Elizabeth Barrette (ysabetwordsmith) wrote,
Elizabeth Barrette
ysabetwordsmith
  • Mood: busy

The Words We Say

I've been saying things much like this about the recent shooting, just shorter.
Tags: networking, politics, safety
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    switch
    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
    Help
  • 83 comments
...go 2 levels up... Expand
siege

siege

January 10 2011, 18:12:43 UTC 10 years ago

Crazy Talk: We're too quick to use "mental illness" as an explanation for violence.
ford_prefect42

ford_prefect42

January 10 2011, 19:27:18 UTC 10 years ago

Okay. Well, he got alcohol poisoning a few years back and was described by his classmates as a pothead, so the central point of the article, that substance abuse is a better indicator works too. Point is, there is no reason to think that "rhetoric" played any part at all.
ford_prefect42

ford_prefect42

January 10 2011, 19:29:34 UTC 10 years ago

And even if it did, there is no way at this time to know *whose* rhetoric. The rhetoric of the left has not been any more restrained than that of the right.

And even if it *did* play a part, it's free speech! One of the very most important constitutional freedoms.
ysabetwordsmith

Yes...

ysabetwordsmith

January 10 2011, 20:09:13 UTC 10 years ago

Free speech is a right. That doesn't make it okay to say things that cause harm. Legal, sometimes, although we do have limitations for such things as libel/slander, fraud, and hate speech. People frequently speak without thinking, without taking responsibility for what they say and the effect it has. Words have power; carelessness with them can be quite costly.
ford_prefect42

Re: Yes...

ford_prefect42

January 11 2011, 00:26:35 UTC 10 years ago

I agree that there are a lot of things that it shouldn't be socially acceptable to say. Obama frequently says things that cause me great anger and fear. I have no doubt that Palin does likewise to you. That said, I do not support this:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/136895-dem-planning-bill-that-would-outlaw-threatening-lawmakers

"Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) reportedly plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress."


Primarily because such things are *so* open to abuse. Who establishes what constitutes a "threat"? What penalties are to be exacted? Will the standards be neutrally applied? Even if you would happily hand this power over to Obama, The next president will almost certainly be tot he right of bush. Will you still want that law?

Are you aware of the frequency with which your own crowd will be stifled?

I didn't support legislation when a movie was made that showed and endorsed the assasination of W.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojWOWyHWj6M

I don't support such things now. What I *do* support is not voting for people who cross the line. But that doesn't seem to be working. We live in interesting times.
siege

siege

January 11 2011, 03:07:59 UTC 10 years ago

Mentally ill persons often abuse substances in order to suppress their illness; however that doesn't appear to be the general case (meaning, not all the people who abused substances were considered mentally ill) based on the article about that study. It makes me wonder what the true correlation is between addictive behaviors (not just drugs or alcohol, but also gambling, smoking, and so on) in the general populace and their tendency toward violent or strongly reactive behavior -- and whether there is a correlation between progression in addiction and progression in violent or reactive behavior.
ford_prefect42

ford_prefect42

January 11 2011, 03:21:42 UTC 10 years ago

Yes. All that is true. It is also true that when you have someone with pronounced violent tendencies, mental illness, AND substance abuse issues... Something is going to happen and it's probably not good. Such was the case here.
siege

siege

January 11 2011, 03:32:05 UTC 10 years ago

I'd call it "slipping through the cracks", a failure of both the social and public safety nets.
ysabetwordsmith

Well...

ysabetwordsmith

January 11 2011, 08:06:44 UTC 10 years ago

I wouldn't call it "slipping" when there are people sawing at the safety nets and jackhammering the edges of the cracks. I'd call it being pushed. Instead of trying to keep as many people in society as active functioning members, it's more like we've made a high level of performance the prerequisite for social worth and put great effort into shutting out everyone who doesn't measure up. The mentally ill. Physically handicapped people. The unemployed. The elderly. Immigrants. Trouble is, that kind of behavior not only shreds the social fabric, it also gloms up the gears. This does nobody any good.
ford_prefect42

Re: Well...

ford_prefect42

January 13 2011, 23:58:09 UTC 10 years ago

Can you give me some examples of "sawing through the safety net"?

This is a graph of welfare spending since 1960. Note that the decline at teh right is a projection. Where else did it see significant reductions?



Here's the same thing for government spending on healthcare.



I am just really not seeing what you are talking about here. Some specific examples would really help.


Can you give me some examples of anyone going to any lengths to exclude the less than fully capable? Or do you really mean to say "not going as far out of their way to make a place as I would like"?



Side question: I am sure that you are aware of the current status of the budget deficit and national debt, as well as the current trade deficit. How do you intend to pay for the programming you'd like to see?
ysabetwordsmith

Hmm...

ysabetwordsmith

January 11 2011, 08:01:18 UTC 10 years ago

I'd guess that since mental illness can be caused by biochemical imbalance, there would be clusters of effects from a single cause. Another explanation is that the problems are sequential: the mental illness appears and is not treated (or not treated effectively) which is quite common, so then more things start to go wrong, and as you mentioned substance abuse is sometimes an attempt at self-medication.

We really don't have a good response rate for this kind of problem, as a culture, because we view it as an individual problem rather than something that society is supposed to help with. But when someone snaps -- then suddenly it becomes obvious how this IS everyone's problem, and people still want to blame the individual or some group they dislike or anybody else, rather than consider that we haven't got an effective response for handling these challenges.
ford_prefect42

Re: Hmm...

ford_prefect42

January 14 2011, 00:11:58 UTC 10 years ago

Actually, we used to have one. There was involuntary commitment to mental institutions for those that were seriously mentally ill.

The supreme court ruled that unconstitutional.

O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975) States could not involuntarily commit citizens to a psychiatric institution if they were not a danger to themselves or others and were capable of living by themselves, or with the aid of responsible family or friends.

There was also the "Community Mental Health Centers Act." of 1963, which ordered the closing of the large institutionalized mental institutions, and the construction of smaller, community based homes. But it didn't *fund* the building of the community based homes. Which in turn, led to the spike in mentally ill homeless that took place in the 80s.


There were some good reasons for the changes. The institutions were suboptimal and expensive. Some people were committed that shouldn't have been.