[drewbug01]

In the short term, for the individual: yes, it could be better to medicate.

However in the long run, it ends up giving license to shitty employers to continue being shitty, and perhaps to become even worse.

Such employers need to feel the negative consequences of their behavior. Their business needs to suffer from high turnover and poor quality work, and if they don’t change then they need to fold.

Businesses are, at the end of the day, just people - people who live together and participate in the same society. I can’t honestly say that the best outcome is for workers to medicate themselves to be able to tolerate their bosses. Work doesn’t have to be so toxic and awful, you know?

[binary132]

I'm the farthest thing from a pot advocate there is, but if you imagine saying this about antidepressants it sounds kinda silly.

[drewbug01]

Well; I’m inclined to agree that my comment would indeed sound silly if you simply substituted antidepressants for pot. But in my mind that’s because it’s comparing apples to oranges. I just don’t see how they are comparable.

[binary132]

But you weren’t talking about pot. You were talking about people treating their work related depression and stress being a bad thing because it enables their employer to depress and stress them. At least, that was the message I got.

[drewbug01]

> But you weren’t talking about pot.

I was. I was replying to a comment that was talking about pot; and the comment I was replying to was on an article that was about pot. In context, I would have thought "medicate" would be understood as "medicate [with cannabis]".

> You were talking about people treating their work related depression and stress being a bad thing because it enables their employer to depress and stress them. At least, that was the message I got.

Nope, nope, nope. You brought up antidepressants - as I said before, I think that's an apples-to-oranges comparison. Recall the original comment I was replying to in the first place - it talks about being "more eager to work and more resistant to burn out" via pot and people "continuously stressing out and thinking about changing jobs". And I don't think it remotely bad to treat depression or stress with medication, at all.

Now maybe somebody is about to burn out and thinks about changing jobs because they're depressed, but that's reading a lot into it. My comment was trying to talk about leaving toxic and shitty jobs. You're bringing a framing into it that I do not agree with and didn't ever say.

[xk_id]

You’re not going to believe it: https://www.madinamerica.com/2017/03/psychiatric-hegemony-ma...

[drewbug01]

Why are you so obsessed with trying to tie my comments to marxism? That’s deeply odd.

[xk_id]

This is a thinly veiled marxist-style call for collective class action. Aka unionising. I think it’s more dignifying to assume that ppl are capable of judging for themselves whether the solution to a shitty job is getting high, or quitting- without the socialist indoctrination, which is designed to benefit the political leaders who try to galvanise revolutions. Those revolutions typically devolve into unhinged violence, because they fabricate a narrative of anger.

[drewbug01]

If I wanted to make a marxist-style call for collective action, there’d be nothing “thinly veiled” about it.

What I was actually suggesting is that people should, in fact, decide for themselves; and that employers should reap the consequences of those decisions.

It sounds like you’ve mistaken me for someone you’ve been arguing with elsewhere. Maybe my comment vaguely resembles a fight you’ve been having before, but you’re reaching some conclusions that just aren’t supported by what I said.

[xk_id]

It was the tone you used. Your post had strong statements like

> employers need to feel the negative consequences of their behavior. Their business needs to suffer

This is not merely encouraging personal autonomy. It’s the prescription of political action. It’s dialectical materialism. Could be a strange coincidence.

[drewbug01]

Well, if all it takes to be a marxist is suggesting that people take individual action to change a socially undesirable situation, I guess I’m a marxist.

But I mean with definitions that broad, who wouldn’t be? I guess it’s useful for trying to shut down conversation, but I’m not sure what other utility it holds.

[xk_id]

But you didn’t suggest individual action. You set out objectives which can only succeed if enough ppl coordinate to do it. It’s the prototypical socialist revolution and it’s useful to know where that path can lead.

[drewbug01]

> But you didn’t suggest individual action. You set out objectives which can only succeed if enough ppl coordinate to do it.

I suggested individual action; you attached success criteria to it that support your weirdly strong desire to paint me as a marxist.

Now, I don’t know why you’re so adamant on it, but that’s your business I guess. I think it’s kinda weird honestly.