Nutcases and stigmatisation

[annnnoid]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Huh, I suppose you think people with diabetes are stigmatized by treatment, why aren't diabetics cured?

-heart disease
-rheumatism
-high blood pressure

Huh?

Actually…I’m thinking the argument presented in the OP is a little more nuanced than that…but blast away (knee…meet your buddy… jerk). I’m guessing you haven’t seen the movie. Imagine a situation where that statement actually sounds sane (which freakin universe are you livin in mate ?!?!?!?...which freakin universe are you livin in…mate ?). There are times when your arguments demonstrate all the vision of a peanut butter sandwich.

As for your question (why aren’t they cured?)....obvious answer…because we don’t know how.

[Weak Kitten]

Annnnoid, what are you talking about? What movie?

David's comment was in response to a statement about physiologists not "curing" their patients. He was actually making a similar point to the one you just made, that psychiatric problems are mostly uncured right now because like diabetes we just don't know how yet.

[Ladewig]

If psychiatry is trying to stigmatize people, then they need to step up their game. The first step is to start referring to psychiatric hospitals as lunatic asylums or insane asylums - two terms that were quite popular before modern psychiatric medicine came along. Step two would be to make electroshock therapy and lobotomies way more common than they were in their heyday. Step three would be to find a way to publicly identify the nutjobs; the Nazis used yellow Stars of David to stigmatize the Jews, what would be a good symbol to sew onto the clothing of folks who are coo-koo for Cocoa Puffs?


ETA: if anyone is offended by my post, please note that i am trying very hard to give this thread the seriousness it deserves.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

If psychiatry is trying to stigmatize people, they are not doing a good job. The first step is to start referring to psychiatric hospitals as lunatic asylums or insane asylums - two terms that were quite popular before modern psychiatric medicine came along. Step two would be to make electroshock therapy and lobotomies way more common than they were in their heyday. Step three would be to find a way to publicly identify the nutjobs; the Nazis used yellow Stars of David to stigmatize the Jews, what would be a good symbol to sew onto the clothing of folks who are coo-koo for Cocoa Puffs?

And reintroduce the term ''doolally''.

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by phunk

Uhm, no, I bolded it when I quoted you, to make it easy to see what I was referring to.

You are a dualist then I take it? You think the mind exists separate from the body, and isn't affected by physical problems in the brain?

Did you read my response. Did you read where I said that the idea that the nutcase is affected by his brain is rubbish?

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by RussDill

Its not that you 'don't believe in psychiatry', its that you believe it to be some massive conspiracy.

Read my post. I said that psychiatry was an example of entrepreneurial freedom. It's made people millionaires.

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Weak Kitten

To call it "mental illness" or "a mental condition" is no worse than calling diabetes a "physical illness". Really it's just a note that it is brain chemistry rather than a problem with a different part of the body.

Frankly I am a little confused about what you upset about. Could you please give us all some examples of this "stigmatization"? Or do you simply feel that giving a common categorical name for brain chemical and physical problems is inappropriate?

Its stigmatisation because they are classifying certain people's behaviour in terms of an unacceptable physical reaction, rather than being honest and saying that their behaviour is unacceptable. This deprives the diagnosed of their meaningful social presence. Everyone knows that they have been rejected, that is, demoted socially to the eternal patient, having no real autonomy. The way out is to reject the diagnostic machinery in toto and become aware of the quackery.

Regarding diabetes, I was talking about social behvaiour. Psychiatry is about judgements on social behaviour, not physical impairment.

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Wolrab

Looks to me that someone is upset with their psychiatrist. I'd wager court appointed.

.."their" psychiatrist...

THis has got to be an American posting. Americans are the world leaders in consumers of the industries of deception.

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

No my clients were stigmatized because they did not bathe, talked to auditory hallucinations and stuck out like a boil.

Someone tell this man he is actually agreeing with me.

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by quarky

Arguing with me has got to suck.
Imagine how I suffer, knowing this?

A man or woman after my own heart.YOu and me kid. Against the world.

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

If psychiatry is trying to stigmatize people, then they need to step up their game. The first step is to start referring to psychiatric hospitals as lunatic asylums or insane asylums - two terms that were quite popular before modern psychiatric medicine came along. Step two would be to make electroshock therapy and lobotomies way more common than they were in their heyday. Step three would be to find a way to publicly identify the nutjobs; the Nazis used yellow Stars of David to stigmatize the Jews, what would be a good symbol to sew onto the clothing of folks who are coo-koo for Cocoa Puffs?


ETA: if anyone is offended by my post, please note that i am trying very hard to give this thread the seriousness it deserves.

No one is offended, even the nutcases. The very idea.

Anyway. There is a much more intelligent propaganda campaign going on. Lunatic asylums, etc, became insults but only by virtue of the continual, bedrock stigmatisation program called mental health. Now they invent more "illnesses" to keep the loony numbers up, and more industries and money-spin-offs devoted to anti-stigmatisation.

But like Head and Shoulders dandruff shampoo, its shampoo itself that causes dandruff. We need social dandruff. Flakers need reporting, assessment and suppression.

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by dafydd

And reintroduce the term ''doolally''.

Never heard of that word.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

You say something judgmental and foolish, and now you self implode.

What you said in regards to people with mental illness is an opinion with no merits.

Having an MI Does not make someone a 'whiny little bitch'. It is just more moral crap stigma.

I read his statement as 'being human' == 'whiny little bitch', MI not a necessary requirement.

ps. Quarky, don't let the ******** grind you down.

[quarky]

I honestly thought I had made a reasonable, metaphoric point.
DD sure didn't think so.

My outburst was possibly Touret's Syndrome. How would I know?
I can't afford to find out.

Meanwhile, I get dumped into the a-hole heap of humans, and DD keeps his righteous indignation, with its dubious cure.

Here's the matter taken to its extreme:

The mass killers; that guy in Colorado that shot up the movie theatre?

Court-room debate is going to decide if he was sane or not.

Does he appear to be sane?
What is sane?

Was Hitler sane?

Can it be considered insane to kill a bunch of school kids?

Or 1 million Vietnamese children?

Don't get pissy with the messenger, please.

Our definition of sanity is insane.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by phunk

You think the mind exists separate from the body, and isn't affected by physical problems in the brain?

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

Did you read where I said that the idea that the nutcase is affected by his brain is rubbish?

This is the same wordplay you used over in another of your threads: (you can't be affected by your brain because your brain is you). That's a silly cop-out as you're ignoring phunk's actual question about whether you can be affected by physical problems in your brain. Any system can be affected by problems in that system. Even if you want to insist the problem is actually a part of the system, it's a no-brainer.

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

This is the same wordplay you used over in another of your threads: (you can't be affected by your brain because your brain is you). That's a silly cop-out as you're ignoring phunk's actual question about whether you can be affected by physical problems in your brain. Any system can be affected by problems in that system. Even if you want to insist the problem is actually a part of the system, it's a no-brainer.

A problem is always external to the system, by definition. Now, if someone says that your experiences are physical problems then they are denying you your full autonomy.

[quarky]

If I was a cutter, I'd be cutting me now.

[Tomblvd]

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

No, look - I BOLDED it because that is what the other person (Weak Kitten) said.

The fact that you are so far removed from reality that you are defending things you didn't even do tells me everything I need to know about you.

How can a person lecturing others on brain function be so utterly self-unaware?

[Kid Eager]

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

A problem is always external to the system, by definition. Now, if someone says that your experiences are physical problems then they are denying you your full autonomy.

No. Externality is not a requisite component of the definition of a problem.

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by Tomblvd

The fact that you are so far removed from reality that you are defending things you didn't even do tells me everything I need to know about you.

How can a person lecturing others on brain function be so utterly self-unaware?

Sorta like members here who forget DNFTT and maybe it'll go away?

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

No one is offended, even the nutcases. The very idea.

Anyway. There is a much more intelligent propaganda campaign going on. Lunatic asylums, etc, became insults but only by virtue of the continual, bedrock stigmatisation program called mental health. Now they invent more "illnesses" to keep the loony numbers up, and more industries and money-spin-offs devoted to anti-stigmatisation.

But like Head and Shoulders dandruff shampoo, its shampoo itself that causes dandruff. We need social dandruff. Flakers need reporting, assessment and suppression.

You have made an error in your reasoning, but it is not my place to convince you that you are incorrect. Have fun, Jonesboy, and play nice with the other kids.

[annnnoid]

Originally Posted by quarky

Our definition of sanity is insane.

‘We’…don’t define sanity. We are defined by it. A very accomplished movie director once said: ‘ You’re in charge, you’re not in control. Anyone who thinks they’re in control is nuts.’

There is nothing sane about sanity…or being here…or life. We’re here. We didn’t create ourselves…we had no choice about whether we’d arrive or not…we have no real idea where we come from or where or what here even is.

I’d say…that given the chaos of this place and the blatant (and indisputable) insanity of the fact that we’re even here …if you’re NOT going off the deep end…at least some times …then you’re the one who’s sanity I would question.

But….we’re here….and we’re somehow in charge. It may be no more than a matter of faith (which, ironically, is a fundamental component of sanity) to recognize that sanity…the ability to be a constructively functioning human being …is possible, but it is an inevitable and unconditional conclusion. There are people who achieve it (and many who don’t…and an infinity of variations in every direction). I know a few who have. It may not be inappropriate to envy them…but I can still admire them.

Someone else once said…” Life isn’t for sissy’s.” It’ll take you down and keep you there if you let it…and then it’ll tell you that’s where you’re supposed to be. Nobody can prove answers exist…but they do. Forgetting happens. Reminders do as well. Sanity can sometimes be a long way off…but it’s not a lie.

[Little 10 Toes]

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

But like Head and Shoulders dandruff shampoo, its shampoo itself that causes dandruff. We need social dandruff. Flakers need reporting, assessment and suppression.

Sorry to burst your bubble but I use H&S, and I don't have dandruff.

[RussDill]

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

Read my post. I said that psychiatry was an example of entrepreneurial freedom. It's made people millionaires.

From you: 'industries of deception', 'intelligent propaganda campaign', 'Now they invent more "illnesses"', 'uses mind control'.

From WP: 'Systemic conspiracy theories. The conspiracy is believed to have broad goals, usually conceived as securing control of a country, a region, or even the entire world. While the goals are sweeping, the conspiratorial machinery is generally simple: a single, evil organization implements a plan to infiltrate and subvert existing institutions. This is a common scenario in conspiracy theories that focus on the alleged machinations of Jews, Freemasons, or the Catholic Church, as well as theories centered on Communism or international capitalists.'

[Weak Kitten]

Jonesboy, let me see if I understand your position. You are stating that imbalances in brain chemicals do not effect behavior or perception?

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

A problem is always external to the system, by definition.

Trivially false. The failed component in the broken power supply I mended yesterday was definitely not external to the system.

Despite your wish to redefine 'problem', we are not through the looking glass, you are not not Humpty Dumpty and problems are not always external to the system.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Weak Kitten

Jonesboy, let me see if I understand your position. You are stating that imbalances in brain chemicals do not effect behavior or perception?

No. He rejects the idea that any variation in brain chemistry is an 'imbalance'.

[quarky]

Not surprisingly , I don't care about any of this happy- horse doo=doo.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Weak Kitten

Annnnoid, what are you talking about? What movie?

David's comment was in response to a statement about physiologists not "curing" their patients. He was actually making a similar point to the one you just made, that psychiatric problems are mostly uncured right now because like diabetes we just don't know how yet.

I suspect you (or the initiator) meant psychiatrists.

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Tomblvd

The fact that you are so far removed from reality that you are defending things you didn't even do tells me everything I need to know about you.

How can a person lecturing others on brain function be so utterly self-unaware?

Nuts. If you blend nuts (especially macademia or cashew nuts) with water you can use it as a substitute cream.

Foods I am intolerant to:
dairy
anything else to do with cows except clarified butter
wheatgerm
soya or tofu (these are the worst)
olives
onions
mushrooms
quorn

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Trivially false. The failed component in the broken power supply I mended yesterday was definitely not external to the system.

Despite your wish to redefine 'problem', we are not through the looking glass, you are not not Humpty Dumpty and problems are not always external to the system.

If the break was not external to the system then you would still be using it. A system employs working elements to make it run, not broken junk.

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by RussDill

From you: 'industries of deception', 'intelligent propaganda campaign', 'Now they invent more "illnesses"', 'uses mind control'.

From WP: 'Systemic conspiracy theories. The conspiracy is believed to have broad goals, usually conceived as securing control of a country, a region, or even the entire world. While the goals are sweeping, the conspiratorial machinery is generally simple: a single, evil organization implements a plan to infiltrate and subvert existing institutions. This is a common scenario in conspiracy theories that focus on the alleged machinations of Jews, Freemasons, or the Catholic Church, as well as theories centered on Communism or international capitalists.'

Your definition of conspiracy theory would fit american foreign policy, the world's governments secret organisations, and al quada.

A conspiracy theory offers alternative mission statements to those posed by an organisation.
So, typically, psychiatry says its purpose is to benefit mankind. THis wasn't true in a number of countries, most notably Russia and nazi germany, as well as the USA in the 50's. Nevertheless, the idea that the purpose of psychiatry is to make money and prolong misery might be seen as conspiratorial. Are you still reading this? But the former we know to be true, and the latter is not really a hidden intention, more a social montage of misguided theories driven by social pressure. For example, its no conspiracy to suggest that people will use psychiatric terms as insults, for this is done all the time, even here.

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes

Sorry to burst your bubble but I use H&S, and I don't have dandruff.

Look more closely. You will find your flakes compacted.

I sorted out my dandruff in one week. New post coming soon.

[quarky]

Originally Posted by annnnoid

‘We’…don’t define sanity. We are defined by it. A very accomplished movie director once said: ‘ You’re in charge, you’re not in control. Anyone who thinks they’re in control is nuts.’

There is nothing sane about sanity…or being here…or life. We’re here. We didn’t create ourselves…we had no choice about whether we’d arrive or not…we have no real idea where we come from or where or what here even is.

I’d say…that given the chaos of this place and the blatant (and indisputable) insanity of the fact that we’re even here …if you’re NOT going off the deep end…at least some times …then you’re the one who’s sanity I would question.

But….we’re here….and we’re somehow in charge. It may be no more than a matter of faith (which, ironically, is a fundamental component of sanity) to recognize that sanity…the ability to be a constructively functioning human being …is possible, but it is an inevitable and unconditional conclusion. There are people who achieve it (and many who don’t…and an infinity of variations in every direction). I know a few who have. It may not be inappropriate to envy them…but I can still admire them.

Someone else once said…” Life isn’t for sissy’s.” It’ll take you down and keep you there if you let it…and then it’ll tell you that’s where you’re supposed to be. Nobody can prove answers exist…but they do. Forgetting happens. Reminders do as well. Sanity can sometimes be a long way off…but it’s not a lie.

That was quite beautiful; what you wrote there.
Can't hurt to let you know.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

If the break was not external to the system then you would still be using it. A system employs working elements to make it run, not broken junk.

Your Humpty Dumpty definition of a system is not useful. The power supply can continue to function with greater or lesser efficiency while components age and their characteristics vary. They do not need to be 'broken junk' to stop the system working and, more subtly, they can be in a condition such that the system runs normally but if stopped will not start again. Your insistence that any fault is an external entity instead of being a property of the failing part is silly semantic twisting to try to prop up your personal war on psychiatry.

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Your Humpty Dumpty definition of a system is not useful. The power supply can continue to function with greater or lesser efficiency while components age and their characteristics vary. They do not need to be 'broken junk' to stop the system working and, more subtly, they can be in a condition such that the system runs normally but if stopped will not start again. Your insistence that any fault is an external entity instead of being a property of the failing part is silly semantic twisting to try to prop up your personal war on psychiatry.

Anything that causes a change to a system that makes it stop or run less well is not part of the system.

This is the definition doctors work to.
If it is not part of the system then doctors will call it an "illness" or destructive agent and will try to remove it. They won't seek to remove it by destroying the system or the part affected.

[Jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Trivially false. The failed component in the broken power supply I mended yesterday was definitely not external to the system.

Despite your wish to redefine 'problem', we are not through the looking glass, you are not not Humpty Dumpty and problems are not always external to the system.

Problems are always external to a system. Schizophrenia is the name for a social problem, not for a problem for the individual.

[Kid Eager]

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

Problems are always external to a system. Schizophrenia is the name for a social problem, not for a problem for the individual.

again, your definition is incorrect. Problems do not require externality.

[Wolrab]

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

.."their" psychiatrist...

THis has got to be an American posting. Americans are the world leaders in consumers of the industries of deception.

Come on, you can tell us. What did your (or "your" if you prefer) psychiatrist diagnose stigmatize you with?

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

Anything that causes a change to a system that makes it stop or run less well is not part of the system.

That is complete nonsense.

Take for example telomeres, the bits at the end of the chromosomes. They're definitely part of the system of cellular reproduction, but they limit the number of times a cell can reproduce, making it inevitable that an organism will "stop" functioning within a limited time period. (But this limit is also a major defense against cancer.)

Originally Posted by Jonesboy

This is the definition doctors work to.
If it is not part of the system then doctors will call it an "illness" or destructive agent and will try to remove it. They won't seek to remove it by destroying the system or the part affected.

The "system" in this case is known as the "patient". It's only ever deliberately destroyed by doctors under rare conditions, such as euthanasia.

And doctors do often destroy/remove the part affected. Such as the appendix, gall bladder, part of the bowel. Sometimes they perform a transplant, replacing a failed part of the system with a new one.

And what about congenital illnesses? Do you think that doctors consider defects such as a hole between the chambers in the heart, a cleft palate, or genetic disorder to be the product of something external that needs to be removed?