General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMental health stigma denies my dignity
http://www.guardian.co.tt/lifestyle/2015-09-02/mental-health-stigma-denies-my-dignity"At the outset, I wish to thank all my friends, relatives, and acquaintances who still accept me as a human being worthy of their love, affection, care, and attention and who, for all they know and possibly do not understand about my living with a mental health issue, still treat me with dignity.
Thank you for not labelling me a mad woman, having problems, being mental, psycho, and many of the cold-hearted things to which others relegate me disregarding the fact that God and the United Nations declared me as free and equal as everyone else.
Im especially grateful for those very few who love me sufficiently to accept me in any moodmy disquiets and my warmthand still plan and have extended stay with me. You remind me therere people who know mental illness is a condition affecting just one part of a persons reality. Thank you for not wrongly equating me with violence, unpredictability, and or needing to be restrained.
To my private humiliation, I live in T&T, an educated but especially uniformed society, nasty towards anything it doesnt accept or understand, bigoted, prejudiced, reckless, and not given to sufficient contemplation so nobility and compassion can evolve in our daily existence. Here, I am a reject by the standard of many people.
..."
True progressives DO NOT use mental illness, in any form, real or imagined, to attack others. Any such attack is an attack on the dignity of all humans.
Thank you.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I think it's uncalled for as well, but apparently "might makes right" and there are some people who think it's OK to gang up and call people those kinds of names if they support the 'wrong' candidate or don't have appropriate enthusiasm in other ways.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)It's beyond the pale. We are in 2015. No?
MADem
(135,425 posts)hide that shit.
The reason they don't vote to hide is because
-- the post is making fun of a politician they hate, or
-- the post is making fun of a poster they hate.
It's some ugly shit. I think it's a matter of integrity--you either have it or you don't.
The admins aren't going to help us. They've pretty much said as much. They will rarely if ever intervene.
FWIW, I don't endorse, approve, support or condone that kind of talk.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)There are no checks and balances, and the administration needs to change that.
MADem
(135,425 posts)When you get called, and you see someone shitting on someone and being insulting, don't write crap like "Free speech dude, let 'em talk it out." I see that happen way too often.
When someone is personally insulting to another person, that drags down the level of civility. It's not that hard to not be an asshole to someone. You can disagree vigorously without calling a person names. It doesn't ruin the debate to not shit-fling, either.
We have met the enemy and they are us, I'm afraid. I don't have a problem with differences of opinion at all. I do object when people are mean and cruel to one other. I don't like hurtful, cutting insults directed at DUers, we are all MEMBERS here and we should treat each other better--I think people who use that tactic need to be slapped down, hard.
The admins are not gonna referee, though--we have to do that. Tell all your friends~!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And that others have clearly worked to utilize the system to attack individuals with whom they disagree.
I could go on and on, but the lack of checks and balances is ludicrous. I suppose the administrators are getting the money the expected, and that's all they care about. I guess we can't ask for anything more.
MADem
(135,425 posts)They have to work, feed their families. They have lots of sites to maintain.
This ain't a tragedy. It's more like an irritant.
If it really gets noxious, TRASH THREAD helps--I will use that to make stupidity disappear.
I know some people like IGNORE, too, but that's not my style.
And then, there's always the "step back from it all" approach.
I'm a Total Minority Poster on this website--if I had a mind to, I could really let some of the stuff I see on this board get to me. Instead, I figure, "It's just the internet!"
kcr
(15,314 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 8, 2015, 01:31 PM - Edit history (1)
Please disregard everthing below
They claim it's because they hate censorship, but in reality DU is about as constrained as it's ever been. The ignore tool is the worst offender. I don't know how aware people are of this. I just now found this out because I stay logged into DU. I had to reboot and forgot to log in, and tried to reply to a thread I wanted to participate in. Logged in and went to find it? Gone. I figured it out. The person who started the thread has me on ignore. So now I cannot participate in that thread. It is not about a free DU. It's simply that they don't want to have to deal with it. The DUer who did this all about freedom of speech and libertarian ideals, too. Funny, that. How typical.
I had no idea. I'm going to clear out my ignore list, now, and just ignore people the old fashioned way because that's wrong. You have to watch your speech more than you ever had to on DU.
MADem
(135,425 posts)and YOU are the one who has to make that choice. If someone has you on ignore, you can respond to them all you want--they just won't see what you have to say so they won't answer you back.
Other people can't "ignore" you and then you don't see their stuff. YOU can ignore other people and you won't see THEIR stuff. It's not a two-way street.
kcr
(15,314 posts)I am not mistaken.
MADem
(135,425 posts)They just don't see YOU. There have been no changes to how IGNORE works.
Please ask the admins if you don't believe me--you are wrong.
kcr
(15,314 posts)But when I log in they no longer show, including the OP's they start, I'm all ears. They are not on my ignore list.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Go check your list again, you'll find them.
Take them off ignore, and voila--you will see what they wrote.
Either that, or you trashed the thread and forgot that's what you did.
kcr
(15,314 posts)I've also checked again very carefully, and logged in and out again. The OP is on the front page. It disappears on logging in. And I'm certain I had never put this person on ignore.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Which OP is it?
kcr
(15,314 posts)Not sure I feel comfortable doing that.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I am not ignoring anyone, and while I occasionally trash a thread, I haven't done that in the last few days.
kcr
(15,314 posts)If you don't toe the line this could be particularly bad. Other people can control your DU content for you. You can log out of course, but then you can't participate. This is worse than Jury issues and people should be aware of this. ETA my ignore list was never particularly long to begin with. In fact, I went to check it and delete it and I had a whopping one person on it.
kcr
(15,314 posts)It's the front page of the specific forum I was in, General Discussion.
kcr
(15,314 posts)It must be because this person put me on ignore.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It just does not work the way you are insisting it does.
It would be great if it did--I have a few people who occasionally follow me around like little puppies that I'd love to shake loose, but that just ain't happening.
You don't have to believe me--ATA. Ask Skinner, Earl or Elad. Direct them to this thread so they see our conversation; ask them if I'm messing this up. I think they will tell you that I have it right. If you put someone on IGNORE, you don't see them anymore. They, however, can still see you, and reply to you. You remain oblivious to them so long as you are logged in.
kcr
(15,314 posts)But I actually have discussed this particular feature with them in the past, which is why I believe this is the reason it's happening.
MADem
(135,425 posts)if it did, but it doesn't.
I think you're ignoring some people and that is causing threads to get pushed off the page when you're logged out.
Either that, or check your "auto trash by KEYWORD" list. There could be a keyword you don't like in that thread that popped up while you were logged out.
kcr
(15,314 posts)And it's still on the front page of GD when I'm not logged in. In GD, which I'm still in right now. Forum not trashed. I've nver used the trash keyword either
kcr
(15,314 posts)If you hadn't thought of trash keyword I'd still be paranoid about ignore
MADem
(135,425 posts)A cloak of invisibility would be handy in the minefield that is GD-P....!
kcr
(15,314 posts)I swear I do not remember trashing keyword. But I must have.
Soooo. Nevermind!
MADem
(135,425 posts)You forgot--it's easy to do. Stuff moves fast on this board!!!
So glad the mystery was solved for you, though. Sometimes, these "features" can trip us up!
kcr
(15,314 posts)And I'm slightly an idiot, too. I shouldn't have jumped to that conclusion
I just got off travel; had a heckuva flu thing going on. I blame Pennsylvania-that's where I picked it up!!! I could have used some of that medicine!!!
kcr
(15,314 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)kcr
(15,314 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)My letter had been about the admin setting an example and avoid using stigmatizing phrases in Pics Of The Day.
My suspicion is the admin will approach this as most Americans do...they won't appreciate the problem until someone intimate to them is involved.
And if you call out someone on this you are likely to get the response used by the Stephanie Miller Show (Iheart's sexy liberal): "Don't YOU get it? We were just making a joke."
kcr
(15,314 posts)And FWIW I agree with you on all points. It isn't okay.
MADem
(135,425 posts)We weren't slinging shit at each other, after all...and every time we exchanged posts, we kicked the thread!
Any opportunity to bring more people to the topic isn't wasted!
kcr
(15,314 posts)I wasn't kidding about the cold medicine. Better not drive anywhere.
Midnight Writer
(21,712 posts)Think of the tragedies that could be averted if people experiencing feelings that they know are not rational got help. This pertains not only to the mentally ill, but their families and loved ones, who will not take action because of the "shame" we as a society pin on mental health issues.
pnwmom
(108,955 posts)and progressives should know better.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The Pope, a DU fave and poster child, stigmatizes LGBT persons and claims that being such a person is a disorder.
What specifically should progressives not do? They are totally free and allowed to say 'you LGBT are disordered, inherently disordered and out to disfigure God' so what exactly are the parameters? To me being called disordered is a stigmatization, but others here clearly say that it is acceptable to say that about others. 'They are disordered'. Is that only to be said about LGBT?
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)against the mentally ill as either a joke or the root of a social problem
I could really give Sander's campaign a boost with that sort of wealth
MADem
(135,425 posts)He might be saying more than we realize.
This Pope has done more to change the playing field than any previous to him. I think he's pushing the ball down the field a few feet at a time...in a good way.
Would it be nice if he did more? Sure. Could he proceed at a faster pace and not be assassinated? Probably not.
I think his heart is in the right place. I ain't no Pope, so who am I to judge?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)would prevent people with a history of mental illness from being able to own guns?
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 8, 2015, 07:01 PM - Edit history (3)
What you posed is way to ambiguous to seriously evaluate for any specific benefit or harm
Problems with "history":
a) The restrictions are going to be very porous. Mental disorders emerge more commonly among people under 30, often people under 25, but mental disorders can emerge at -ANY- time, including -after- a person has bought a gun. Mental illnesses can also resolve and the numbers suggest that survival to middle age is associated with decline in mental disorders. So status of history may not reflect the status of present risk very well.
b) Most people, somewhere around 75% to 80%, with mental disorders do not seek or receive clinical help, people who don't seek clinical help CANNOT HAVE A HISTORY. About 20% of Americans are estimated to suffer from symptoms of a mental disorder annually...that's 60 million people or 1 in 5, that's a huge number of people to treat as criminals in-waiting. That attitude would have social consequences.
Problems with "mental illness":
a) there are -many- mental disorders, most of them have no association with violence, in society or in private. The net that can be cast with this approach can easily be over-sized and complicate rather than resolve the problem of identifying the small number of persons who indeed are potentially dangerous.
b) not every mental disorder is yet known or accepted as an authentic disorder. The APA rejected inclusion of a number of mental disorders when creating it's new edition of it's diagnostic manual, including rejection of an anxiety disorder characterized by 'embitterment' which includes heightened likelihood of acts of deliberate vengefulness.
c) The likelihood of a person with a diagnosed -severe- mental illness (schizophrenia, bipolar, borderline, etc) committing an act of violence in the US is estimated to be slightly over 6%. The likelihood of social violence among the general population is about 5%. Which is to say even for persons with severe mental illness there is not statistically significant elevated risk. Indeed the possibility of random mentally disordered person committing an act of social violence is almost exactly identical to the possibility of any randomly chosen gun owner.
Problems with this approach.
a) This approach has much to do with exploiting existing stigma about mental illness in American culture and the need to create scapegoats (the NRAs 'monsters among us') so that cognitive dissonance (aka discomfort) about our society being violent can be reduced.
b) This approach actually increases stigma and fear about people with mental disorders which results
1) in people avoiding clinical assistance with mental disorders because they fear the harm done by such a label.
--this adds to the problem of untreated persons in society
--it confounds the possible effectiveness of this strategy by increasing the difficulty of finding people with histories of mental disorder
2) in increased discrimination against the mentally ill.
In case you didn't know it...2012 unemployment in the US among persons with mental illness averaged about 80%. Discrimination in employment reflects discrimination in association across society and results in marginalization and isolation of persons with mental disorders. This destroys a basic early warning system for potential problems with mentally disordered by reducing opportunities for interventions in gun violence by friends, coworkers etc. to near zero.
Increased stigma and discrimination simultaneously is quite likely to exacerbate feelings of frustration and unfair persecution that motivate even the mentally well to embittered acts of such as revenge.
Analysis of the effectiveness of the NICS database in preventing purchases from banned persons is that those on the list have one of the lowest rates of violation. Persons with histories of mental illness don't violate NICS. The real violations are among persons with criminal histories.
Suicide remains a dominant cause of gun deaths in the US. But it is not the chief concern or target of gun control which is driven by fear of gun violence committed on innocent others. But it is a serious problem that needs attention.
The mental disorder it is most often associated with depression. Depression is also the most common of diagnosed mental disorders in the US, and it accounts for the majority of diagnosed mental disorders per year...about 70% of cases of depression are diagnosed in women...who have lower rates of both social gun violence and suicide than men.
Because of the high prevalence of depression, over their lifespans well over half of Americans experience it personally. If these persons sought clinical assistance and thereby were placed on NICs, it would create an enormous burden on the reporting system would add to its expense and would provide little benefit other than the psychological relief that comes from having done 'something'.
Criminalizing depression would once again, contribute to increased stigma and people's perception that they need to hide or deny symptoms of mental disorder in order to prevent the social costs of such a diagnosis. The result would be decreased help seeking...the very things we might expect to help reduce the occurrence of suicide and the very thing needed to make denial of gun purchases to a person with mental disorder possible.
It is quite clear that some persons with mental disorders can be a danger to themselves or others. Protecting them from themselves, and protecting the public from them is an obvious and long-standing concern. Social systems already exist to respond to such people. But stigma and discrimination often drive these cases underground, leaving more general passive policies, such as waiting periods for taking possession of guns, one of the few possible responses. As we have seen in handfuls of recent mass murder cases, long-term planning that exceeds waiting periods is often involved as is coming into possession of a firearm that was purchased by someone else.
Our perceptions of the significance and fear of gun violence vary with our context. This week end just in the city of Chicago, over 6 people were killed in acts of social violence and 27 wounded by guns. In my rural county in SE WI there were no gun murders and no people wounded.
There are people with mental disorders in both places and in about the same proportion. Murders by guns have occurred in my rural county, and just as elsewhere gun suicides are many times more common.
Those patterns have actually been confirmed by research across America. The problem of social gun violence has causes that don't really center on mental illness, even while recent high profile cases of suicide plus mass murder do.
Impulsive acts of violence are part of human nature. Defense of territory and property is a part of innate human social behavior as well as learned behaviors even within the culture of the criminally inclined. Availability of guns provides options for tool use that has increased deadliness for those behaviors.
Identification of strategies that reduce social/criminal gun violence shouldn't be based merely on the size of the public's fear...which can be a massive illusion based on frequency or salaciousness in the media.
Strategies should be decided based on the greatest potential for reductions in social gun violence returned per unit community investment. That won't always mean that the biggest root problems will be addressed, but rather control of the biggest root causes that can be effectively implemented. Those strategies have to reach deep and engage human social behavior.
Focusing effort and expenditures for control of gun violence on broad swathes of the subpopulation of persons with mental disorders risks poor and ineffective use of resources. It creates attitudes that essentially criminalize illness. It often seems less aimed at reducing real social gun violence than it is aimed at calming a society that misunderstands mental disorder and has an irrational fear of it
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)When people talk about legislation to limit gun ownership, they nearly always point to the vulnerable population of people who have been at one time or another diagnosed as mentally ill.
That was appealing to me when I first thought about the attempts to reduce gun ownership and violence. But then I began to ask myself why would we make one of the most vulnerable and occasionally helpless groups in our society and single them out and make them utterly defenseless while "normal" people who are actually quite violent can carry guns into the supermarket if they really want to.
And I came to the general conclusion that you discuss so well.
Thanks for the post. I hope you will share that information and your ideas with everyone on DU.
pnwmom
(108,955 posts)included a prohibition on mentally ill people owning assault weapons. Did you support that ban or were you glad it expired?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Why in the world do people want assault weapons in the first place? That's what we need to find out and deal with.
pnwmom
(108,955 posts)who, if in possession of a gun, might pose a danger to himself or others, there is no legal tool to take the guns away.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)My point is that as the question was posed in reply 10 lacks specificity and doesn't really account for many problems associated with doing what the post implied which was banning everyone with any history of mental illness from purchasing a gun.
I do recognize some potential exists for some mental disorders to contribute to some fraction to the occurrence of different types of gun violence, and I think I have a pretty good understanding of reported risks that are in the literature. I think the general public and lobbiest for law enforcement, public safety, and the firearm industry don't fairly argue anything close to accurate assessments of risk of social gun violence associated with persons with mental disorders. The NRA wants to blame anything but firearms, law enforcement frequently cited prejudicial language and forms of mental illness that aren't recognized by the psycchiatric profession-such as sociopathy and insitutional data rather than data about risks in society. Citizens default to stigma with overly simplified reasoning 'crazy people shouldn't have guns'.
Relative to your stated concern... As a de facto consequence of being involuntarily committed for treatment because of mental incompetence relative to risk to self or others, a person would be separated from their firearms because firearms aren't allowed in clinical settings.
Changes in law in some states have allowances for some persons deemed at risk to self or others to be treated as outpatients.
I really don't know what those state laws speak to relative to removing any firearms from their possession during treatment but I really don't have any objection to removal of firearms through a process that includes fair representation before a court or agents identified by the court for the purpose of making such a determination.
I do know that people looking for scapegoats and 'simple solutions' that involve 'common sense' often don't consider the impact of such solutions on the lives of those they directly impact. Even suspicion of mental illness by employers and public authorities can quite literally destroy a persons capacity to make a living and initiate a cascade of untoward events (dismissal, reduction in responsibilities and such off the radar things asdenial of renewal of life-insurance, and punishing increases in insurance rates for mortgages and automobiles) that lead to crises that could increase the severity of mental health problems.
I'm all for reducing gun violence, gun injuries and gun deaths. I want to get there thoughtfully with as little unnecessary collateral damage to innocent people as possible.
pnwmom
(108,955 posts)But most commitments are short term -- and then what? How do we avoid shootings involving unstable people who haven't yet been committed (like the movie theater shooting in Colorado)? His therapist knew he was disturbed but apparently no one thought he was disturbed enough to commit him. Requiring commitment-level illness to keep a mentally ill person from possessing guns seems like a very high bar.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)relative to the risk to the public. She KNEW he was ideating about harming people, although late in the game she passed that knowlege on to her employer the university. It is not correct to say that no one thought he was disturbed in that way. The university security also knew, but rather than pass information about a risk to the public the saw -their- problem as being resolved when Holmes left campus.
I think laws could be written and professional codes of conduct could be modified to punish such acts of licensed caregivers as a step to reducing that behavior.
Mass murder such as committed by Holmes, apparently randomly chosen targets not associated with workplace or family thankfully remain relatively rare. Unfortunately, the infrequency makes profiling likely perpetrators difficult so identifying and intervention by law enforcement is very sketchy, constructed policies for prevention are consequently sketchy and they are very likely to include significant biase that enables making errors on the side of caution.
So, I think it's important to be careful of strawman arguments carefully constructed to raitonalize validation of of civil rights violations and improper use of public authority. Along that path it's understandably easy to see how bad social policy can be loosed upon society... I suppose you remember how Cheney did this relative to torture by asking how acceptable torture would be if you thought someone knew where an activated atomic bomb was hidden in your city? Condi did a similar thing when she said we don't want our first evidence that something is wrong to be in the form of a mushroom cloud.
As it is, police often seem to poorly handle interactions with the mentally disordered. Based on just what we know through the news, there are a dozen or so incidents per year where police kill people when responding to calls for assistance or making their own contact with a person manifesting symptoms of mental illness. We don't know the actual numbers because there is no national database into which all police killings of civilians must be reported and so we don't know how much retraining and reconsideration of existing response authority needs to be done.
Public policy to prevent firearms violence must be constructed around unconditioned risk (as in the risk of someone dying in a plane crash which hypothetically might be depend upon frequency of flying associated with a particular type of job, or living near an airport), and authority for certain acts to contain or deal with the violence and it's aftermath -must- be constructed upon the conditioned risk (the risk of dying when you actually are in a plane when it is crashing).
If prevention is the public's goal, it must be based on unconditioned risk and policies must be commensurate with likelihood of risks. When scenarios are constructed that use language that prejudices the outcome, and 'unstable people' is just such a thing when considering mental disorders and firearm violence it makes assignment of a likelihood impossible. It presupposes the presence of an act isn't a likelihood but is actually very very likely to take place or appeals to few events, perhaps one, that has taken place.
You can't temper any argument with risk assessment when the risk is 100%. So no one should address an argument about what do you do to prevent events described by strawman arguments that depend upon fear rather than the proper risks of occurrence.
"Unstable" is a popular but basically undefined term and thereby useless as rhetorical tool in discussions about controlling mental illness to reduce gun violence.