Remember the context here is the president of the United States talking about summarily imprisoning people with mental illness. The answer to that is not, “Well then let’s define his supporters as mentally ill.” It’s that institutionalization has historically been barbarically cruel and is generally the least effective way to treat mental illness long-term, so let’s stop talking about doing that to ANYONE.
And just take a look at the stigma you’ve adopted in your own language. You are defining “mentally ill” as against “normal.” Since when do we call people with illnesses “abnormal”? Are people with diabetes “abnormal”? Do we call people “abnormal” when they get cancer? The point is we need to strip “mental illness” of the absurd moral value judgments that are regularly attached to it. You don’t stop stigma by inaccurately applying a medical diagnosis to the worst-behaved people you can think of. We’ve come a long way in the way we talk about depression and anxiety, but there are diagnoses like bipolar and schizophrenia that are still horribly stigmatized, and continuing to blur the definition of mental illness to include people you’re making a moral judgment about really, really doesn’t help.
I'm with you on this. I think its interesting that the right is tacitly admitting that their most fevered, hardcore supporters are, in fact, mentally ill. That to hold to an ideology of hatred, to see other fellow human beings as somehow Less Than because of skin tone, religious affiliation, sexual or gender orientation etc., is in fact a mental aberration. As with virtually every other proclamation that comes out of this midden heap of an administration, I don't think they've fully thought this one through.
"I think we have to start building institutions again, because, you know, if you look at the '60s and '70s, so many of these institutions were closed, and the people were just allowed to go on to the streets."
The historian in chief gets the shit wrong again. St. Ron the Ridiculous ended the state hospital program. That would be the 80's you dementia-having fascist!
I would say that someone who is capable of such hatred and brutality would exhibit symptoms similar to those suffering from borderline personality disorder.
I think Republicans know that they are directly responsible for the rise of domestic terrorism and are looking for any scapegoat to avoid taking the blame. They stoke fears and hatred and then go Steve Urkel on us:https://media.giphy.com/med...
You raise a valid point. We should be careful about how we use language. Also, the social stigma that attaches to the mentally ill, while it has been reduced, is still a thing.
Republicans will NEVER pass mental health legislation, because:– we had state run mental health facilities until Regan shut them down.– it would be too expensive to provide mental health treatment– if they ever did pass mental health legislation, and mass shootings continued (and they would), it would finally prove that their argument that mental health is responsible for the shootings is absolute bullshit.
You are trying to build a straw man. I never said I was a psychiatrist. Are you, given that you started this particular mental health thread?
If you reread my post you will see that I was talking about Trump and his supporters. Either way, what is your point?
I don't throw the phrase (I assume you mean "mental illness," though you don't say) lightly. I think that Trump and many of his supporters suffer from one or more types of mental illness, to the point where they are not fully functional in reality.
Why don't you stop trying to suppress the use of "mental illness" in a discussion. Of course it will be mentioned in mass shootings; they are irrational and the person doing the killing has both mental and emotional problems. Same goes with pretty much anything Trump does.
Is it so hard to stop trying to tell other people what they are allowed to say or not?
So here is the thing. I didn't post the offending language. So it's not MY tactic. And I'm saying I doubt very much the writer intended it as an offensive tactic. FYI. I never refer to my patients that way. I call them by their names. Their diagnosis is in their chart. So I have nothing that I have to stop. As for Trump, I do believe all of the "armchair" psychiatrists are correct in their learned assessments.
The average person has room in their head for about 150 personalities, beyond that they group them. "Alex? Oh, Bob's friend, he is like Chuck, right?"You are trying to keep 7 billion people in your head which cannot have any other effect than making your 140 (I've reserved 10 for your loved ones) exceptionally generic. If you go down that road, go all the way and treat every human the same. That should leave you 149 spots for actual personal relations, the only downside is that you need to find a way to treat people that offends a percentage you can live with. Stop making special rules for all those subsets, retards are people too, just like redheads, fat bastards, and craterfaced tweens. They are not defined by that single property so everyone can use that property to insult anyone else.
Ermagerd it’s SO HARD to modify my vocabulary to not imply that having a medical condition and being a monster are related! Do you also misgender people?
Remember the context here is the president of the United States talking about summarily imprisoning people with mental illness. The answer to that is not, “Well then let’s define his supporters as mentally ill.” It’s that institutionalization has historically been barbarically cruel and is generally the least effective way to treat mental illness long-term, so let’s stop talking about doing that to ANYONE.
And just take a look at the stigma you’ve adopted in your own language. You are defining “mentally ill” as against “normal.” Since when do we call people with illnesses “abnormal”? Are people with diabetes “abnormal”? Do we call people “abnormal” when they get cancer? The point is we need to strip “mental illness” of the absurd moral value judgments that are regularly attached to it. You don’t stop stigma by inaccurately applying a medical diagnosis to the worst-behaved people you can think of. We’ve come a long way in the way we talk about depression and anxiety, but there are diagnoses like bipolar and schizophrenia that are still horribly stigmatized, and continuing to blur the definition of mental illness to include people you’re making a moral judgment about really, really doesn’t help.
I'm with you on this. I think its interesting that the right is tacitly admitting that their most fevered, hardcore supporters are, in fact, mentally ill. That to hold to an ideology of hatred, to see other fellow human beings as somehow Less Than because of skin tone, religious affiliation, sexual or gender orientation etc., is in fact a mental aberration. As with virtually every other proclamation that comes out of this midden heap of an administration, I don't think they've fully thought this one through.
"I think we have to start building institutions again, because, you know, if you look at the '60s and '70s, so many of these institutions were closed, and the people were just allowed to go on to the streets."
The historian in chief gets the shit wrong again. St. Ron the Ridiculous ended the state hospital program. That would be the 80's you dementia-having fascist!
I would say that someone who is capable of such hatred and brutality would exhibit symptoms similar to those suffering from borderline personality disorder.
I think Republicans know that they are directly responsible for the rise of domestic terrorism and are looking for any scapegoat to avoid taking the blame. They stoke fears and hatred and then go Steve Urkel on us:https://media.giphy.com/med...
You raise a valid point. We should be careful about how we use language. Also, the social stigma that attaches to the mentally ill, while it has been reduced, is still a thing.
Republicans will NEVER pass mental health legislation, because:– we had state run mental health facilities until Regan shut them down.– it would be too expensive to provide mental health treatment– if they ever did pass mental health legislation, and mass shootings continued (and they would), it would finally prove that their argument that mental health is responsible for the shootings is absolute bullshit.
You are trying to build a straw man. I never said I was a psychiatrist. Are you, given that you started this particular mental health thread?
If you reread my post you will see that I was talking about Trump and his supporters. Either way, what is your point?
I don't throw the phrase (I assume you mean "mental illness," though you don't say) lightly. I think that Trump and many of his supporters suffer from one or more types of mental illness, to the point where they are not fully functional in reality.
Why don't you stop trying to suppress the use of "mental illness" in a discussion. Of course it will be mentioned in mass shootings; they are irrational and the person doing the killing has both mental and emotional problems. Same goes with pretty much anything Trump does.
Is it so hard to stop trying to tell other people what they are allowed to say or not?
So here is the thing. I didn't post the offending language. So it's not MY tactic. And I'm saying I doubt very much the writer intended it as an offensive tactic. FYI. I never refer to my patients that way. I call them by their names. Their diagnosis is in their chart. So I have nothing that I have to stop. As for Trump, I do believe all of the "armchair" psychiatrists are correct in their learned assessments.
Nope. Gonna keep being me. (Mentally ill person that I am.)
The average person has room in their head for about 150 personalities, beyond that they group them. "Alex? Oh, Bob's friend, he is like Chuck, right?"You are trying to keep 7 billion people in your head which cannot have any other effect than making your 140 (I've reserved 10 for your loved ones) exceptionally generic. If you go down that road, go all the way and treat every human the same. That should leave you 149 spots for actual personal relations, the only downside is that you need to find a way to treat people that offends a percentage you can live with. Stop making special rules for all those subsets, retards are people too, just like redheads, fat bastards, and craterfaced tweens. They are not defined by that single property so everyone can use that property to insult anyone else.
"...if you look at the '60s and '70s, so many of these institutions were closed, and the people were just allowed to go on to the streets"
I always suspected this is where he was unleashed on us.
Ermagerd it’s SO HARD to modify my vocabulary to not imply that having a medical condition and being a monster are related! Do you also misgender people?
It happens. And in training we were taught to refer to “a person with a disability “ instead of “.disabled person “.
How about “ we disagree on this point “, and leave it at that?
huh?