3 ms·

Can you think of any other marginalized folks whose ideas you don't like who might be considered valid targets for your "mentally ill" label, and therefore not

Can you think of any other marginalized folks whose ideas you don't like who might be considered valid targets for your "mentally ill" label, and therefore not worthy of any further attention? Might these folks be minorities, or under-represented segments of society, who nevertheless have as much of a right to their opinion as you do? There is nothing here that demonstrates these people are harming themselves. Do you have such evidence? In a free society, people are free to be stupid and live their lives according to how they see it. People are free to interpret the law, personally and socially, however they wish. This doesn't mean they need to be classified as "ill" by all and sundry, for the sake of a few differences of opinion. Or .. does it? You know who else was good at calling 'unsavory elements' mentally ill for the sake of social isolation? Stalin.

Frondo 10y ago
What? The sovereign citizen movement is full of people who get arrested, imprisoned, get their stuff impounded. I don't think you really have any idea who you're trying to defend as "differently normal" here. This is a movement that tells its adherents, "repeat these legal incantations, and you get out of speeding tickets or paying property taxes". And its adherents actually try that nonsense out, and invariably go to jail or whatever. (Occasionally they end up in shoot-outs with cops, and end up dead.) Delusion? Check. Self-harm? Check. I really suspect you just haven't heard or read anything about these folks. I think you're barking up the wrong tree in this case, buddy.
- fit2rule 10y ago
  They're only 'self-harming' because they're a minority, and they stay a minority because people write off their opinion as "mentally insane". If more people were attracted to their movement, the State would change and there would be less harm - such is the way of all collective movements. Its kind of like, the Quakers were 'insane' in the eyes of many, too. But look how that turned out. Anyway, I see you don't care for my point, which is this: you can't just call people you don't agree with "mentally ill" and think this doesn't make you a bigot.
  - Frondo 10y ago
    Well, they're self-harming because they're breaking the law and trying to avoid punishment with nonsensical incantations based on a bunch of actual nonsense. Maybe you want to take the stance that there is no such thing as mental illness (there is), or that the term is bigoted (it isn't), or that I'm a bigot for thinking these people need help (I'm not, and they do), and in that case, go nuts, you're certainly free to do so! But this just isn't a situation where I'm trying to disparage people by calling them mentally ill. I just wish they'd stop hurting themselves (and their families, and occasionally others, like the cops they occasionally end up in shootouts with; and also enriching the few who lead this scam) by buying into this delusion and breaking the law (in such eminently avoidable ways! like registering their car or buying car insurance!) and suffering the consequences, but it is, after all, a mostly free country. You might do well, too, to reflect on why you feel so strongly about this stuff.

Frondo 10y ago

What? The sovereign citizen movement is full of people who get arrested, imprisoned, get their stuff impounded. I don't think you really have any idea who you're trying to defend as "differently normal" here. This is a movement that tells its adherents, "repeat these legal incantations, and you get out of speeding tickets or paying property taxes". And its adherents actually try that nonsense out, and invariably go to jail or whatever. (Occasionally they end up in shoot-outs with cops, and end up dead.) Delusion? Check. Self-harm? Check. I really suspect you just haven't heard or read anything about these folks. I think you're barking up the wrong tree in this case, buddy.

fit2rule 10y ago
They're only 'self-harming' because they're a minority, and they stay a minority because people write off their opinion as "mentally insane". If more people were attracted to their movement, the State would change and there would be less harm - such is the way of all collective movements. Its kind of like, the Quakers were 'insane' in the eyes of many, too. But look how that turned out. Anyway, I see you don't care for my point, which is this: you can't just call people you don't agree with "mentally ill" and think this doesn't make you a bigot.
- Frondo 10y ago
  Well, they're self-harming because they're breaking the law and trying to avoid punishment with nonsensical incantations based on a bunch of actual nonsense. Maybe you want to take the stance that there is no such thing as mental illness (there is), or that the term is bigoted (it isn't), or that I'm a bigot for thinking these people need help (I'm not, and they do), and in that case, go nuts, you're certainly free to do so! But this just isn't a situation where I'm trying to disparage people by calling them mentally ill. I just wish they'd stop hurting themselves (and their families, and occasionally others, like the cops they occasionally end up in shootouts with; and also enriching the few who lead this scam) by buying into this delusion and breaking the law (in such eminently avoidable ways! like registering their car or buying car insurance!) and suffering the consequences, but it is, after all, a mostly free country. You might do well, too, to reflect on why you feel so strongly about this stuff.