4 ms·

>> Read more carefully. "We" is all of mankind, and "them" is mental illnesses. You're likely right about the parent's intention. It's somewhat ambiguous with

>> Read more carefully. "We" is all of mankind, and "them" is mental illnesses. You're likely right about the parent's intention. It's somewhat ambiguous with their sentence structure as that second sentence reads fine without the first, with the "them" referring to the "most people" after the comma. Upon second reading, I can see it makes more sense for "them" to refer to the previous sentence's "mental illnesses". There should have been a semicolon between and some restructuring. :) However, I am still not satisfied with that distinction. The "we", even without an intentionally spliced "them", is still being used to try and say "we as a whole", when the reality of the statement is "we as a subset of the whole". Specifically because almost no "mentally ill" person will self-identify as such without having been subjected to years of subjugation to do so. Please find me the group of people, with a statistically significant size, who are both mentally ill and working to define the term "mental illness". They will be few and far between. This reminds me so much of Jane Elliott's lifetime spent trying to teach people who claim not to be racist that they are in fact flat out racist. It's not a perfect analogy, but the root of the problem is very similar.

E6300 10y ago
I don't get your point. Cats also don't refer to themselves as cats, and yet they're still cats. They're cats even if there's no one around to call them cats. Also, this: > the mentally ill only wind up labelling themselves as that after years of pressure into conforming to that label by those around them is not true. For example, a chronic depressive is perfectly capable of seeing that something is wrong with them, because their illness doesn't impair their cognition.
- developer2 10y ago
  With chronic depressives believing "something is wrong with them", why do you think they believe so? Because they are innately aware of that fact, or is it nothing more than a conditioned response? There is a __MASSIVE__ difference between "I know I'm not normal" and "Others say I'm not normal, ergo I must not be normal". As for your analogy regarding cats... give me a break. Cats see you solely as a giver of food and oft unwanted affection. That doesn't mean that's all you are. Or... maybe that's exactly all you are, a dumb moving object whose only purpose is to dispense food. Perspective is everything.
  - E6300 10y ago
    > As for chronic depressives believing "something is wrong with them", why do you think they believe so? Because they are innately aware of that fact, or is it nothing more than a conditioned response? There is a __MASSIVE__ difference between "I know I'm not normal" and "Others say I'm not normal, ergo I must not be normal". Just so we're clear, you're asking why I said something I didn't say. What I said was that a chronic depressive is capable of being aware of their illness, not necessarily that they are aware. With that out of the way, let's consider a hypothetical conversation between a depressive A and two healthy people B and C. A: Man, it's really difficult to get out of bed every morning, isn't it? B: Yeah, getting up early is tough. A: I don't mean just that, I mean just getting motivated to even get up. C: Uh, not really. There's stuff that needs to get done. A: So you don't have any problems getting motivated to get up? C: Not generally, no. B: Yeah, me neither. A: Next you're gonna tell me that you've never considered killing yourselves. B and C: No, never. A: Huh. Must be just me, then. Likewise, a colorblind person can realize that other people are experiencing light differently without being directly told. > As for your analogy regarding cats... give me a break. Cats see you solely as a giver of food and oft unwanted affection. That doesn't mean that's all you are. Or... maybe that's exactly all you are, a dumb moving object whose only purpose is to dispense food. Perspective is everything. That analogy was in response to your point that "no mentally ill person calls themselves that". Now you're changing the subject to how other people view mentally ill people. But anyway, basically your only argument is that reality is subjective, and there's no way to judge whose delusion is the illness, and that's BS. If you believe that the world is ruled an all-powerful Jesuit organization when there's no reason to believe this, and this belief causes you to endanger yourself or others, then that's an illness. The criterion is based on the effects of the belief, not on the belief itself.
    - developer2 10y ago
      >> capable of being aware of their illness, not necessarily that they are aware Now you're splitting hairs to try and prove that your perspective is superior to that of those you're labelling. This is exactly the characterization of someone who is being (perhaps ignorantly) oppressive. In such a situation, one has no business trying to argue that they have a bloody clue talking about a subject matter that does not directly affect them; and no, having a friend or family member who is "affected" is not "direct". You cannot claim to understand racism simply because you are a white person who happens to have a black friend. >> let's consider a hypothetical conversation between a depressive A and two healthy people B and C That whole discussion is one-sided. You're assuming that a majority consensus from B and C completely nullifies the possibility that A's perspective is valid and normal. The very fact that the word "normal" is used to indicate a majority consensus against the behaviour of a minority stinks of exclusivity and is outrageously abhorrent. 1,000 people saying that "situation A is normal" does not mean that 3 people saying "situation B is normal for me" is somehow abnormal. They are both normal scenarios, each having a different section of the pie chart. Who the fuck is so high and mighty as to decide that Slice B of the pie is not normal because Slice A is larger? When the sophistication of the statistical analysis you are using to generate your world view requires a grade 5 level of mathematical comprehension, you're using the most selfish of non-analytical thinking to justify your personal bias. >> Now you're changing the subject to how other people view mentally ill people Exactly. Those who label themselves as "non mentally ill" have no valid perspective of what it means to be "mentally ill". Seeing oneself as "normal" while comparing oneself against others who "must clearly not be normal because I say so" is the entire problem. You have no frame of reference, because you can't put yourself in their shoes - end of discussion.

E6300 10y ago

I don't get your point. Cats also don't refer to themselves as cats, and yet they're still cats. They're cats even if there's no one around to call them cats. Also, this: > the mentally ill only wind up labelling themselves as that after years of pressure into conforming to that label by those around them is not true. For example, a chronic depressive is perfectly capable of seeing that something is wrong with them, because their illness doesn't impair their cognition.

developer2 10y ago
With chronic depressives believing "something is wrong with them", why do you think they believe so? Because they are innately aware of that fact, or is it nothing more than a conditioned response? There is a __MASSIVE__ difference between "I know I'm not normal" and "Others say I'm not normal, ergo I must not be normal". As for your analogy regarding cats... give me a break. Cats see you solely as a giver of food and oft unwanted affection. That doesn't mean that's all you are. Or... maybe that's exactly all you are, a dumb moving object whose only purpose is to dispense food. Perspective is everything.
- E6300 10y ago
  > As for chronic depressives believing "something is wrong with them", why do you think they believe so? Because they are innately aware of that fact, or is it nothing more than a conditioned response? There is a __MASSIVE__ difference between "I know I'm not normal" and "Others say I'm not normal, ergo I must not be normal". Just so we're clear, you're asking why I said something I didn't say. What I said was that a chronic depressive is capable of being aware of their illness, not necessarily that they are aware. With that out of the way, let's consider a hypothetical conversation between a depressive A and two healthy people B and C. A: Man, it's really difficult to get out of bed every morning, isn't it? B: Yeah, getting up early is tough. A: I don't mean just that, I mean just getting motivated to even get up. C: Uh, not really. There's stuff that needs to get done. A: So you don't have any problems getting motivated to get up? C: Not generally, no. B: Yeah, me neither. A: Next you're gonna tell me that you've never considered killing yourselves. B and C: No, never. A: Huh. Must be just me, then. Likewise, a colorblind person can realize that other people are experiencing light differently without being directly told. > As for your analogy regarding cats... give me a break. Cats see you solely as a giver of food and oft unwanted affection. That doesn't mean that's all you are. Or... maybe that's exactly all you are, a dumb moving object whose only purpose is to dispense food. Perspective is everything. That analogy was in response to your point that "no mentally ill person calls themselves that". Now you're changing the subject to how other people view mentally ill people. But anyway, basically your only argument is that reality is subjective, and there's no way to judge whose delusion is the illness, and that's BS. If you believe that the world is ruled an all-powerful Jesuit organization when there's no reason to believe this, and this belief causes you to endanger yourself or others, then that's an illness. The criterion is based on the effects of the belief, not on the belief itself.
  - developer2 10y ago
    >> capable of being aware of their illness, not necessarily that they are aware Now you're splitting hairs to try and prove that your perspective is superior to that of those you're labelling. This is exactly the characterization of someone who is being (perhaps ignorantly) oppressive. In such a situation, one has no business trying to argue that they have a bloody clue talking about a subject matter that does not directly affect them; and no, having a friend or family member who is "affected" is not "direct". You cannot claim to understand racism simply because you are a white person who happens to have a black friend. >> let's consider a hypothetical conversation between a depressive A and two healthy people B and C That whole discussion is one-sided. You're assuming that a majority consensus from B and C completely nullifies the possibility that A's perspective is valid and normal. The very fact that the word "normal" is used to indicate a majority consensus against the behaviour of a minority stinks of exclusivity and is outrageously abhorrent. 1,000 people saying that "situation A is normal" does not mean that 3 people saying "situation B is normal for me" is somehow abnormal. They are both normal scenarios, each having a different section of the pie chart. Who the fuck is so high and mighty as to decide that Slice B of the pie is not normal because Slice A is larger? When the sophistication of the statistical analysis you are using to generate your world view requires a grade 5 level of mathematical comprehension, you're using the most selfish of non-analytical thinking to justify your personal bias. >> Now you're changing the subject to how other people view mentally ill people Exactly. Those who label themselves as "non mentally ill" have no valid perspective of what it means to be "mentally ill". Seeing oneself as "normal" while comparing oneself against others who "must clearly not be normal because I say so" is the entire problem. You have no frame of reference, because you can't put yourself in their shoes - end of discussion.