🫧

We're all sitting here renting bc we're too 'poor' to buy a home.

Someone rolls up and offers you the chance at a house in exchange for engaging in imperialism and maybe even killing people and you take it?

You decided that you deserved to be a homeowner and the price could be paid in other people's lives.

A lot of poor ppl don't make that choice. It's actually more relevant to talk about the military trying to get ppl at 18 if you wanted to gotcha us about this.

Again. They were promised something few have, in exchange for WAR.

That they got rug pulled only goes to show 'play stupid games, win stupid prizes'.

I still believe vets deserve care and rights but the fact of the matter is, someone said "Hey do you want more money/property than the average person in exchange for helping us do a war?" and they said yes.

The benefits could have been a steak to a house to a million dollars. You're missing the point. The exchange on THEIR end was supporting a war machine and they thought that was worth it.

I'm not saying America doesn't have a massive inequality problem that enabled this to happen. They were sold a good deal. The lies people still tell about military operations in the Middle East fuel the story that continues to emerge in recruiting circles to manufacture consent.

People SHOULD have access to home ownership (but first let us remember this is all stolen land).

However, they currently don't have financial access to it. Most people rent, and fewer and fewer people have the means to remedy this because of our economic situation.

So in theory, you, your neighbors, your friends, your townfolk, they all rent.

Someone asks you 'do you want to have what no one around you has? I can give it to you, but you have to help me invade and control other countries and even kill people'.

And you decided that you, yourself, personally, should have access to what is clearly systemically restricted for the low low price of war. That was a fair price to get out ahead of everyone else. That's the answer you decided on.

I don't know what family member you're trying to rationalize for but at the end of the day actions have consequences.

If someone talked you into imperial violence for a golden goose I'm still going to point out that you said a golden goose was a fair exchange for imperialism and your sword in a war.

Also, most Americans who sign up for the military are middle-class. The whole "pple who join the American military are mostly forced to join becos of poverty" is literally a myth becos it allows Americans to not have to contend with what the US military actually does overseas and why most American servicepple wanted to sign up for the military in the first place:

i talk about antipsych as having two major component positions: an epistemological critique of the knowledge-claims that psychiatry makes, and an ethical critique of its motives and rewards for making such knowledge-claims. to me these two positions go hand in hand and mutually inform one another, but plenty of people are persuaded by one and not the other, or are familiar with one and lack facility with the other.

people who advance an epistemological antipsych argument without an accompanying ethical critique will tend to focus on psychiatry's chronic lack of empirical evidence, its inability to even settle on a consensus position re: the degree to which 'brain disease' is an essentially metaphorical way of speaking vs a number of actual biological entities, the vagueness and overlap of clinical psychiatric symptom lists, etc. however, without an accompanying ethico-political analysis of the role and purpose of psy-sciences in capitalist society, these people may also turn around and argue that psychiatrised people are therefore faking/malingering, are lazy, are simply being told they're 'special', need to pull up their bootstraps and be normal, etc. think of eg thomas szász

on the other hand people who make an ethical critique of psychiatry without a firm epistemological grasp of what they're talking about will tend to express opposition to practices like medical incarceration, coercive treatment, ruling a patient unable to consent, etc; however, they may still agree that the dsm labels are identifying 'real' dysfunction/defects, and the trick is simply to design a more compassionate system to deal with such people. especially this attitude tends to come out wrt diagnoses considered more 'severe' such as schizophrenia, bipolar 1, or other presentations with psychosis; it's also popular in these circles to claim that xyz psych diagnoses (often autism, but not exclusively) are different because they are 'neurotypes'/developmental disorders/cognitive disabilities/etc. you can imagine how this might become a popular position in an effort to preempt the type of epistemological critique described above with its corollary assertion that the distress or dysfunction reported by psychiatrised people must not be 'real', because it's not empirically evidenced.

the problem in those posts is that they use the term "autistic" to describe 1. a person who was diagnosed with asperger's as a young child and managed to graduate high school and get a job 2. a person who was diagnosed as a young child, is nonverbal, struggles to live independently and is immediately identified as autistic by anyone they meet 3. a person who was diagnosed as an adult but was psychiatrized and/or criminalized in other ways since childhood or 4. a person who has never had any interaction with the psych system whatsoever but recognizes themselves in the term autistic, and many other types. and you in fact cannot make any statement on the employment status of autistic people that applies to all of those people because autistic is not a coherent term or concept at all.

saying "autistic people are more at risk of being overexploited at work" to mean "having a formal diagnosis or being visibly disabled makes you easier to exploit since you have fewer employment options and can be fired very easily" is correct. but if by that you mean "any person that recognizes themselves under the label autistic will have a harder time finding and keeping employment than Neurotypicals" then that is a completely meaningless statement lol. any analysis of autism (/psychiatrization) and employment that rests on a supposed "mode of functioning" will immediately fail.