• Emerald@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    I feel like he is equal parts stupid and based. That’s kind of why this article appealed to me.

    • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Edit: I read this wrong, pls ignore (leaving up for context for the response)

      You’re right, this is a fucking roller coaster

      Szasz was a critic of the influence of modern medicine on society, which he considered to be the secularization of religion’s hold on humankind. Criticizing scientism, he targeted psychiatry in particular, underscoring its campaigns against masturbation at the end of the 19th century, its use of medical imagery and language to describe misbehavior, its reliance on involuntary mental hospitalization to protect society, and the use of lobotomy and other interventions to treat psychosis.[citation needed] Szasz consistently paid attention to the power of language in the establishment and maintenance of the social order, both in small interpersonal and in wider social, economic, and/or political spheres.

      Dude, to explain why religion is better than science, you chose a “scientific” antimasturbation movement? I hate to break it to you, but the god of Abraham is also famously against onanism.

      But the rest of that is hella based.

      • Emerald@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        Criticizing scientism, he targeted psychiatry in particular, underscoring its campaigns against masturbation at the end of the 19th century

        He is criticizing anti-masturbation campaigns, not supporting them

        • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Yeah, I misinterpreted that as being pro religion, anti pseudoscientific antimasturbation campaigns, but it’s against both of those. My brain read this:

          which he considered to be the secularization of religion’s hold on humankind

          As this:

          which he considered to be the source of the secularization of religion’s hold on humankind

          Which paints the whole thing in a different light. This whole section is actually green and yellow flags, the red ones are elsewhere.

          • Emerald@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            it’s against both of those

            Lol this article is weirdly written. I didn’t notice that either before you mentioned it.

    • CTDummy@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Yeah some of it I could potentially see where he’s coming from too, hence the curiosity. I have a family member that cites his views often so don’t know how much is accurately being portrayed.