven't because you do not believe in any way in equality, solidarity, search for knowledge, and many other values the left stands for. This I find difficult to believe.

I think it's like saying that Marxism isn't... let's say, Nietzschean. Those are two ways of looking into problems. In some points, they'll coincide; in others, they won't. I'm bad at analogies. Anyway, if you're a Nietzschean (in this case, if you believe intersectionality is the proper way of looking at social phenomena), of course Marxism (probably in all its different branches) will look incomplete and like they're building from the wrong premises to you. But if you were Marxist, you'd think the same of Nietzschean philosophy (or intersectionality).

I'm sure both have excellent reasons to believe in a framework or another, but we should not forget they are just that, not truth™. I say this not to fall into an absolute relativism but to prevent any side from falling into a conviction of moral superiority. We cannot be so sure about it.

Have you watched the movie Network (1976)? I feel like Russia is in the position of "the Arabs" right now (and I don't say more in case you haven't watched it).

Yes, and I agreed with you except in two things. We shouldn't take it as the whole reality because there are other paradigms/frames living at the same time, and we shouldn't name things after this dominance in academia or academia-like discourse because knowledge is supposed to strive for the maximum impartiality possible.

Even for those extreme cases, it's understandable to wish for that, but I'm not sure it's healthy for the one wishing. Speaking only of people who don't believe in the death penalty, and are breaking their moral code due to an extreme aversion, maybe it is healthy as it may be cathartic; maybe it is not as it may reinforce rumination, stressful feelings, etc. Maybe it is healthy as they can reach a slight feeling of justice or equilibrium again in the world; maybe it is not healthy because they'll feel they themselves committed a moral transgression pushed by the atrocities of these people. I don't know, maybe it's different from person to person.

I like your comment. It's interesting to consider how the construction of gender varies not only across cultures (e.g. what is expected of womanhood in Canada versus in Japan today), but also across different cultures perception of each other.

In my country, women who are indigenous looking (physically speaking) are considered less elegant or classy than their white/whiter counterparts by these white/whiter people. These people see their femininity as not wide enough because a mix of classism and racism/colorism makes them believe that an indigenous-looking woman can only put a costume, an imitation of a high class woman, because they cannot really be one (as they think money comes only from European descent, and so being classy belongs to them) and that they don't fit those things due to their physical appearance anyways.
That's a widespread belief turned into an aesthetic perception. Show people who believe and now feel this way an indigenous woman in a gala attire and they'll feel something's wrong.

I wouldn't say this is a non-binary experience, though. I'd say this is the plurality of understandings about what is a woman and who is 'more woman' than who. It's not possible to establish what a woman is simply because it is an ever changing matter. Gender, in itself, is fluid. We expect different things from it at different times, often influenced by external factors (as seen in wars, for example). I wouldn't say this makes the people living these experiences non-binary, trans, etc. They're imposed a rule-set by their sex at birth, by their physical characteristics, just like everyone else. "You shouldn't behave this way", "you should not wear this", "do this instead", etc.

You can only say it's non-binary if you judge that the dominant ways are the standard. That is, that a woman of European descent with Western ways of life is the way women are, and that a deviation from that is non-binary. That's only true in countries like mine, like the U.S., like Argentina or the Philippines, and only for the white/whiter population. Thinking that everyone else is measuring against this standard is an ignorant and inflated vision of themselves. Sure, this standard is influential, but people have their own cultures and ideas of gender aside from possible cultural interference and influence from Western values. I'm sure an indigenous woman of my country finds the way she is criticized and scrutinized for wearing different clothes obnoxious, but that's not her whole experience as to say she lives non-binarily. She still has traditions, beliefs, and ideas of gender within her community in which she might be the epitome of womanhood. She's only living non-binarily according to white/whiter people. These people shouldn't be the ones from which names are given. It reminds me of the dichotomy of "white - POC". Why are people in the entire world categorized as "of European descent - any other" as if Europe should be the center and the defining criteria in human populations? While these divisions are common within groups ("Jews - gentiles", "Christians - heathens"), they shouldn't be used outside limited contexts and definitely not in science or any serious analysis. But that's Western egos, especially U.S.-American egos, I guess...

Are you thinking of Stalin?

And not just boys.