So you’re saying that pragmatically, the conflict need to end. Israel has had the means, now they have the justification. Bye Palestine, and bye conflict.
The thing I hated most on night shift was, if something was screwed up on day shift and was still an issue when I came in, they would pass it off; but, if something was screwed up at the end of my shift, I had to stay until it was resolved, sometimes for hours.
That’s literally every place with more than 1 shift or department, it’s easy to blame coworkers instead of management for running an understaffed and undertrained op
Saw that no one brought up this important piece of info, so here we go. According to the law of the land established by all the natives who lived on the land before the settlers came (the same natives who also wiped out neighboring tribes and inslaved them as to work the land the invading tribe took) Anyone who killed the people holding a piece of land before they arrived were then the rightful owners of that same land until someone else came to kill them or the laws changed. If anything the settlers did something no other group did during their time. They came to a land that wasn’t their own, and followed the laws of that land in such a way to incorporate themselves into the group living on it. Don’t really care who does what with this, but this thread wouldn’t be complete without this info.
I mean it’s easier to find than a pack of menthol cigarettes where I am but I’m still looking forward to mainstream acceptance of the benefits of psychedelics.
I don’t know if you can threat people of different cultures in psychology. Like, for example, an Indian therapist is not going to understand the problems an American have because the culture of both are pretty different, and the solutions the therapist propose maybe dosen’t make sense on an American context. Imagine trying to explain to a non American therapist that you have anxiety of being shooted on school or in a traffic incident, that kind of things are pretty foreign for the majority of the rest of the world, even for third world countries.
If a therapist cannot look beyond culture how will they understand what creates the problems in somebody’s life? To get canned answers, a book is enough.
Even within nations, particularly multicultural nations, it’s common to have psychologists who specialise in specific cultures to provide the most appropriate advice. When I studied psychology in Uni we did a segment on psychological differences across cultures and they’re really quite stark. I don’t know enough about Japanese culture to be able to counsel a suicidal salaryman, but I can definitely help others who share my culture look after their mental health.
There are no known psychological truths across cultures. Because our culture heavily impacts our psychology, the two tend to covary. No one therapist can give quality advice to an Anglo farmer, a Sentinelese woman, a Siberian child and a Moroccan man. The cultural contexts just vary too wildly.
Not an expert but this sounds like a behavioral school of thought. It’s a strong statement that there are no psychological truths across cultures. Can you recommend a source where I can learn more about that?
Shouldn’t at least psychoanalysts be able to work across cultures?
But even if knowledge of a culture is needed, there is still the possibility to learn it. Additionally, a view from outside could also be an advantage. Other cultures can have answers to our problems.
I don’t know of any publications that clearly state that there are no universal psychological truths across cultures, but I am yet to find any reputable evidence that there are universal psychological truths across cultures. Hence it’s the null hypothesis that hasn’t been disproven. If it can be disproven, I’d gladly change my assertion, but it’s impossible to prove a negative like this because it is the null hypothesis - it can only be disproven.
Nothing can really be properly proved in psychology anyway because of how soft the science is but also because of the changing nature of the influence of culture on psychology. Even within the same nation or peoples, culture also varies over time and so psychology is always playing catch-up. Social media related mental health issues are a great example - a psychologist who’s been plucked from 1970 and dropped into 2023 would have no idea how to counsel someone on that issue because it’s an entirely foreign concept to them.
Psychologists can absolutely learn and become experts in other cultures, but I think it’s beyond the scope of a single human being to become an expert in every single cultural context that exists. They often become experts in the cultures relevant to them - for example, trying to learn the differences between city/regional/rural issues, trying to understand the needs of LGBTQIA+ people, or learning to better understand CALD communities they’re based in/near.
It may be universal, I’m not sure. I’ve not read any information able to establish that. There are indigenous tribes of people who are not integrated into the global world - we can’t know their psychology as we can’t study them.
Sure, but someone who lives in Addis Ababa probably doesn’t have the cultural knowledge to give adequate therapy to someone in Pyongyang, despite them both being located in cities.
Could someone in London counsel someone in New York? Probably, because the cultures are quite similar and share a root ethnicity and language. But that Londonian probably won’t have as much luck counselling someone in Ho Chi Minh.
I am out of my depth to add anything meaningful. I personally believe that the human experience is universal. E. g. soldiers suffer on both sides of all wars. For sure it is more difficult to gain trust and openness if there are cultural differences. But the emotional conflicts that come with war will be the same.
Will the experience of war victims resonate with the victors of that war? Will the victors understand the oppressed and be able to prove their position with adequate psychology? Does the psychology of an occupied people differ from the psychology from the oppressors? Does a person whose culture has been stripped from them require the same counsel as those who believes that illegally occupied territories are their’s?
Many confounding variables exist here that may interact with being militarily oppressed, and therefore comparisons between the two sides are incomparable. I don’t have the answers to these questions. I wish I did, because then I’d be able to secure facts. In this situation the only secure facts are that both sides have committed atrocities and crimes against humanity.
Most countries win a war and lose a war, so experiences can be shared. But among all the countries it could also be possible to pair the winners with the winners and the losers with the losers. But I would expect that it would only be needed to avoid direct conflicting parties.
If it is that dire then the reality is that if you don’t call, the children will die. But it’s not awkward because you will never know if you don’t use the service.
The third world only earns more if we buy services back.
If you feel bad that the family starves you can still pay more. But people understand PPP. Your life will be worse than theirs. You paid for chips while they had a real meal.
$5 is not very much money in 3rd world countries either. If you want to speak to someone with a doctorate you can expect to pay a little more than that.
health insurance almost certainly won’t cover any percentage of a session with a therapist that isn’t on their books
tax. A healthcare professional is generally looking after their own books too. So the only way they will bother dealing with Americans is wmthe incentive of earning in dollars anyway
like others have said, culture differences will play a role in the kind of care you will receive.
recommends for a psychiatrist or meds will need a prescription and that won’t work across borders. You will need to get referred locally too.
a licensed therapist may not be licensed in your country, or worse, may be a hack or a scammer
But it most certainly exists. I’ve got a mate that treats people overseas. I believe there’s also an app that connects you with someone available too. Betterhelp, Talkspace to name a few.
What matters isn’t who came first. What matters is that no one has the right to expel a human from a land they’re living in. That is the core of the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
I am pro Palestine, but have no issue with the increase of Jewish migrations in the 19th century. The problem is not Jewish migration. It is the fact that Israel expelled Palestinians from their homes, murdered them, suffocated them, and made their lives miserable.
And this is the same thing that was done to the native people of the modern day Americas.
Didn’t Arabs and Palestinians just flat out refuse to coexist with a Jewish state from the start? The international community proposed a solution and they refused to accept it.
Certainly if they chose to fight, and lost, then they have to face the consequences which might include losing their land.
That’s hardy unprecedented, the very city I live in was largely founded by seizing lands from the British during the American war of independence, because they lost…
I would say while yes it’s “wrong” to kick someone off their land, both parties have to at least be reasonable and willing to compromise when you have a complex ethnic and religious issue. Otherwise conflict is inevitable.
None of which is to excuse any war crimes committed by either side. I just think it’s more nuanced than “israel bad apartheid state”.
Didn’t Arabs and Palestinians just flat out refuse to coexist with a Jewish state from the start?
“coexist with a Jewish state” is a bit of a contradictory statement. Arabs coexisted with Jews fine prior to the Zionist project. A Jewish state is by definition a state exclusive to Jews. That’s the opposite of coexistnece by definition, and yes that is exactly why Arabs (Muslims and Christians alike) refused it.
Certainly if they chose to fight,
Resist*. they chose to resist occupation, expulsion from their homes, massacre and genocide.
fight, and lost, then they have to face the consequences which might include losing their land.
Ahh, so if someone fights you for your land, destroys your home and genocides your people, then they’ve earned it?? Well I should not be surprised that someone who lives in a nation founded on genocide thinks this is okay.
yes it’s “wrong” to kick someone off their land, both parties have to at least be reasonable and willing to compromise
“hey man, I know I just took over your home and burned your family alive in front of your eyes. But you gotta be reasonable here and be willing to compromise!”
What more of a compromise do you need beyond coexistence? That’s all Palestinians have asked for, and Israel continues to deny them basic rights, no matter how peaceful they are.
And I end with: Israel bad apartheid state. It is truly that simple.
Jewish state is by definition a state exclusive to Jews. That’s the opposite of coexistnece by definition, and yes that is exactly why Arabs (Muslims and Christians alike) refused it.
How does the presence of Arabs in Israel’s war machine disprove that? You didn’t answer this question.
There were Jews who fought in the Nazis ranks. Based on your ridiculous logic, the Nazis are inclusive of the Jews (obviously incorrect because your logic is flawed).
There were black people fighting in the US armies as well, even during Jim Crow era.
Lol. You delirious and don’t know a thing, defending Palestinians who genocided jews for centuries and claim the land they drenched in blood as their. Even now normal Muslims live in Israel, but those monkeys don’t want to coexist and only want to kill. Ask 1.7 million Muslims (18.1% of population) what they think about those terrorists.
Look at last statements from their leaders, look at state of people in Gaza that had millions of dollars gifted by UN. Fuck them and their rockets.
Oh, and you for flying on wings of russian terroristsic propaganda.
Ahh, so if someone fights you for your land, destroys your home and genocides your people, then they’ve earned it?? Well I should not be surprised that someone who lives in a nation founded on genocide thinks this is okay.
Nice try putting words in my mouth, but I never said any of this was “OK”. It doesn’t have my “blessing”, I merely gave my observation grounded in reality, of how the world works. Hell no, if it was up to me, everything everywhere would be resolved peacefully, fairly and with diplomacy, not violence.
Honestly given your tone and snide remarks, I suspect you are too emotionally invested on this topic, for whatever reason, to have a rational discussion.
But either way, the ability to occupy and defend land will remain the determining factor in maintaining sovereignty, now and in the future. You can’t count on the international community, and you can’t count on what’s right or just. ( call me a pessimist, I’ll agree :)
This is an honest question, is Wikipedia just wrong on that? Because there they write that Palestine also expelled all Jews and that they moved to Israel for that reason (because they weren’t allowed in Palestine). And also they write that Hamas specifically want all Jews to be gone.
If Wikipedia is wrong, where do you get your information from?
Please feel free to ask any questions! I am happy to answer them all
Can you please cite which part of Wikipedia is saying this?
“Palestine” and “Israel” are two names for the same region, so it doesn’t make sense to be expelled from one into the other. I think there must be a misunderstanding here.
I bet this is referring to certain Arab States expelling Jews during the creation of Israel and the British occupation of Palestine, as a retaliation (which was horrible and stupid and I fully condemn it). But keep in mind this is well into the conflict, when Zionists and British occupation were already well into committing heinous acts and massacres, and that this is Arab States who sympathized with Palestine, not Palestine itself.
What I was referring to was treatment of Jews in Palestine before the Zionist project.
As for Hamas’ anti-semitism, I think some background information is important here.
When it was founded, Hamas was not a popular group by any means. Popular Palestinian resistance groups at the time were socialist and progressive, such as the PFLP and other members of the PLO. Hamas was founded as a Muslim brotherhood affiliate, and its charter had many anti Semitic references.
Israel saw this as a huge opportunity, and it propped up Hamas while fighting off other groups. Fast forward to the 2000’s, every Palestinian resistance group was left defeated, and Hamas was left as the only group left fighting. Palestinians had no choice but to support Hamas.
This was a major change for Hamas. It saw hoardes of Palestinians join its ranks, and most were not ideologically aligned with them. There are even Christians fighting among its ranks. This caused an ideological shift within Hamas. It was even reflected in its new charter in 2017, which dropped anti-semitic rhetoric and said it is fighting against Israel, not because of its religion, but because of the Zionist occupation. You can find this charter translated online easily.
Since then, many Hamas officials reiterated their position that they are not fighting to expel Jews, but against Zionist occupation.
Palestinians today see Hamas as a vehicle for their liberation, and not as an ideological alignment. But even then, most of the people in Hamas do not hold anti Semitic opinions anymore, and we should keep in mind this major shift throughout its history.
Wikipedia is kind of wrong in the sense that there’s always been Palestinian Jews.
The issue is that due to Zionism, a ton of European Jews moved into the region starting at the turn of the last century and accelerating following the Holocaust.
Said Jews then set about building a thriving western-style industrialized democracy that was opposed at every turn by an Arab and Islamic population that opposed its very existence on what can only be thought of as religious grounds.
All of which can only be taken as an indication of how deeply corrupting and counter-progressive are virtually all forms of institutionalized organized religion.
Fuck all of them. Organized religion sucks ass and should rightly be seen as a vestige of the past.
Said Jews then set about building a thriving western-style industrialized democracy that was opposed at every turn by an Arab and Islamic population that opposed its very existence
I am pretty sure that they were concerned about being expelled from their homes and massacred, and not because they hated “thriving industrialized democracy”.
memes
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.