Is anyone else disturbed by this? - Democratic Underground

Random_Australian

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-05-06 05:49 AM
Original message

Is anyone else disturbed by this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1100872&mesg_id=1100872

It just seems to me that when people want to make someone else sound like a bad person, they search for ways to make them seem mentally ill.

I find it.... disquieting. He could not get that far if he were anything more than 'emotionless toward those deemed unimportant to myself'... like many people are.

Your thoughts?

Refresh | 0 Recommendations

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

DemExpat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-05-06 06:54 AM
Response to Original message

1. Didn't read thru the entire thread, but threads like this don't bother me

at all. Just speculation based on oberservations IMO.

I tend to see people like Bush also as less than mentally healthy. Maybe its the trend nowadays because of insights from the behavioral sciences that point us in this direction. Also maybe because many of us do not see behavior in terms of good or evil as represented in most religions, so look elsewhere for other reasons to explain motivation.

DemEx

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Random_Australian

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-05-06 07:26 AM
Response to Reply #1

2. I've certainly not the religious viewpoint, (atheist myself)

but just the implicit association between someone doing bad things and someone having mental issues just seemed to be pushed a bit much.... that said, I see what you are saying. It does make sense. I wonder now what the real explanation is.

I do not think that he has anything like the grade of sociopathy that some were talking about. Why wait and go through politics if you want to kill people?

I think that he has a great lack of empathy, but is still pretty 'normal'.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

bloom

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri May-05-06 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #2

3. Almost any label about anyone - positive or negative

can be turned around to make others look bad - as a group.

Even the empathy thing. People with Autism or Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) are said to score low on empathy. But there are other things that suggest that ASD people take morality more seriously than most people and are less likely to go along with a crowd that is doing something immoral.

At the same time - there may be some people with ASD that might be more likely to bother people - do things that are not within the range of what you expect people to do or say - so people may think that they are rude or some other thing.

People seem to want to think that those who do not share our reality are mentally impaired. Like the Freepers. Like anyone who seems worse than we do - morally or rationally or any other way. It's what people do.

Having a personality disorder is not the same as not being in touch with reality. Hallucinating and such. A lot of people are pretty loose with their descriptions and definitions because they don't really know that much about it.

It is good for people to be reminded from time to time that it is the people with mental illnesses who are more likely than others to be victims of crime - not the other way around.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

hedgehog

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-06-06 09:52 AM
Response to Original message

4. I'm not certain if being a sociopath is the same as having a mental illnes

There is always a problem when criminals do apparently "crazy" things trying to figure out what's going on. What about Ted Kazinski, the Unibomber? Does he have schizophrenia? If so, how responsible was he for his actions? Maybe he is both ill and responsible. Sociopaths are another story all together. I think it is a handy catch phrase for describing people that could either be ill or "merely" evil. They are so different from the range of "normal" behaviors, good or bad, that we really don't know what we're looking at. Evil is such an irrational concept that I think the term sociopath is used to give it a veneer of science.

I myself have found that English slang needs some new words. We often use the term "crazy" to describe behaviors that are totally irrational yet do not qualify as an aspect of mental illness. As in, "If Bush thinks he can get away with bombing Iran, he's crazy!"

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

carl_pwccaman

(259 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-30-06 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #4

29. It is different than other problems, definitely

Extreme Narcissism, and Sociopathy, involve lack/defect of conscience and empathy, they are the only disorders where the brunt of the illness rests on OTHER PEOPLE who get harmed, humiliated, manipulated, conned, etc.

Other issues/problems aren't based in defect/lack of empathy or conscience, and people with other psychological issues generally are plagued by their problems far more than other people are. It's a huge difference.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Kire

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-13-06 12:06 AM
Response to Original message

5. this distubs me

Edited on Sat May-13-06 12:55 AM by Kire

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Random_Australian

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-13-06 05:08 AM
Response to Reply #5

7. Oh, dear "letting the mentally ill vote is a baaaaaad idea."

I'm glad I'm not alone in my feelings on this.
I'm sorry that so many people think like this.
I'm going to find that person who posted the above quote and not forget nor exact vengeance for that.

I'm here for you, all of you, anytime.

Who wants a hug?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

DemExpat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-13-06 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #5

8. That is quite a list, Kire....

Edited on Sat May-13-06 08:10 AM by DemExpat

I wasn't aware of the pervasiveness of this here.
Some of them are bothersome, while others are 'acceptable' to me.

I also tend to call people who have extremely different views from my own and who I perceive as being utterly selfish and even cruel "sick"...
because I do believe that being selfish, uncaring or cruel is not mentally or spiritually healthy.

This thread is definitely food for thought though.

DemEx

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

NMMNG

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-13-06 02:35 AM
Response to Original message

6. Those with mental illness are still highly stigmatized in society

And labeling someone with a mental illness is a convenient way to demonize them and explain away their undesirable traits. I see it in my work, in my personal life and here on DU. It's yet another one of those prejudices that's still considered acceptable in society no matter how much we fight against it. We definitely are fighting an uphill battle.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

hedgehog

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-13-06 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #6

9. In the old days,

people were demonized to explain their bad traits because people believed in demons! Now people want to be "scientific" so they say that people who do bad things are mentally ill. Rarely, some mentally ill people do bad things because they aren't perceiving reality properly. Frequently, perfectly healthy people do bad things for reasons we don't like to face. Perhaps that's a question best left to the religion/theology forum.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

NMMNG

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-13-06 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #9

11. Oh dear

There are already heated debates in the R/T forum about why people commit atrocities and what should be done about it. I've taken a break of late from there as I've grown tired of the infighting. However feel free to stop by any time if you have your fireproof suit on.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

DemExpat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun May-14-06 04:11 AM
Response to Reply #9

12. Interesting......I have the opposite idea on this, hedgehog,

Rarely, some mentally ill people do bad things because they aren't perceiving reality properly. Frequently, perfectly healthy people do bad things for reasons we don't like to face. Perhaps that's a question best left to the religion/theology forum.

Perhaps it is vastly different atmosphere in the US (having many more religious believers) than in Europe, but here in Europe with its secular humanism the issue of good and evil has been largely replaced with "healthy" and "unhealthy" to the point that most criminals here are also not treated as 'bad' people, but often treated as people motivated by psychological problems. I guess that living here for so long has also influenced my views on this.

But my years in psychotherapy also opened my eyes to how children are (often inadvertently) damaged/warped by bad experiences, by their basic needs not being fulfilled.

I do not at all believe that a perfectly healthy person will willfully commit crimes against others, and also do not believe in the Devil, so I do tend to see inhuman and anti-social acts as "mental illness".

I think the difference is in people who recognize their problems and who do not act them out on society - like most people who seek treatment for "mental illness" and suffering, and those who do or cannot, who repress and deny their suffering and twist it (because it is down in their sub-conscious somewhere and doesn't go away!)) into anti-social acts.

But of course, I admit my beliefs have been based on Christian teachings of Love thy neighbor, and that Jesus has been my biggest role model, so in a sense they are based on religion.

So, no, I haven't gotten this figured out in my head either.....:D :silly:

DemEx

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Random_Australian

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun May-14-06 05:10 AM
Response to Reply #12

13. ok sure but take care between, for instance, a person of unmet needs,

and a person of abnormal cognition.

You get me? A person of unmet needs (dependant on circumstances) may be more likely to do something deemed criminal, but a person of abnormal cognition would still be trying to do the right thing. What most disturbed me was people saying that, for example, George Bush is (insert illness). It seems like they are choosing to believe that he is mentally unlike them in a way that absolves them of responsibility or likeness, that is from internal factors rather than environmental.

See what I mean? If no, just say and I'll jump to a rewrite.

This post was supposed to be flame & snark free. My apologies in advance if it seems to be not that way. x(

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

DemExpat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun May-14-06 05:30 AM
Response to Reply #13

16. No, I don't really see what you are trying to say here...

A person of unmet needs (dependant on circumstances) may be more likely to do something deemed criminal, but a person of abnormal cognition would still be trying to do the right thing.
What do you mean by a person of abnormal cognition? Low IQ? Chemical imbalances causing hallucinations or mood swings?
Why would a person with unmet needs be more likely than one with 'abnormal cognition' to be criminal?

What most disturbed me was people saying that, for example, George Bush is (insert illness). It seems like they are choosing to believe that he is mentally unlike them in a way that absolves them of responsibility or likeness, that is from internal factors rather than environmental.

.....absolves them from responsiblity for what? (and also unclear - responsibility of the posters or people like Bush?)

Internal factors /environment - I'm afraid that this is part of the larger debate that has not been solved yet - mental illness and suffering a result of nature or nurture?
I tend to believe that it is a result of biological sensitivities that get triggered or set into patterns by learned behavior, missed needs, environmental toxins, etc.

Your post did not come across as being snarky, just difficult to understand what you mean there.

:hi:

DemEx

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Random_Australian

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun May-14-06 05:56 AM
Response to Reply #16

20. I can be a little opaque, I'm afraid. More in a few days, bedtime now.

Goodnight DemEx.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

hedgehog

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-15-06 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #16

26. I think you and Random Australian are on the same page

Case 1: A person who has a diagnosable disorder, schizophrenia or post-partum depression for example, who is not perceiving reality properly. This person follows society's standards as best he/she can, but in fact is responding to an illusion. For example, the mother who leaves the baby in the bath to drown out the evil spirits.

Case 2: A person who is perfectly healthy, but has not been socialized properly. For example, the child who has been abused and grows up mistrusting other people.

Case 3: The person who apparently was socialized properly, but who is totally lacking in empathy. Ted Bundy.

Case 4: The person who apparently has some sort of diagnosable disorder, but who also seems to be connected to reality enough to make a rational decision to commit crimes for a particular purpose. Ted Kazinski.

Case 5: The person who appears to have been socialized properly, but who commits a crime because it would benefit himself/herself as long as he/she doesn't get caught. Kenneth Lay.

Some of these people do bad things because they don't understand what they are realy doing. Some of these people are choosing to do bad things because it would benefit them personally. Some of these people are doing bad things because that is how they've been socialized to behave. Other we can't understand well enough yet to decide what is going on. Describe the crime, and anyone of them could either be "crazy" or "evil". Describe the person, and we have a better idea of what happened.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Random_Australian

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-16-06 03:03 AM
Response to Reply #26

27. Yes! I am most concerned about what happens if people try to prevent

or 'fix' crimes, or take any other attempted remedial measure without proper understanding, for instance locking up those with diagnosible disorders, or thinking that 'Well Bush is only like that 'cos he's a loon, things would never go wrong if we (installed a dem prez et cetera)'

Action based upon false assumption has little chance of success, sort of thing.

NOTE: I was saying that some GD DU'ers attitudes could lead them to that. In no way did I mean anyone in this thread was saying 'well Bush is (...)' or anything similar.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

DemExpat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-13-06 11:31 AM
Response to Original message

10. Not sure if Kire posted this link in post nr. 5, but THIS is disturbing...

to me....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1177337

Anti-Bush sign lands a woman in mental ward
From Mother Jones:

Uppity Cleveland woman carted to psych hospital by police and ordered to a psych unit by judge

For as long as we have had some kind of mental health system, women who "behave incorrectly" have been ordered to undergo its treatments. At one time or another, feminists, suffragists, menopausal women, and women who question authority in any way have been sent to institutions so that they could recieve "help."

---------------------------------snip------------------------------

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Kire

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun May-14-06 05:11 AM
Response to Reply #10

14. no

I didn't link to that in my post. This story is indeed disturbing, but I limited my search to offhand comments and armchair diagnoses. Not a legitimate story from a source like Mother Jones.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Random_Australian

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun May-14-06 05:23 AM
Response to Reply #14

15. I like to try to work out how other DU'ers think as I talk to them, but

armchair diagnosis is beyond me. We don't have the requisite info to diagnose anyone we haven't met/ got detailed notes about.

Bloody "____ is obviously _______" statements. They annoy me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

DemExpat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun May-14-06 05:35 AM
Response to Reply #15

17. Ok then, I can agree that they are annoying....

:-)

But exclamations are just part of our vocabulary, like, "he's nuts, he's stupid", etc. Just the general terms have changed with time - using more specific names and labels.

I think it probably has much to do with people feeling so helpless in the face of understanding what makes some people what they are that makes them use mental illness labels.

And I guess I don't tend to see these rants as diagnoses, but as speculations, and as such, they don't bother me.

DemEx

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Random_Australian

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun May-14-06 05:55 AM
Response to Reply #17

19. That seems like a good line to draw. "I wonder" is ok, but "here is

evidence he is" isn't.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Kire

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun May-14-06 06:04 AM
Response to Reply #19

22. not a good line at all

"I wonder if you're crazy" is not an armchair diagnosis. And neither is "here is evidence" (if such evidence does exist).

Armchair diagnoses are speculation disguised as fact. Absolute declarations based on nothing but opinion. If somebody says "here is evidence" pointing to how women are "feminists, suffragists, menopausal women, and women who question authority" (quote from the link in the sub thread that DemExpat started.) Now that is armchair diagnosis.

In fact, anybody declaring someone is mentally ill who doesn't have a psychiatric license is engaging in armchair diagnosis, which is a bad thing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Random_Australian

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun May-14-06 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #22

23. I've been misunderstood again. Sorry about my opacity. I keep doing this!

"speculation disguised as fact" - what I meant when I said "here is evidence".

People in the real world presenting evidence, putting it through journals and whatnot, absolutely fine.

Armchair diagnosticians have said stuff like "look, Bush is schizophrenic, he (stares to the side in meetings or some such rot)" a few times. It was my not-so-clear way of saying what you crystalised rather well, that declaring someone mentally ill without a licence is armchair diagnosis. I just happen to be very sensitive to standards of proof and evidence. Very much into scientific method.

Sorry for the confusion. x(

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Kire

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun May-14-06 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #23

25. No problem

Edited on Sun May-14-06 07:13 PM by Kire

I hope I wasn't too tough on you.

I gotta get off these boards. This truthout Rove crap has me drained.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

DemExpat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun May-14-06 05:40 AM
Response to Reply #14

18. OK, then again, it is official attitudes and actions

that bother me greatly with labelling something as being mentally ill, while speculation and commenting in general discussions don't.

Besides, would you prefer for this type of language to be forbidden in society?

DemEx

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Kire

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun May-14-06 05:58 AM
Response to Reply #18

21. yes

I prefer it be forbidden in society. Do I have any power to make that a reality? No I don't.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

undergroundpanther

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun May-14-06 11:07 AM
Response to Original message

24. a social death sentance.

is called for when someone attempts to devalue and delegitamize a person,make them appear less worthy of being listened to and taken seriously.This is why armchair diagnosis is so annoying..because it is a form of bullying.

Research consistently shows that people's attitudes on mental health cause unfair treatment, social exclusion and isolation on the part of people with mental health problems.
http://mindout.clarity.uk.net/iwi/iD2-Attitudes.asp
how stigmas effect mentally ill peoples lives
http://baltimorechronicle.com/080205Miller.shtml
the stigma project
http://www.onourownmd.org/main.cfm?sector=news&page=read&newsid=38&topic=15

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

mopinko

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-24-06 09:48 AM
Response to Original message

28. i can see both sides

i think that it is a step forward to look at damaging behaviors and actions and not attribute them to "evil" or "demons". i think that a national debate and understanding about mental illness, what it is, how it works, how to recognize it, is so long overdue. it will dig up a bunch of shit. but i don't see any other way for us to get beyond the kind of situation we have today.
i think that mental illness and personality disorders, developmental disorders, etc, are all lumped together, but i think it is a step toward an understanding of human behavior that might, MIGHT, lift us beyond the state where people can be psy-opped into following a megalomaniac like bush. yes, this is an armchair dx, but can anyone really not recognize that there is something wrong with these people? i think people are just trying to understand.

i wholeheartedly agree that the stigma of mental illness is a crippling form of bigotry and stupidity. so damaging to those struggling with it, and their families. but more discussion is the only cure for that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Kire

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jun-07-06 09:06 PM
Response to Original message

30. This smilie kind of disturbs me.

:tinfoilhat:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Mon Jan 06th 2025, 09:04 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.