...we're gonna have to re-evaluate old concepts of free speech and democracy.
Everyone's on anti depressants/sleepers/speed, the chuds are blasting testosterone out their ears until they stroke, weed is everywhere and as potent as heroin.
Add the perfect dopamine delivery system, a political internet economy modeled on the addictive technology of vegas slot machines.
It's gonna have an effect on the national psyche.
Is it a partial explanation for Q?
Shout out to the divorced, biker, small business tyrant, dad...caught with test injectables and thc edibles, and guns, after the Capitol. Just the only man for the moment.
*removed externally hosted image*
edit: gotta step away for now. will come back to this. Feels like this post was misunderstood, or I just didn't make enough sense. Hope it won't make things awkward when i slide into selected PMs asking for a plug 😀
I can have little a figure of speech.
Shit is 30% THC compared to 10% in the sixties and we're finding ways to get higher daily.
On the macro level it's gonna have an effect.
Just the wildly increased availability is gonna have a societal effect.
It was much lower than 10% in the 1960s too, more like 1%
But THC at any concentration is not more potent than heroin, both because they have different effects & mechanisms of action but also because heroin is a semisynthetic & far more physically addictive & potentially deadly in small amounts
It was much lower than 10% in the 1960s too, more like 1%
shit, that just adds to my point
But THC at any concentration is not more potent than heroin
it was a figure of speech, but when I'm fully couch locked the outward appearance is the same. Inward too probably.
the weed in the 1960s wasn't very potent, but that doesn't mean the weed now is more "dangerous", just better
no one has ever been recorded to overdose on THC in thousands of years, still... even with these 35% strains. the same is not true for heroin
heroin as a chemical today is not "better", because it's the same chemical first synthesized in the 1800s, but international cartels & global trade routes definitely increased the purity of street heroin since the "French Connection" period
it's good that cannabis today is stronger & more hybridization & selection has occurred, that means people are using these plants & getting benefits from them and human desire for aesthetics & finding new uses of the plant mean more potential for therapeutic breakthroughs.
opium poppy plants also have important uses, but making heroin is not one of them
the weed in the 1960s wasn’t very potent
angry afghan farmer noises
bhang & hashish are always potent because they are concentrated forms, but the average cannabis plant potency until the 1970s was less than 2%. Even in the mid-1990s, studies show that cannabis percentage was less than 4% on average in samples confiscated by the DEA
Indica strains from Afghanistan & Pakistan & elsewhere were more gooey and have other unique characteristics from sativa & ruderalis, but it wasn't until indoor growing & hybridization really took off in Northern CA & then in Holland in the 1990s that cannabis THC percentage skyrocketed, and much of that within the last 20 years
the weed in the 1960s wasn’t very potent, but that doesn’t mean the weed now is more “dangerous”, just better
think you're missing the point. I never said dangerous, just massively more psychoactive, with all the good and bad that comes with that.....and people are smoking it erryday from age 15.
the point is that it's likely gonna have an effect on the national psyche that may be initially intangible, but, when mixed with other factors, could manifest as something like Qanon.
drugs aren't weapons or evil spirits. the drugs themselves can't be "good" or "bad", only the psychological reaction that individuals have... reactions which are largely individuated & dependent on personal & societal/cultural & many other factors
drugs can be triggers for psychopathologically predisposed individuals with these issues, but so can bad break ups or employment issues or physical health issues or family trauma.
we as individuals are reflected in these things just as much if not more than the drugs themselves. Much of the real "permanent" or lasting psychological impact on those who use drugs is just cultural baggage & stigma & personal input. we never step in the same river twice, and we take the grand total of our entire lives & impressions & assumptions into all of these experiences.
many nations have high usage rates of cannabis. people were having "freakouts" on the 1% cannabis of the 1960s too. psychological issues aren't skyrocketing in recreational marijuana states
i honestly think that more potent cannabis& more pure/safe drug use in general leads to psychologically and physically safer people.
in fact, much recent research has centered on evidence that cannabis use actually improves people's mental health & outlook & life satisfaction levels
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2018/12/marijuana
"These studies have found that the patients, who used cannabis to treat a range of medical problems including anxiety, had largely improved cognitive performance, reduced clinical symptoms and anxiety-related symptoms as well as a reduced use of conventional medications, including opioids, benzodiazepines, and other mood stabilizers and antidepressants."
Meaning strong weed helps people get off the other less helpful legal/illegal drugs
you can just smoke less of the strong stuff lol... that means less illegal/legal purchases & less smoke in your lungs & more use from the commodity
we also can't stigmatize people's consumption of these things, I don't agree that a heroin addict should turn to crime & violence to satiate their habit, but I also don't want to criminalize or demonize the individual stuck in that situation.
drugs don't cause QAnon. In fact I think a dose of some potent entactogen & a real struggle session is overdue for some of those people
You're focussing on a narrow point.
I'm talking about a much broader phenomenon, if I'm correct.
Recreationals are only part of the picture. For example, testosterone use is widespread among middle aged chuds now.
Test makes you more aggressive, energetic, irrational, unpredictable etc etc. Men that normally would chill out after forty are maybe much more likely to storm a Capitol when they're jacked on it.
Individually, it's not an issue, but when it reaches a critical mass in society it's gonna have unintended consequences.
Instead of the normal proportion of men in society behaving like 20 year olds because of high test, you now can add a large cohort of middle aged men to that proportion. Trump and all the other ancient ghouls too. It's what all the "anti aging"/vitality clinics prescribe.
cannabis use isn't the same as testosterone misuse.
testosterone misuse & illegal use of steroids isn't something I personally condone, but I am not going to call the substance itself evil. testosterone is just a hormone, it's inert on its own. and not all juice heads are violent. CTE & brain injuries are more correlated with that
When we're talking about psychoactive drug use, then we should talk about the legal drugs first. Caffeine & alcohol and nicotine are all drugs & all have marked effect on temperament & produce addiction in varying degrees. Yet they are completely accepted today within the culture, and newer methods are found all the time to repackage & resell the same old drugs. We have to look at the cultural context here and see that individuals are influenced by inculcated "demands" & "wants" that are transmitted from society
"Low T" in America is a marketing ploy lol, and I think a lot of these boomers just aren't culturally or emotionally equipped to go peacefully into their golden years, because our maddening & self-deluded consumer society prevents this.
The cultural context around stigmatizing& prohibiting cannabis & psychedelic drugs is a 180degree about face from how things like Testosterone & Oxycodone & Paxil & thalidomide other "legal" drugs were pushed on Americans
much more potent and available recreational psychoactive drugs + widespread test use + widespread SSRI use + endemic ONLINE political dopamine addiction + LSC alienation + white status anxiety + plummeting education levels
add these together and it may be an explanation for the crazy quick adoption of Qanon by the chuds.
thats the point.
not whether weed is "evil."
I just included information that said that cannabis use has been linked to reductions of benzodiazepine & SSRI & opioid misuse
IMO the explanation for the adoption of Qanon by chuds has little to nothing to do with psychoactive drugs, it's much more to do with the last few things you listed there.
There are material/socioeconomic reasons, as well as cultural/sociological/misapplied identitarian reasons, but there is also just the nature of mass media & internet addiction, like you said. Remember, the trigger for these latent mental pathologies& cultural "crazes" can be anything... Trump-led Millennarianism has plenty on its face to keep these weird chuds high on their own supply of self-delusion. It's no wonder there are wild eyed tweakers in the bunch too
But weed being legal in specific states & becoming stronger and more available as a result didn't cause QAnon, or even contribute to it.
Maybe Ashli Babbitt was spiraling on some drug binge when she got hooked on Q, but a lot of these QAnon boomers just seem to be jingoistic evangelical ultranationalist losers& wannabe fascists who use Trump as their conduit to God & absolution. The pseudoreligious element, something fundamental to American political & popular culture, can't go unexamined here
The pseudoreligious element, something fundamental to American political & popular culture, can’t go unexamined here
It's a good point. The religious grifters have only attached themselves recently though, in the last 9 months or so. It originated as a chan intelligence conspiracy type larp, and that's still the core imo.
There's still a widespread disbelief, on all sides, at how quickly it's metastasized.
Leaving aside the weed, since you're so touchy about it lol, I think the other factors + drugs I mentioned (forgot to mention ritalin too) have created a perfect storm. Something new.
Something that may change the way we view the concept of free speech and maybe democracy. It's like another virus.
Germany took action to prevent the virus of Ur-Fascism rising again after WW2, maybe similar action will be taken with Qanon.
I just don't think that sensationalism & blaming drugs for social ills like "Reefer Madness" has the same punch you think it does lol
The religious grifters are fundamental to all of this. America is a fundamentalist religious nation at its core, and that goes a long way to explaining the kneejerk dogmatic way these QAnon dupes cling to their ill-conceived stories
Also, overprescription of pharmaceuticals is legal, and I agree it contributes to dependence & chemical imbalances(things that cannabis appears to alleviate) but it doesn't explain QAnon.
South Korea had a similar issue in the last few years with entirely-too-online right-wingers thinking the government are pedophile evil elites who eat children. It plays out in much the same way as QAnon and resulted in those ya-hoos storming the parliament in Seoul. Which leads me to believe there are larger forces at play in both instances
https://thediplomat.com/2019/12/protesters-storm-national-assembly-capping-off-a-divisive-year-for-korean-politics/
it's not because of drug use, it's because of internet & mass media & misinformation being specifically tailored to tap into this deeply troubling part of the brain in those who are politically illiterate
West Germany after WWII had lots of issues with fascism, because many of the Nazis retained posts in the government and larger European rebuilding efforts
I just don’t think that sensationalism & blaming drugs for social ills like “Reefer Madness” has the same punch you think it does lol
Someone like Cleveland Grover Meredith, from my OP, probably wouldn't have had the punch, at his age, to travel armed to the Capitol without his Test (and possibly ritalin). Scale that up and you've got a new societal problem.
Was aware of the Cho scandal but didn't realise they stormed the parliament and slapped around the MPs. Based lol. Appreciate the link.
Yeah, knew about the lingering Nazism in Germany after WW2. My point was that they recognised fascism as something like a virus and at least passed legislation to prevent it rising the same way again. The anti hate speech laws for example. Although recent discoveries in the police and military aren't good.
Sorry, but that idiot Meredith isn't representative of the drug habits & personal proclivities of most of the other nutballs, who I am sure are themselves given over to idiocy in their own right. Whether an individual does drugs isn't reason to paint an entire group as drug addicts, nor is drug addiction an excuse to write people off or make them into pariahs. That's literally the US Drug War's conceptual "justification". Pass laws and arrest Black political activists & LGBT & Indigenous & Chicanos & socialists for drug possession, because their political awareness is threatening the status quo
Drugs are not the primary crux of the QAnon issue, kind of weird you keep trying to make that clunky argument. Internet-based misinformation & obsessiveness & fanaticism stoked by political & economic tensions is
No, it's not based what the right-wingers did in South Korea, it's similar to the situation with QAnon, they literally try to trace the 2014 ferry drownings with insane conspiratorial notions (based in reality & based in fantasy) to trying to storm the legislature just as the right-wingers in DC did
The German anti hate speech laws online weren't really put in place until a few years ago, and I definitely wouldn't call them effective as they largely rely on civilians ratting one another out & filing reports against others...
There are more Merediths than people realize. Every second ad on Fox is for test boosters. Jones flogs his own ffs.
As per the OP it’s gonna have an effect on the national psyche and may be a partial explanation for the Qanon issue.
Based was a joke. That's why I wrote lol.
The first law against Holocaust denial was passed in 1960.
Testosterone & Meredith are not the reason Q gained popularity
It's not an explanation really at all, because plenty of apolitical & liberals also take these supplements
QAnon is silly but it's not blatant Holocaust denial
Testosterone & Meredith are not the reason Q gained popularity
Again, I said they are part of a piece, not the sole reasons, as per many posts.
Qanon is a pipeline, it's part of a cohort of beliefs that commonly include white supremacy and holocaust denial.
Drugs & overprescription of testosterone have little if anything to do with the nature & the spread of QAnon
Bone-deep irrational religious fervor & the deterioration of social bonds & overall outlook in America are the key points imo
QAnon would lead someone to other harebrained right-wing conspiracy theories, but as such doesn't really touch on Holocaust denial... though I agree there are tacit "white nationalist" underpinnings
Drugs & overprescription of testosterone have little if anything to do with the nature & the spread of QAnon
from another post: Say one in a thousand people have an adverse behavioural reaction to a psychoactive medication. If that medication is prescribed on an indusrial scale, even overprescribed, you then have a lot of those people in society that may be more suggestible, more volatile, more irrational. Then consider poly drug scenarios, for psychoactive drugs taken daily, and the effect that might have on a wider, macro, societal level. There are examples, but I don’t want to trigger anyone. I mean, caffeine has been proven to make people more suggestible.
I’m suggesting that this may be one factor contributing to the rapid rise of Qanon.
Bone-deep irrational religious fervor & the deterioration of social bonds & overall outlook in America are the key points imo
Agree that they are major factors, but in light of widespread disbelief and confusion at the rise of Qanaon, I'm suggesting that the pharmacologisization (©️ 2021) of society is another major, perhaps unnoticed, factor.
Have had Qanon people extremely close to me. Holocaust denial comes up in their suggestions overtly and covertly. The message is absolutely connected imo.
The drugs are an insignificant factor in this, if they're even a factor at all. These people whether they're overmedicated or not are more likely to believe QAnon for other reasons, because plenty on the left & those who are apolitical are also taking illegal & far too many legal drugs. Misuse of drugs is not a partisan phenomenon. QAnon's spread has to do with confused politics/insular worldview & regionalism & urban/suburban/rural class divides far more than it does with "Drugs Bad" specifically. Please stop trying to blame drugs for the fault of right-wing individuals & the cynical propagandists purposely misleading them lol.
I would even say that drugs have nothing to do with the individual QAnon believer's willingness and devotion to these lies. It's much more to do with a lack of proper historical & political education coupled with mass media and Internet misinformation centering around anonymous online message boards and their supposed "alt-tech" novelty.
There is no evidence that pharmacology created QAnon, it's just political excuses made by people who are both cowed by conservative obstinacy as well as by American civil religion and evangelical self-delusion
Individual QAnon believers may hold these beliefs as well, but the QAnon mythos itself has little if anything to do with Holocaust denial. Although I will say its anti-elitism & "blood libel" rhetoric does border on anti-Semitic tropes.
Please stop trying to blame drugs for the fault of right-wing individuals & the cynical propagandists purposely misleading them lol.
There is no evidence that pharmacology created QAnon
Again x100, I'm saying it's likely an under-considered factor, not the sole reason.
the QAnon mythos itself has little if anything to do with Holocaust denial.
Absolutely. Have been following it from the start. Have direct experience of people radicalized by it. 5 years ago they would have been aghast at holocaust denial. Now they are watching videos about it and "just asking questions." Asking me about bitchute. You know the rest.
Drugs are not a contributing factor for why QAnon believers are compelled to believe & act on these things. I do not think Ashli Babbitt was on testosterone or illegal drugs when she stormed the capitol and was shot, though if you can find information proving otherwise I would be glad to walk that back.
QAnon wasn't around 5 years ago, it wasn't formulated until 2017.
Saying that your personal anecdotal experience with people close to you is applicable to the entire phenomenon or to objective reality is just subjective bias & group attribution error on your part.
Feels like quite a disingenous point. Of course Babbit wasn't on test, and likely not on illegal drugs.
Drugs are not a contributing factor for why QAnon believers are compelled to believe & act on these things.
It is undeniable that psychoactive drugs, used daily in poly drug scenarios, will have adverse behavioural effects on a small minority of people. A small minority of 70 million Trump voters is a lot of people. This modern phenomenon is now extremely common. This could be one factor in the rapid rise of Qanon.
QAnon wasn’t around 5 years ago, it wasn’t formulated until 2017.
I'm well aware. The the online radicalization began before Q imo.
Saying that your personal anecdotal experience with people close to you is applicable to the entire phenomenon or to objective reality is just subjective bias & group attribution error on your part.
Yet you bring up Babbit.
To try and universalize Meredith's personal proclivities and say it is representative or an explanation for the movement generally is a similarly disingenuous point, so I am glad you noticed that point.
It is not undeniable that psychoactive drugs are a significant underlying explanation for the fertility & immense growth of QAnon mythos. Drug use is not a significant factor in QAnon's rise.
I brought up Babbitt because you brought up Meredith trying to say he is representative of the entire movement & its motivations. Neither of these people's personal drug habits are representative or sufficient explanations of the entire movement & its motivations.
I was using Meredith as an amusing example of a wider modern phenomenon. All my points have been extremely broad, you have been attempting to narrow the discussion.
It is not undeniable that psychoactive drugs are a significant underlying explanation for the fertility & immense growth of QAnon mythos. Drug use is not a significant factor in QAnon’s rise.
That's not what I said, and you're making an assertion.
Again, it is undeniable that psychoactive drugs, used daily in poly drug scenarios, will have adverse behavioural effects on a small minority of people. A small minority of 70 million Trump voters is a lot of people. This modern phenomenon (the poly drug scenario) is now extremely common. This could be one factor in the rapid rise of Qanon.
This discussion has reached a productive end imo, I won't be replying unless you come up with something new.
This is a narrow discussion about QAnon and its causes, it's not about general rates of drug use, or poly drug use, or trying to stigmatize drug users as right-wingers & conspiracy loons. Polydrug use and whether it has behavior effects on a small minority is not the cause of QAnon, or a significant factor in the least
Plenty of apolitical & moderate & left wing people are poly drug users and want nothing to do with QAnon. The two are not correlated.
Polydrug use is also not a significant explanation for the "small minority" of Trump voters who showed up at the capitol based on QAnon-related sensationalism, many of whom do not engage in such behavior.
You haven't come up with anything new, you keep doubling down on this personal assumption you're making. Drug use and polydrug use are not even contributing factors or partial explanations for the rabid QAnon conspiracy explosion, you're just trying to blame QAnon on polydrug use that you appear to have a personal aversion to.
i honestly think that more potent cannabis& more pure/safe drug use in general leads to psychologically and physically safer people.
safety, as in a Brave New World eutopia
in fact, much recent research has centered on evidence that cannabis use actually improves people’s mental health & outlook & life satisfaction levels
Cannabis use is entirely consistent with neoliberal mindfulness, that's why it's BAD
we know that prohibition leads to no reductions in drug use & unsafe/impure drugs & increases in organized criminal elements violently cornering the market
cannabis use isn't anything about mindfulness lol, what are you talking about? seems like a bit hehe
cannabis use is over 5,000 years old
cannabis is just as vital to humans' agricultural history & future as any other cash crop or medicinal plant
opium poppy plants also have important uses, but making heroin is not one of them
The differences between Morphine, Diamorphine (heroin), Oxycodone, Hydromorphone, Oxymorphone, etc is all very very minuscule. Once they get into the bloodstream they cross the BBB and bind to mostly mu (but also delta and kappa) opioid receptors, and activate them. Do enough of this activity by any means and they will downregulate, temporarily disabling themselves, which both (A) makes the user's "baseline" increase, which is why they go into withdrawals if they stop using, and (B) requires more of the drug to achieve the same amount of activity, which is how tolerance increases. This is simply the body attempting to keep homeostasis. After a long enough period of abstinence, the receptors with upregulate and turn themselves back on, causing withdrawals to cease and tolerance to drop back to zero (Which is why so many users die after periods of non-use: They think they can instantly go back to their old dose)
There are several "weird" opioids out there like Buprenorphine which has an odd profile that gives it a ceiling, and I'm not including fentanyl and its derivatives because of the extremely reduced half-lives.
But the point I'm making is that all opioids are fundamentally the same thing, none are more "evil" than others. Its mostly the social stigma and black market's choice of product that makes diamorphine users fall so hard into the dark side of addiction. If it was prescribed in hospitals and no longer popular on the black market, (And indeed some countries have diamorphine as a standard pain reliever for acute severe trauma), it would have the same reputation as "medical" opioids rather than "street opioids"
That's why Purdue has to pay some $8,000,000,000. They knew oxycodone would have the exact same effects as anything else with that profile of receptor activation, but instead pretended it somehow has far less to none of the addiction potential of prior pain relievers in that class. If any pharm claims they've found an opioid pain reliever with no potential for abuse, ask them how it prevents receptor downregulation. Because even subutex (buprenorphine) has the potential for abuse if your tolerance is below its ceiling dose, its just much safer because that ceiling is usually well below the LD50 even in opiate naive people.
I don't think any of these opioids are "evil", but marketing tactics & regimes of perverse incentives for doctors & manufacturers and lawmakers ensure there is overprescription& overconsumption
TBH I have been a little skeptical ever since my friends in HS said "it makes them better at video games" and then all I wanted to do was scream, die, and eat 10 thanksgiving dinners
Shit is 30% THC compared to 10% in the sixties and we’re finding ways to get higher daily.
the hash oil used in dabbing can apparently reach 90%
exactly. it's never been used this frequently, at these strengths, so widely before. we the guinea pigs.
it's been shown to have an effect on teenage cognitive development, right?
I feel like I just read an appeal to the moral character of the nation from some republican in the 90s. You're just moralizing about other people using drugs. A materialist analysis would focus on the reasons people in this society are turning to drugs. Blaming drug use its self is pure reaction. "Weed as potent as heroin", okay buddy. I miss downvotes.
I mean fuck we recently had a post on here about how people used to drink heroin-weed-booze syrup to cure the cold on here.
There's literally no way this is a real post and not some shit head coming in trying to prove how shitty leftists are or something.
In the case that you are serious, go fuck yourself.
You're legitimately suggesting that people with mental illness do not deserve the same rights as people who don't lmao
Holy shit go to hell. Don't pull that "oh you just misunderstand me" shit. Fuck off
Addiction blaming and schizophrenia dunking? Maybe I'm reading it wrong but this whole post just comes off like you hate people with mental illness.
Keep in mind that most people with addictions are actually self medicating for a mental/physical illness that the current healthcare system refuses to diagnose/treat them for. And pinning a chud's negative features on addiction and mental illness as opposed to toxic masculinity/white fragility and other cultural garbage that literally told them to believe what they believe is what perpetuates the othering of people struggling with these issues.
Absolutely not my intention to stigmatize mental illness or addiction in any way.
Think and hope I've made myself clear in the other posts.
Every country had addiction and mental illness yet not every country has children in cages at the border. What's special about America is it's culture. Particularly exceptionalism. And thinking that Qanon people have bad takes because of mental illness (addiction is a mental illness) is exceptionalism. That without the mental illness they would be "normal". It's like saying only someone mentally ill would commit a crime. It also ignores that there are addicts in literally every political leaning. Why do leftist addicts have good takes if drugs are what rotted chuds minds? It's because it's not the mental illness it's the culture.
Don't think I mentioned addiction once comrade.
I was suggesting a combination of many factors, including widespread use of modern parmaceuticals, as a partial expanation for Qanon. The culture and exceptionalism are absolutely also factors.
Don't make exceptions. Widespread pharmaceutical use is addiction, it's just legal addiction. This is why the opiod crisis exists.
And again, none of those things are limited to the alt right/Q anon. In fact, a lot of people cite their personal struggles with mental and physical illness/addiction as to why they're even leftist in the first place.
Don’t make exceptions.
I was referring to american exceptionalism, which you referenced.
Of course these things are not limited to the right. I'm suggesting that Qanon etc is the way that they manifest on the right.
No you weren't. You were implying there was a difference between pharmaceutical overuse and addiction and I said you were making exceptions. They are the same thing.
You said "What’s special about America is it’s culture. Particularly exceptionalism."
I said "The culture and exceptionalism are absolutely also factors."
Leaving you here unless you got something constructive.
Why is it so hard for you to admit you didn't know shit when you wrote this? You gotta be either a chud or a bit.
wtf are you talking about? fwiw not a chud and not a bit.
From my point of view people have been babies about this, unable to consider the wider point, taking every mention of weed and anti depressants (in particular) as a personal attack. Shit, I fucking love weed and people were saying I'm afraid of drugs or something. megalol.
I'm surprised tbh. The thread got removed because people weren't considering the point, getting offended. The OP was a bit dirtbag in tone, granted, but I quickly replied politely to every post in good faith.
I'm not gonna state the central thesis again, I posted it over and over. With respect, have you read all my posts? I know theres a lot. I cannot understand how people cannot consider the widespread modern use of strong psychoactives in poly drug scenarios, on the daily, as being a possible factor in the rise of Qanon. I asked someone connected tangentially to psychiatry and they didn't dispute the central point, leaving aside the re evaluating democracy part.
30 people upvoted it before it was removed, fwiw.
If you don't see how blaming testosterone/addiction/mental illness is fucking toxic chud behaviour after a hundred comments on your post you never will. Plenty of comments pointed out the complete lack of cogency in the trash you've been spewing.
Also what the fuck is this all this anti T shit are you a transphobe too? Toxic masculinity and the entitlement that comes with it is why qanons are shit. Entitlement like the kind you're showing by thinking you know more about the effects of these things on society when you've clearly never read any studies. You just threw shit at the wall and hoped it stuck.
You are scrabbling.
Yet again, I never mentioned addiction or mental illness.
The issue with testosterone isn't trans people achieving balance in their lives. Fuck off with the accusation of transphobia.
The issue is with chuds loving it, because it makes them more chudly, more masculine as they see it, for longer in their lives.
Normally a chud would be naturally toxically masculine between the age of 20 and 40, with normal test levels declining after 40ish. Now they can intensify that chudliness with test, and keep it going until they die with artificially high test levels. It's a simple fucking concept if you understand the behavioural effects of test.
You're saying this but you're still doing. Fuck off. This is fash.
Stop posting.
Hasn't there always been widespread use of drugs? You used to be able to legally buy heroin and cocaine as medicinal. And even when they became illegal, it never really stopped. The Drug War didn't do shit either. You compare that with everything that has happened in a century. It's hard to see a strict correlation between drug use and the higher political order of things.
I think what has more of an effect on the national psyche is being lied to. People can see they're being lied to. Or if not lying it's the contradictions in media. It's that we need to be worried about terrorism arbitrarily. It's the President is the greatest threat to democracy yet we need to vote. It's one immediate crisis after another. Every week. For decades. And covid was just a harder hit of that. Don't wear a mask, wear one or you're evil. Stay inside, be safe, go out and vote. Go to work, shop. Social distance, here's your governor going to a celebrity party in the Hamptons.
The constant whiplash is hurting us.
Hasn’t there always been widespread use of drugs?
It's a fair point. I wonder though if the intensity, the stimulation overload, of modern life mixed with all the prescription pharmaceuticals is maybe creating a new dynamic. When combined with the whiplash, the contradictions of LSC, with the added psychosis of ONLINE.....I think there's something new.
I mean, SSRIs are prescribed for kids and pets now ffs. To quit smoking, even. Anything to avoid paying for talk therapy. Wonder how that'll be viewed in 25 years.
edit: As an example, caffeine is proven to make you more suggestible. Have any studies been done on other substances?
here’s your governor going to a celebrity party in the Hamptons.
it's just so beautiful
I mean, prescribing drugs isn't new "Give your kids laudanum and cocaine at night!" was a thing as late as 1930.
we’re gonna have to re-evaluate old concepts of free speech and democracy.
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Nooooooooooooooo
Some people doing weed being a reason to re evaluate democracy is such a weird take and I hate it.
If you have 75 million people believing in an actual delusion and willing to act on it you may have to re-evaluate old concepts of free speech and democracy.
It's about more than just a sixties understanding of weed. Respectfully, have you read all the posts?
Do you think people who take sleeping pills or weed believe in actual delusions? Lmao.
Why are you even bringing up the sixties, I wasn't born in the 60s, wtf.
Be careful because what you're saying is literally fash adjacent.
Do you think people who take sleeping pills or weed believe in actual delusions?
No. I'm saying, on the macro level, on the societal level , widespread use of modern hypnotics and ultra high potency cannabis, which didn't exist in the past, may have contributed to a change in the national psyche which may be a partial explanation for the rapid rise of Qanon. They are both highly psychoactive substances that are commonly used daily, often together, often with other psychoactive drugs.
I brought up the sixties because when society talks weed, it still, even today, talks about it like it's 1% THC bush weed from the sixties.
Thanks for the warning.
No. I’m saying, on the macro level, on the societal level , widespread use of modern hypnotics and ultra high potency cannabis, which didn’t exist in the past, may have contributed to a change in the national psyche which may be a partial explanation for the rapid rise of Qanon.
If it can't do any of these things on a personal level, how's it gonna translate into a societal level? Because frankly unless you're seriously abusing weed it's not gonna do any of the things you say, like, seriously, just try it once and you'll see. It's like being mildly drunk and chill and then it wears off. I also think you underestimate how much drugs people were doing in the 60s and 70s, drugs much more powerful than weed.
The idea that weed back in the 60s-80s had like 2% THC content and now it's OVER 30% is pretty dumb. First of all, over 30% THC concentration weed is very rare. Second, it's absurd to think that in the span of only a couple decades marijuana was magically altered so much through breeding alone that its potency increased by an order of magnitude. It's just not how it works. It's a plant that has been selectively bread for thousands of years, it's not gonna magically change so much within a couple of decades. It's way more likely that either Americans were getting shit weed before, or that scientific techniques used to measure THC content were inadequate back then. Breeding is probably also a factor, but it's probably much less important. Regardless, most people have either done weed or know other people who do, and I'm talking "modern" weed, and that's what they're basing their opinions on, as well as scientific studies on "modern" weed so I don't understand the point. It really doesn't do that much to you lol
Look somewhere else to find the origin of Qanon, this really isn't it. Chances are the people who believe in that sort of stuff are less likely to do drugs than the rest of the population, they tend to be creepy old fundies. The internet, yes. But sleeping pills and weed? Nah.
Christ, you're lazer focussed on weed to the exclusion of all the other factors. I get it, we all love it. It's not a sacred cow and has good and bad effects.
On the societal concept: Say one in a thousand people have an adverse behavioural reaction to a psychoactive medication. If that medication is prescribed on an indusrial scale, even overprescribed, you then have a lot of those people in society that may be more suggestible, more volatile, more irrational. Then consider poly drug scenarios, for psychoactive drugs taken daily, and the effect that might have on a wider, macro, societal level.
I'm suggesting that this may be one factor contributing to the rapid rise of Qanon.
I don't love weed, I don't even like weed, it just doesn't do what you think it does. If one in a thousand has an adverse effect, that's 0.1%. It's not gonna cause big societal change even if literally everyone takes them.
I really don't understand why you think it is so significant, and you can't just say that democracy should be rethought because you think maybe it might have significant influence on qanon (which I seriously doubt anyways).
If one in a thousand has an adverse effect, that’s 0.1%. It’s not gonna cause big societal change even if literally everyone takes them.
Yet again, I wasn't just talking about weed. I was talking about many other factors, as per my other posts.
0.1% of 75 million Trump voters could be part of the explanation for the rapid rise of Qanon. That's a hell of a lot of people.
0.1% is... Really not a lot of people. And again, the q people are usually weird fundamentalist Christians, they're not exactly big on drugs.
It's possibly 75,000 people, quite significant imo.
Qanon people are absolutely not all fundemenalist christians, particulary the younger cohort.
Contradictory beliefs and behaviours are a massive part of fundamentalist christianity too lol.
Qanon people are absolutely not all fundemenalist christians, particulary the younger cohort.
Yes, they're not all like that. Also I suspect some of them used to spend a lot of money beanie babies too. But I don't think them spending money on beanie babies has much to do with them being part of qanon.
Alright, I'll leave you here too. If you've got a cogent point we can continue.
My point is pretty simple. You're making an assertion with sweeping consequences but you don't have anything to back it up, just that it kinda seems to you that drug use is up (and it isn't, compared to a few decades ago) and that it kinda seems to you like this might have something to do with qanon. Like, even weed is not that much more popular and it really, really doesn't do what you think it does, neither do sleeping pills or whatever.
i read through the thread and it more feels that you're personally skeptical/afraid of drug use and that's manifesting in the way you analyze social phenomena. i get it, i've seen people do a number of wild things under the influence, but i'd take care to read up on the psychopharmacology. reefer madness is long discredited, and outside very rare cases of cannabis triggering an underlying disorder (has more to do with how early you start smoking frequently, which prevents the neural development of barriers to psychosis ), the general effect of heavy cannabis use on the population is mild and probably sedative if anything at all
if you'd like to make an immediate dent in the damage that substances do, you could try volunteering to do some kind of harm reduction for a harder substance (heroin, alcohol, meth, etc.) that is hurting your community. you've also mentioned education in your post and there are ways to get involved there too
Definitely not shy of drug use in any way lol. Thought that was clear enough tbh. Did you read every post? Realise there's a lot. Cannabis was one of many factors I referenced.
What exactly do we mean by "plummeting education levels?" Are we talking about less people going to college which could be explained by socioeconomic conditions among other things? Is this some weird idiocracy type argument about how we're all getting dumber?
As someone who has had plenty of experience with anti-depressants, I'm not sure what the connection is between them and conspiracy theories like Q to be honest... and seeing it put side by side with amphetamine seems weird? Benzos and amphetamine grouped together seems weird? Like all these drugs are pretty different so it's seems weird to me that they're all listed as possible explanations for things like Q. Seeing weed compared to heroin is kinda weird too. Comes of as war on drugs era paranoia about marijuana to me. Is the link here supposed to be that they're all psychoactive? Why aren't we talking about the dangers of caffeine or alcohol then?
And I have no idea what "re-evaluate old concepts of free speech and democracy" means exactly but it doesn't sound very good to me. Idk, your post seems like 99% conjecture and I'm not sure what evidence exists that would support whatever draconian measures you think ought to be implemented.
Please remember that correlation does not imply causation. People can be prescribed more anti-depressants and more and more people can be buying into fringe movements like Q and they might not have anything to do with each other. They could have a common cause, e.g. a steady decline in people's material conditions, increased feelings of alienation, etc. Maybe a common factor is, say, the natural progression of neoliberal modes of capitalism.
What exactly do we mean by “plummeting education levels?
Aren't real achievemnent levels dropping, curriculums being dumbed down, religion based teaching becoming more prevalent? How many religious colleges have opened in the last couple of decades?
An anecdote: I know a CFO/Accountant, educated to degree level, who graduated 15 years ago, who never took a humanities module or any module not related to their narrow technical training. No politics, no history, no literature. This person never read as a yoot, doesn't read today, barely knows whats going on in the world. Extremely well paid and high achieving though. Quite happy focussing only on modern distractions. I don't think that would have happened 50 years ago.
Don't think it's contentious to say that society as a whole has become more dumbed down the last 40 years.
Shit I've been replying for hours. Genuinely appreciate your post, I think all your questions are answered in the thread, I gotta step away for a while.
I don't know, are curriculums being "dumbed down?" I feel like you're asking questions rather than giving evidence for these claims.
But I'm also confused about your time frames here. You talk a lot about modern drugs, how prevalent weed is now, how they now have super potent heroin type strains and your example of the "dumbing down of education" goes back decades? The largest American evangelical college is 50 years old. These time frames don't really make sense to me. Also, I'm fairly certain the people opening and attending religious colleges aren't the ones smoking the super potent weed or doing speed lol.
Don’t think it’s contentious to say that society as a whole has become more dumbed down the last 40 years.
I think it is contentious. In fact, education levels have been steadily rising. Not that I think educations levels or how "dumb" society is should be the metric for whether or not we "re-evaluate democracy." Like honestly this is wading into uncomfortable idiocracy eugenics type territory. I'm not saying it's intentional, but that's the vibe I get, so maybe that's something you should keep in mind.
I think all your questions are answered in the thread
That's kind of an issue though. I don't know if my questions are answered in your other posts, but if you're advocating for something rather extreme (e.g. re-evaluating democracy) I shouldn't have to read through 30 posts to figure out what your actual position is on one of the main things outlined in OP.
I gotta step away for a while.
Cool, no worries. Don't mean to be overbearing or anything. I'll step away too.
Back again!
Appreciate your post and the tone.
As an example of curriculums being dumbed down: In my area, I learned the most basic, centrist/right historical narrative, questioning it wasn't allowed. Nothing about why things happened, just a story. A couple of years ago history became an optional subject in high school here, with no consultation. Kids can now choose to learn how to make web pages or something instead of learning the most basic historical context.
That's dangerous imo. Without historical context people cannot understand their current moment and can be easily deceived. I know I needed a lot of historical education to form a coherent worldview. Still learning, too.
People are focussing on the mention of weed and anti depressants. I was talking about them as some of many psychoactive drugs that are waaay more widely available/prescribed/stronger now than in the past. It's shouldn't be contentious to say that all of these drugs are behaviour altering, that's why we take them, and while they are beneficial to most, they cause unpredictable behaviour in a minority.
Couldn't the rapid rise in Qanon be at least partially attributed to the fact that some people have adverse reactions to medications? If these medications are overprescribed on an industrial scale isn't there going to be more people out there having adverse behavioural reactions? If people are mixing many psyschoactive medications and recreationals couldn't that result in unpredictable behaviours and beliefs on the macro, wider, societal level? There are examples, but I don't want to trigger anyone. I mean, caffeine has been proven to make people more suggestible.
To your point on education levels rising or falling, I'd ask you to refer to a post I made a couple of minutes ago, can't type it again.
When it comes to re-evaluting democracy, again, I don't see it being contentious. Shit, the constitution was written by slave owners for an agrarian frontier society. It absolutely should be re evaluated to serve the needs of the many, not the few, to ensure equality and justice.
If you have millions believing in white supremacist ideas, qanon shit, at the highest levels of society, then yes, maybe you need to re evaluate democracy. Leaving that aside, it should be re evaluated just because a white vote in dakota is worth more than a black vote in a urban area. One man one vote is the stated ideal and needs to be enforced.
The reason I said to read the posts is because if I had to reply to everyone individually it would take 24 hours lol. You weren't being overbearing at all, I legit had to step away after hours of posting lol.
:maduro-salute:
The issue is that virtually everything you're saying is pure conjecture. My 65 year old dad could tell you that his curriculum was from a centrist/right perspective, I mean for fucks sake the entire world was raised on red scare propaganda for like 90 years. But because you had a pro-American schooling and because in your specific area history is elective I'm just supposed to accept that education is "dumbed down" despite all evidence to the contrary? That's absurd. I even disagree with the premise that children learning practical computer skills is some sort of signifier of the downfall of education. It comes off as boomer tier "kids these days on their computers" type energy. I'm assuming we're talking the final years of high school education too. The reality is that programming or web design may have a more practical use to someone than forcing American imperialist propaganda down their throat.
People are focusing on the drug part of your post because it's a major part of your argument. I mentioned this before, and you never really addressed it, but you're grouping a bunch of different psychoactive drugs, and as far as I can tell, there's really no consideration being put into why those particular drugs are dangerous, mind altering Q enablers. A lot of things are psychoactive. The coffee you drink in the morning has psychoactive properties. If you're going to make a pretty extraordinary claim, you sure as hell better be able to specifically explain how each individual drug is contributing and what the science is behind it. This is my primary issue with every argument you're making here, they rely on you asking questions rather than providing evidence. It's a way to shift the burden of proof on others while not actually fully committing to an ideological position you know you can't defend.
If people are mixing many psyschoactive medications and recreationals couldn’t that result in unpredictable behaviours and beliefs on the macro, wider, societal level?
This is a prime example. A lot of things "could" result in unpredictable behaviours, but it's a mistake to think that because something "could" happen, that is is evidence in favour of it actually happening. Couldn't our reptilian overlords be transmitting mind control waves that result in unpredictable behaviours? Sure, but you better bring some strong evidence if that's an argument you're seriously putting forward. Not that I even know which psychoactive medications are being mixed and by whom and how those medications actually interact with each other and what specific "beliefs" they foster, nor do I think that's information you can provide beyond some sort of personal anecdote.
And okay, caffeine makes people more "suggestible," in what way, in what dosage, how does this adequately explain people's belief in conspiracy theories? Where is the scientific literature to back it up? These are rhetorical questions, I don't want an answer because I know there's no suitable answer and I'm not interested in being asked more leading questions.
And I will again point out that your time frames make zero sense and you haven't bothered to address it. The "dumbing down" of education, even by your own definition, doesn't coincide with the "rise" of stronger psychoactive drugs.
"When it comes to re-evaluating democracy" is absolutely contentious because that's extremely nebulous statement, you haven't described what you mean and a lot of your supporting arguments seem quite reactionary and fascist adjacent. When you talk about "re-evaluating democracy" in response to recreational drug use, mental illness and the "dumbing" down of society, people will rightly assume you are proposing some sort of conservative and reactionary form of authoritarianism or, at worst, you are making an argument for eugenics.
Leaving that aside, it should be re evaluated just because a white vote in dakota is worth more than a black vote in a urban area
Sure, that has nothing to do with "dumbing down" of society, drug use or mental illness though.
Look, I'm not trying to be a dick and I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here but I just don't think your arguments are particularly coherent or engaging and they come off as fairly reactionary to me. I don't think it's worth it to get into this much more, especially since the mods removed this thread. I've said all I can say about it.
Not trying to be a dick either here, frankly this post is either a comprehension fail or disingenuous. Of course there's an element of conjecture, the points in the OP were massively broad.
Fundamentally, is there a point at which we re-evaluate democracy with consideration for modern factors which didn't exist in the past? It's glib, but one of the conditions for democracy is an educated citizenry. We don't have that imo.
Would we consider re-evaluation when the entire republican party is objectively irrational qanon white supremacists, as an extreme example?
I'm happy to go through your post point by point, if you're interested, because I think it's worth discussing. It's your perogative to dip out.
I’m happy to go through your post point by point, if you’re interested, because I think it’s worth discussing
Please don't, it's really not worth discussing. There's a reason this post thread was removed by mods. Feel free to think I am disingenuous.
As you wish.
I'm interested in your response to the core of the last post though:
Fundamentally, is there a point at which we re-evaluate democracy with consideration for modern factors which didn’t exist in the past? It’s glib, but one of the conditions for democracy is an educated citizenry. We don’t have that imo.
Would we consider re-evaluation (of democracy) when the entire republican party is objectively irrational qanon white supremacists, as an extreme example?
It’s glib, but one of the conditions for democracy is an educated citizenry.
I reject this premise. I'm not particularly interested in answering a hypothetical based on something that you believe in. I don't think the problem is that people have been "dumbed down" and I do not support whatever "re-evaluting democracy" means that would attempt to correct something like that. It's really that simple.
But 50 years ago the right still venerated the idea of a classical education, high school curriculums were "better", the right wing media industrial complex wasn't siloing swathes of the population in echo chambers, religious colleges weren't as common or respected.
It's common now to hear parents on the right to say that they don't want their kids going to college to learn liberal indoctrination.
"Deleuze and Guttari see the schizophrenic as capitalism's exterminating angel" http://www.critical-theory.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/grumpy-cat-buzzfeed.jpg
the angel that will exterminate everything on capitalism's behalf? Or the angel that will exterminate capitalism?
Deleuze and Guttari see the schizophrenic as capitalism’s exterminating angel
Deleuze and Guattari see the schizophrenic as capitalism’s exterminating angel. For them the schizo is a radical, revolutionary, nomadic wanderer who resists all forms of oppressive power. They believe that radical political movements should “learn from the psychotic how to shake off the Oedipal yoke and the effects of power, in order to initiate a radical politics of desire freed from all beliefs” (Seem xxi). Schizophrenic sensibilities can replace ideological and dogmatic political goals with a radical form of productive desire. This “desiring-production” brings the unconscious into the real, and unleashes its radical world-making potential. Productive desire need not be solipsistic, and includes the “group psychosis” induced by radical postmodern artistic creations and political movements. Neither is desiring-production limited to clinical schizophrenics. Desiring-production marks the schizophrenic potential in everyone to resist the power of despotic signifiers and capitalist reterritorialization.
https://criticallegalthinking.com/2010/12/21/towards-a-radical-anti-capitalist-schizophrenia/
It's solid prose, but your ideas aren't fleshed out enough to have any substance with such lack of context. Try to work on a thesis rather than needling a bunch of disparate ideas.
okay but problem: a lot of the CHUDs have tits, and are not blasting testosterone. so that's clearly not the cause. and back in 1920s italy and 1930s germany theyweren't blasting synthetic testosterone. so maybe don't be so quick to fucking blame drugs?
yes, it is a brave new world, and yes, the media landscape makes 1960s vegas look like kid safe wooden alphabet blocks in comparison, but maybe that's more to blame. no?
maybe a garbage education system in the cartographic shit stain that is the american empire has some culpability?
maybe decades of propoganda have something to do with it, and the southern strategy+"war on drugs" actually worked? do you remember when they were recorded saying the quiet part loud during the initial planning phases? maybe don't let those fuckers off the hook, or scapegoat drugs and the people who use them EXACTLY LIKE THE FUCKING OLIGARCHS LITERALLY SAID THEY WANT YOU TO, OUT FUCKING LOUD.
yes, it's american culture to do drugs about your problems rather than fix shit, even in the drugs used (prozac and shit instead of MDMA LSD and mushrooms) but maybe that's why we have so fucking much addiction rather than the other way around? because addiction is praxis of capitalism?
maybe a garbage education system in the cartographic shit stain that is the american empire has some culpability?
I literally said that in the OP......Plummeting education levels.
Don't think I made any value judgements, just observations on the side effects.
Plummeting education levels
Highscool completion rates raised from 34.3% in 1950 to 90.1% in 2019. Bachelor's or higher rates raised from 6.2% in 1950 to 36% in 2019.
I would posit that between 1950/2019 the syllabus and teaching methods have been purged of even the most milquetoast progressive concepts and ideas, the humanities (politics, history, literature) have been made optional and marginalised, and people can graduate college without having taken a module outside their narrow technical training.
Critical thinking is not taught.
Religious schools and colleges are everywhere and what they sell is legitimized.
That's what I mean by plummeting education levels.
didn't see it when I checked back? but my browser is being weird so who knows.
felt a little attacked...ngl ...that capitalization had me up against the wall lol
I mean, blaming drugs and the poeple who do them is exactly what the oligarchs want you to do. it's part of the strategy of occluding the underlying problems.
Who provides the testosterone, opiods and the rest, if not the oligarchs? Again, no blame or value judgements I hope, just observations. I can't be throwing stones in this greenhouse.
they provide them so that we blame the people who do them for the problems caused by the oligarchs. it's the crafting of scapegoats.
I don't believe that the education levels are plummeting (and wouldn't really now where to write the criteria for it), I would even argue that the educational skills of many people now are in one way better than they've been in the 70s and would on the same hand argue that the acceptance of their material realities as education might in bubbles be lower than then. I am too hangover to write sensible about what I mean though.
? I was making an extremely broad point, can't speak to your personal experience tbh.
