Somewhat conflicted about this - on the one hand I agree with the critical perspective, but on the other I think it should also be applied to considering how ‘adverse’ reactions are defined and what the intended psycho-social outcome of therapy is (not to trivialise the former, but the example given is “rare cases of “depersonalisation”, where people feel like they are watching themselves in a film” which could either be a step towards psychosis or a spiritual awakening into the nature of selfhood). Plus there is an important overlay of tension between the commercial mindfulness industry, as a deracinated, de-contextualised form of Buddhist meditation, and the study and practice of Buddhism as a philosophical, spiritual and historical tradition - within which surely lies the essential questions of ethics and aims that underpin any broader assessment. I would consider myself a rationalist, but alongside the scepticism of mindfulness as a tool of neoliberal spiritualism there’s also the Western tradition of anti-psychiatry to question the scientific objectivity of ‘experts’ in the psychological realm.
More practically, Brad Warner, I think, has written an important caveat to the meditation/mindfulness experience: rather than simply being about ‘emptying your mind’, in the popular imagination, it can expose oneself (through relaxing conscious control) to suppressed emotions and thoughts, with uncomfortable or unpleasant results. And the experience of depression or anxiety is in large part about suppressing certain ideas or feelings through an unhealthy focus on others, as a kind of psychological defence mechanism. So mindfulness can help cut through the latter but dealing with the former requires more positive action; it’s why using mindfulness to tackle social malaise is doomed to be inadequate unless it’s coupled with an honest discourse and an ethics of care. Is there a risk to providing tools towards mental equilibrium? Maybe, but it’s less worse than denying the link between psychic pain and social situations.
Anonymous said: Yo, Monday morning my coworker finds a mini copy of the new testament on her desk. She's Jewish. our office is on lock down on weekends and no one is admitting to it. I feel like she should pursue it.
She should set it on fire in front of everyone.
Also, who the fuck prints just the New Testament? What purpose could that possible have other than harassing Jewish people?
You clearly don’t know much about Christianity
I wish there was a snopes for tumblr bullshit.
It’d have to be pretty big…
Also there’s that thing where I think ‘should I maybe add to this’ and then see the post already has 25,000+ notes, so why bother?
Even if there was a feature where the ‘notes’ were filtered so you could see actual additions, instead of having to scroll through a sea of mute likes and reblogs, it would help.
I’m not quite sure that I even know what a liberal is tbh
Broadly speaking, liberal means taking a centerist position. The confusion comes from the fact that the further in either direction you go, the wider the centre becomes.
Anarchists think Communists are liberal because they maintain hierarchies, Communists think trade unionists are liberal because they maintain capitalism, trade unionists think the Labour Party are liberal because they broadly maintain the status quo, Tories think Labour are liberal because they don’t openly detest poor people, UKIP think the Tories are Liberal because they’re willing to be seen in the same room as an immigrant, the BNP think UKIP are liberals because they only want to stop immigration not deport all the effnicks, and white power groups think the BNP are liberals because they spend their time trying to get elected instead of … I dunno … shitting on their own faces, or whatever it is that lot enjoy doing.
Um… I think the confusion arises from there being several, sometimes overlapping definitions of ‘liberal’ which nevertheless cover a wide range of political opinions and relative positions. I explained some of this here with reference to The Knife: but basically there’s the political science definition which would be more in line with the original, historical ideology of individual freedoms (whether they be social or economic, the former becoming the popular US usage, as below, and the latter covering more what’s now called ‘neoliberal’) and then there’s a more subjective, rhetorically pejorative meaning that also has ‘right’ and ‘left’ variants, roughly corresponding to fears of either social or economic liberalism - e.g. a leftist might critique ‘liberals’ for supporting socially liberal ideas while ignoring economic inequalities and/or the underpinning structure of economically liberal societies, while a conservative may or may not support liberalisation of the economy, but usually opposes social liberalisation; although of course all that rests on a questionable division of ‘economy’ and ‘the social’).
That might not have ended up being too clarifiying, sorry - however, I don’t think ‘liberal’ really means centrist except by accident, or because it represents in some form one of the mainstream currents of western politics, or because it has turned into a pejorative for ‘less radical’ (more on the the left than the right I think… the Tory example rings false to me, or as an echo of the US bleeding-heart ‘liberal’).