volvoxvsmarla

you’ll find me at sopuli.xyz under the same username

  • 0 Posts
  • 79 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 6th, 2023

help-circle
  • My dad is… complicated, and I could tell a lot of insane stories. But the memory that is haunting me is how he said “we won’t wait when war starts”, in Russian. It made no sense. I overheard it as a part of some conversation with my mother (maybe other grown ups as well) when I was a kid and I asked what he meant and he claimed he didn’t remember saying that. I believe him that he didn’t remember. But it was odd, it’s not something he would say. Neither he, nor my mom, nor their friends are political people talking about war, ever. It was said casually, but no one ever casually talked about war or politics over here. This was 25 years ago. I kept thinking about it for years and years again, trying to grasp what it meant, what it might have meant, and why it stuck with me so much, why I couldn’t get it out of my head, why I couldn’t let it go.

    It was also painfully screaming in my head when Russia attacked Ukraine in 2022. It’s like it was an eerie foreshadowing but I still don’t know. I have so few memories of my childhood, why did this one stay? Why do I see and hear him say this? What did he mean with “we won’t wait”? Did he mean we won’t wait for the war to start or we won’t wait when the war will have started? Both are possible interpretations in the Russian wording. What are we waiting for? Are we still waiting? What should we be doing?

    I keep going back to this one stupid sentence and this memory is ringing in my ears. What does it want to tell me to do? I know I need to do something, I just can’t figure out what.








  • volvoxvsmarla @lemm.eetoMemes@lemmy.mlJerkoff
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Again - there is and must be a distinction between the blame, responsibility and guilt of an 18 year old uneducated soldier, nurse etc and a political leader. But this does not automatically absolve the former from all responsibility and guilt. You should and hopefully do focus on the latter’s guilt and responsibility, as it is much larger than the others’. Focussing on the people who follow orders is not what I would advertise for and this isn’t the intent, it is actually the exact opposite. By differentiating different aspects and kinds of guilt you have tools and language at hand to talk about it without putting everyone in the same boat.

    It is not a black and white issue. Everyone got blood on their hands - you and me included - just in different amounts, in different ways.


  • volvoxvsmarla @lemm.eetoMemes@lemmy.mlJerkoff
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Very honestly - I’ve still not read the book entirely and I have started because I felt some feeling of guilt myself for being a Russian living outside Russia. I think that’s actually exactly what Jaspers, along with his students (the book is basically a dialectic lecture written down with results of work of his class from one semester), was trying to figure out. So I am not the best person to lecture you about that.

    From as far as I have read these distinctions are exactly what allow people to talk about guilt, responsibility, trauma, the past, etc, without judging everyone by the same standards. Like, a criminal is judged by the court who defines for a crime they committed. A politician who took part in ordering crimes will be judged by the victor of a war. A soldier (just like a secretary) will be judged in dialogue with others and by his conscience for their individual actions, even if they were following orders. And a normal person who looked away or didn’t actively do their best to stop the atrocities that happen in the world, well, this person’s metaphysical guilt can basically only be judged by a metaphysical instance itself, be it God or another undefined transcendence. Basically all of us bear the latter.

    They are very distinct and do not have the same repercussions. It is without doubt that political leaders have a much different, much more facetted responsibility for crimes committed. And we should focus on that. But this does not clean the people who followed their orders from all guilt, and their responsibility and crimes (against humanity) will be judged, just in a different way.

    Edit: I’ve added a better phrased summary in my original comment above, since I have realized that translating German political philosophy isn’t my strength exactly.


  • volvoxvsmarla @lemm.eetoMemes@lemmy.mlJerkoff
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    In the aftermath of World War II, Carl Jaspers formulated in Die Schuldfrage that there are four types of guilt (/responsibility). Criminal guilt, political guilt, moral guilt, and metaphysical guilt. It is a great distinction in general. Yes, political leaders bear a different kind of guilt for the actions than the soldiers, but acting on clearly morally wrong commands do not obliterate guilt from the soldiers. Just like everyone who basically didn’t give their life in pursuit of the good and the right bears some metaphysical guilt for what is happening in the world.

    Edit: I realized that, since I am neither an English native, nor very articulate in philosophy or politics, I would rather ask perplexity for a summary. So here it is: Karl Jaspers, in his work The Question of German Guilt, distinguishes four categories of guilt and assigns specific instances to each:

    1. Criminal Guilt:

      Definition: Violations of objectively provable laws that are legally considered crimes.

      Instance: The court, which determines the facts and applies the laws in formal proceedings.

    2. Political Guilt:

      Definition: Arises from the actions of statesmen and the shared responsibility of every citizen for the government of their state.

      Instance: The power and will of the victor, especially after a lost war, as in the case of Germany after World War II.

    3. Moral Guilt:

      Definition: Refers to individual actions for which every person is morally responsible, even if carried out under orders.

      Instance: One’s own conscience and dialogue with others.

    4. Metaphysical Guilt:

      Definition: A shared responsibility for all injustice in the world, based on human solidarity. It arises when one does not do everything possible to prevent injustice.

      Instance: God or transcendence.

    Jaspers emphasizes that this differentiation is meant to avoid simplistic or generalized accusations of guilt. He rejects the idea of collective criminal or moral guilt for an entire people, arguing that guilt is always individual.





  • Yes, he is usually (and anecdotally) used in every introduction to works that cover vitamins and supplementation 😅 but unfortunately his ideas weren’t really backed by science. If you eat more vitamin c than you can absorb, you just pee it out. We actually did that in university (control group, breakfast group, breakfast + 1g of vitamin c group, testing the pee and I think capillary blood). Now, I think there are some findings with intravenous vitamin c acting like an oxidizing agent and killing cancer (?) cells, but macrodosing orally just doesn’t give you any effect.

    Also, fun fact, your RDA can be met by eating one frozen pizza because vitamin c is used as a food additive everywhere.


  • When I start having a feeling of getting a cold I drink Bayer’s Aspirin Plus C. It’s literally just aspirin and vitamin C but I swear it works. Not drinking aspirin and vitamin C but only this overpriced combination. When it is dissolved in water, grossly enough. Nothing else works. If I don’t drink it, I get a cold.

    I literally worked in pharmaceutical science and I know this is complete bullshit borderlining homeopathy but I still swear by it. I wrote a whole academic work on vitamin C supplementation having no effect on getting a cold. And I still do it 😭





  • Yeah because they are going to steal your most beloved jobs! Like cleaning and fast food cooking and everyone’s childhood career dream of being a toilet lady.

    For real though, I could at least follow the logic if it were for high paying, competitive jobs. But these aren’t the migrants you are trying to keep out, in fact it is the one every country wants to get in. So why are the migrants the problem who are going to live in relative poverty, agreeing to wage theft, agreeing to horrible living conditions? The ones who won’t hardly have enough for a pension.

    Also, there is nothing wrong with cleaning, fast food cooking, or toilet ladies. All the more power to them. It is a fucking disgrace that we regard certain unpleasant jobs (that will still need to be done) as low skill, low class, and award them with the lowest pay possible.