M1ch431

What if locking people up indefinitely (as many were in institutions decades ago) and diagnosing them with subjective criteria isn't ideal? I'm not dismissing anybody's diagnosis or hand-waving real symptoms or illness - I'm merely suggesting that an authoritarian system where human rights are stripped with minimal outside observation (with sometimes flimsy criteria and fallible actors) is potentially damaging to mental health and is probably not conducive to healing. It can be a very imbalanced power dynamic, especially as it was in the institutions of the past as you pointed out.

We need an answer to retain the rights of those involuntarily held as best as possible. I think it's important to make courts more accessible to patients (and their loved ones), providing those held involuntarily with access to second opinions or different facilities (in some cases), and having established (and independently enforced) criteria for release - with appeals available for patients to argue their case for release with legal representation and other expert witnesses (e.g. other psychiatrists, qualified individuals directly involved in their care past or present) and perhaps even family members and other people who were involved with the patient.

Involuntary commitment (for any extended period) should be reserved for the severely mentally ill, who are determined by independent review to be in need of treatment to stabilize - and only those who are a danger to themselves or others, those who committed crimes, and those who are actively violent should be held in higher-security (locked) facilities.

I feel the rest would benefit greatly from conditions akin to a Soteria House (without locked doors, forced medication, or coercion) - the Soteria House model could be expanded, adapted, or modified. Treatment could be loosely mandated by courts, with reviews conducted and alternative treatment plans established if the patient wishes to modify or discontinue treatment before they are thought to be stabilized by their psychiatrist(s) and care team. I feel that maintaining consent, valuing patient input in forming treatment plans, and avoiding coercion is key to address certain states of trauma - otherwise patients are potentially faced with more trauma.

For those who are not thought to be severely ill, but who are thought to be in temporary crisis (and who are not thought to be violent or a threat to themselves or others), stabilization could be attempted in a temporary hold to assess their state, and continued onward with care akin to Soteria Houses or intensive outpatient care and other forms of observation and forms of support (e.g. with their environment and other distressing situations they are facing).

And to respond directly to you, I definitely feel like society was incapable or very underequipped to fix the institutions back then. Society is still largely unable to address distress and its very real manifestations or consequences - such as homelessness and the prevention of individuals from becoming homeless against their will.

Chaos, artificial scarcity, and violence feeds the system and justifies its existence.

Otherwise, why would we still have a mass incarceration system? Why is it still punitive in nature with terrible and inhumane conditions normalized?

A cycle is created that makes people unemployable and industries and those in power reap the benefits at every stage of these people's lives - any police contact is effectively a scarlet letter. Specifically, many corporations benefit from the slave labor sourced from prisons and the private prison industry is its own can of worms.

With AI tooling screening job applicants with proprietary criteria, public data brokers, mass surveillance disguised as "adtech", people search websites, social media (where people have a tendency to overshare personal details), systematic reporting of arrest records/etc. in newspapers (generally with no updates to reflect the person's current situation); you can literally be unemployable in the US with no conviction or crimes that have been expunged or sealed.

If you have a felony or misdemeanor on your record - good fucking luck getting a job in today's market - background checks are normalized and are extremely accessible to employers. It's no wonder why people turn to crime to exist, discrimination is effectively legalized - there is insufficient regulation and protections for job applicants.

The only way to prevent crime is to rehabilitate those who commit crime and to provide services to enrich people's lives before they would otherwise commit crime. We also need to respect people's privacy upon rehabilitation - we shouldn't be permanently labeling (or dehumanizing) those deemed to be fit to return to society (e.g. people that aren't violent or who aren't a threat). We have to give them a path to participate in society.

It definitely seems to be the case for me. VPNs and other privacy settings can trigger the aggressive captchas as well.

The agitators on lemmy definitely push the idea that centrism is bad.

Centrism gets absolutely nothing done.

falling for the trap of “I only support candidates 100% aligned with pure progressive values” results in Trump winning.

Kamala lost because she did not run on any progressive policies and shifted center-right. Supporting fracking got her zero brownie points in PA, for example. She really didn't run on anything impactful - she was continuing a lot of Biden's policies, refused to list her policies until very late in the race, and was mainly running on not being Trump. What she was proposing was entirely insufficient to attract voters.

Did you forget about Obama's successes? He arguably ran on a progressive platform and his success was explosive.

But in reality, the progressive candidates get <1% of the vote.

Gee, I wonder why that is. Progressives generally being anti-corporatist and against funding Іsrаеl unsurprisingly makes Super PACs and foreign agents like АІPАϹ spend lots of money to beat them. All funding should be from small donors to even the playing field - campaign finance reform is needed for fair and democratic elections.

People vote based on name recognition and what benefits they get by voting for a particular candidate - they aren't repulsed by progressive policies, they usually just don't know about progressive candidates or about their policies. Or they are told by mainstream media that the progressive candidate has no chance of winning and to vote for the establishment to beat Republicans.

The far-leftists who don’t do so well will never be happy

There are no "far-leftists" in the Democratic party, it's a right party. All capitalists are firmly on the right and socialists are on the left. There's very few people who classify themselves as democratic socialists or who are left-leaning. Being a progressive does not make you left-leaning or a democratic socialist - see Elizabeth Warren as an example (she is a progressive capitalist).

So according to the "comeback retreat" hosted by the "center-left" group Third Way; the Democrats are too "beholden" to their "far-left members", they are dismissive of people without progressive views, and the Democrats also need to "embrace patriotism".

I'm pretty sure people don't like Democrats because they keep moving right, they seem to be too focused on maintaining the status quo and alienating progressives, and now they're essentially complicit with a fascist regime.

Sounds like a winning strategy to continue the move to the right and push progressive and "far-left" voices out. No wonder Bernie essentially threw Democrats under the bus in a podcast recently.

And then failing that one too because you take literally any measure to protect your privacy. And then the next one.

If these countries were given the ingredients to be able to develop and there was no outside demand for mined materials, these children wouldn't be in the mines.

Big if, but less of an "if" if more people are made aware. It's absolutely sickening how much we rely on lithium considering how it is sourced.

We are collectively enabling modern slavery and child slavery. These corporations prefer to act innocent because they aren't sending the children themselves into the mines, but they buy the materials they mine regardless (and there's no way that they don't know the reality). Many corporations profit off the back of these people and children and they should be required to pay significant reparations.

What is in our power to stop this? We can spread the awareness of our exploitation of third-world countries - including their children, we can develop technologies that don't rely on rare materials or difficult to mine materials, we can employ automation to mine what we do need in first-world countries, and we can hold the corporations that profit from these supply chains accountable.

There are battery technologies (e.g. sodium-ion) that we could grasp and avoid mining altogether for energy storage. China is proving that sodium-ion batteries are a very promising technology, even in cars, and the sodium can be sourced from seawater or from the byproducts of desalination (the latter which likely needs to be very quickly scaled considering the fresh water crisis).

And how much slower is it to launch and use?

When you put it that way, I guess we better hand over thousands every year to Apple for the new iPhone. Wouldn't want a child slave to be unemployed.

Buy 10,000 disposable vapes every year while you're at it (if you really care). Maybe a couple cents will trickle down to the children you claim to care about.

If you're worried about these children losing their wonderful life in the mines, feel free to support them through other means.

Make it your life's work to spread awareness, bring aid to the affected countries, and support their development - you only enslave yourself by learning to do absolutely nothing against what you see as oppressive.

And getting companies that profit off of these children to support them would likely be fair. Apple, Google, and many others can handle the hit.

Your trolling aside, we all share a personal responsibility to not buy from companies that e.g. utilize cobalt/lithium in their products - slavery/child labor is rampant in those supply chains and Apple et. al are responsible for supporting it.

If there was no demand, these children wouldn't be forced to work in mines - it's that simple.

You enslave others by consuming most common products on the shelves. Modern slavery (and child slavery) is more expansive than most know and third-world exploitation is rampant - western supply chains are not immune.

While you support the enslavement of others with your consumption, corporations continue to become more and more powerful.