8 ms·

Do you think they're suddenly going to put homosexuality and BDSM back in the DSM-4 and lock people up for it? I mean, you look at the current political climate

by imgabe 3y ago

Do you think they're suddenly going to put homosexuality and BDSM back in the DSM-4 and lock people up for it? I mean, you look at the current political climate and you believe that is a thing that could actually happen when the White House is hosting a Pride parade? There are real people getting assaulted and murdered by the mentally ill right now. Not to mention the mentally ill themselves who are subject to violence on the streets and living in squalor. These are actual problems that are really happening and you're saying we shouldn't do anything to address them because of hypothetical problems you that you think might happen and that we could easily be aware of and prevent?

pierat 3y ago
[flagged]
- imgabe 3y ago
  I’m not the one who’s missing the point here. I know people have in the past been institutionalized for bad reasons. That doesn’t mean there aren’t good reasons to institutionalize other people who can be genuinely helped. I’m saying we should not institutionalize people for bad reasons and do institutionalize people for good reasons. You seem to think that because some bad cases exist, we should never do any of the good ones, because for some reason you think human beings are fundamentally incapable of distinguishing between the two? Like we couldn’t make reasonable rules and follow them? If that’s the case why have any society at all if you think humans are incapable of creating and following just rules?
  - EatingWithForks 3y ago
    You cannot merely wave aside that your proposed solution is a solution that also already evidenced to have caused mental illness on a broad, demographic-specific scale, in the name of solving mental illness! That's patently ridiculous.
    - imgabe 3y ago
      Which of the following statements are you advocating for: 1. There is never any reason to involuntarily commit someone 2. There are valid reasons, but there is no known diagnostic that can detect them. 3. There are valid reasons, and we can detect them, but there is no way to prevent people from involuntarily committing people for other reasons, even if we make laws and conduct audits to ensure that only valid reasons and approved diagnostics are used. 4. Something else? You just think the mentally ill are better off living in homeless camps?
      - EatingWithForks 3y ago
        You are not addressing my concerns and are mostly creating straw men to avoid that I am pointing out the historical, real, already evidenced harms of the proposed solution.
        imgabe 3y ago
        You are the one creating strawmen by harping on abuses from 60 years ago when I'm specifically saying don't do that. Are you just completely against the idea of human progress? Do you think we're incapable of fixing things that were bad in the past? Both my parents were nurses who worked in psych hospitals. I can promise you people exist who need to be in there. People who are incapable of caring for themselves. People who in some cases already committed violent crimes. We need places to care for people like this. Yes, abuses happened. So stop abusing people, don't stop caring for people who need care. Prisons are sometimes abusive. People are sometimes put in prison for unjust reasons. People sometimes try to make bad laws to put people in prison for shitty reasons. So should get rid of prisons altogether and just let thieves and murderers do whatever they want? That doesn't seem to be working out so well in California. At no point did I say there were never problems with institutions. I'm saying fix the problems instead of getting rid of institutions altogether. Now, are you saying it's not possible to fix or what?
        creata 3y ago
        If something goes really badly, and someone wants to try it again, the natural questions to ask that person are: * What do you think are the reasons why it went badly last time? * What are you proposing we do differently? * Are you sure that they weren't already doing that last time? * How do you think that this change would avoid things going badly again? Could you explicitly answer those questions? Maybe I'm just bad at reading, but so far, all I can get out of your comments is that we should "make reasonable rules and follow them", but I assume that's what people thought they were doing last time, too...
DropInIn 3y ago
For some us states I have zero doubt they'd make such things eligible criteria for placement in a facility, regardless of thier presence in the dsm. Just look at what's happening right now with them violating hippa to attack women trying to survive miscarriages...
harimau777 3y ago
I have ZERO doubt that the Ron DeSantis' of the world would try to lock up LGBTQ people. It's honestly hard for me to imagine anyone not thinking that people like him would try to do it.
- soligern 3y ago
  I’ll reluctantly back you up on this one. There are definitely people in power right now that would definitely lock up LGBTQ/Black/Women (honestly white males too) under false pretenses. Still, we have to do something about the homeless problem. These handful of people ruin millions of peoples lives.
- bobsmooth 3y ago
  Did Trump do it? Is Ron worse than Trump?
  - danShumway 3y ago
    On LGBTQ issues, yes. Ron is unquestionably worse than Trump. It's part of his current campaign strategy to call out that Trump is "weak" on LGBTQ "issues." Trump and DeSantis are individuals and their political views can't be reduced to a single scale running from "good" to "bad". They have different approaches to politics and they have different areas that they care about and they approach their political goals using different strategies. They're both bad candidates, but they're bad in sometimes different ways. And there are many, many issues where DeSantis is better than Trump (although that's not saying much, and it's not saying that DeSantis is good on those issues). LGBTQ+ discrimination in specific though is an area where DeSantis is worse.
  - harimau777 3y ago
    This is just the personal impression that I get, but I think that most progressives feel that Ron is worse than Trump. The one exception is that Ron seems to be worse at politics than Trump so I could see some people viewing him as less of a threat.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
abenga 3y ago
> Do you think they're suddenly going to put homosexuality and BDSM back in the DSM-4 and lock people up for it? Are you asking whether rights people enjoyed for decades can be rolled back? You can't think of a single instance of that happening?
- imgabe 3y ago
  Lots of things can happen, I’m talking about addressing problems that are happening and not letting hypothetical fearmongering get in the way of doing that. What’s the point here? We should never do anything if even one person can come up with some possible hypothetical scenario where it turns out badly?
  - abenga 3y ago
    The point is _right now, as we speak_ there is a concerted effort to roll back rights and freedoms women and gay people have enjoyed for years; you should not give people doing this more tools to harm people.
    - imgabe 3y ago
      There is also right now an epidemic of homeless people harassing, assaulting, and even murdering people and generally making major cities nearly unlivable. So when you create a false dichotomy between "treat mentally ill people who might murder you" or "lock up gay people", YOU are in fact giving tools to the people who want to lock up gay people. However much your average, non-gay person supports rights for gay people, I guarantee you they support not getting murdered more. So when you force a choice between "maybe, hypothetically, gay people get locked up" and "you might get murdered", people are going to choose the "don't get murdered" side. People, really, really don't like being murdered. Instead, how about we don't force that choice on people? How about we offer the option "don't lock up gay people" and also, "don't let mentally ill people murder anyone"? Call me a crazy idealist if you must, but I really think we just might be able to do both things.
      - 3y ago
boppo1 3y ago
>Do you think they're suddenly going to put homosexuality and BDSM back in the DSM-4 and lock people up for it? Yes. A young woman was recently locked up for 90 days for terminating a pregnancy because she did not have access to legal abortion. There are people who basically want 'white sharia'. I'm sick of the civic rainbow-religion. Get those flags and the moral authoritarianism out of my face. But let us not forget there really are people who think two guys shouldn't be able to hold hands in public or fool around in private.

by imgabe 3y ago

pierat 3y ago

[flagged]

imgabe 3y ago
I’m not the one who’s missing the point here. I know people have in the past been institutionalized for bad reasons. That doesn’t mean there aren’t good reasons to institutionalize other people who can be genuinely helped. I’m saying we should not institutionalize people for bad reasons and do institutionalize people for good reasons. You seem to think that because some bad cases exist, we should never do any of the good ones, because for some reason you think human beings are fundamentally incapable of distinguishing between the two? Like we couldn’t make reasonable rules and follow them? If that’s the case why have any society at all if you think humans are incapable of creating and following just rules?
- EatingWithForks 3y ago
  You cannot merely wave aside that your proposed solution is a solution that also already evidenced to have caused mental illness on a broad, demographic-specific scale, in the name of solving mental illness! That's patently ridiculous.
  - imgabe 3y ago
    Which of the following statements are you advocating for: 1. There is never any reason to involuntarily commit someone 2. There are valid reasons, but there is no known diagnostic that can detect them. 3. There are valid reasons, and we can detect them, but there is no way to prevent people from involuntarily committing people for other reasons, even if we make laws and conduct audits to ensure that only valid reasons and approved diagnostics are used. 4. Something else? You just think the mentally ill are better off living in homeless camps?
    - EatingWithForks 3y ago
      You are not addressing my concerns and are mostly creating straw men to avoid that I am pointing out the historical, real, already evidenced harms of the proposed solution.
      - imgabe 3y ago
        You are the one creating strawmen by harping on abuses from 60 years ago when I'm specifically saying don't do that. Are you just completely against the idea of human progress? Do you think we're incapable of fixing things that were bad in the past? Both my parents were nurses who worked in psych hospitals. I can promise you people exist who need to be in there. People who are incapable of caring for themselves. People who in some cases already committed violent crimes. We need places to care for people like this. Yes, abuses happened. So stop abusing people, don't stop caring for people who need care. Prisons are sometimes abusive. People are sometimes put in prison for unjust reasons. People sometimes try to make bad laws to put people in prison for shitty reasons. So should get rid of prisons altogether and just let thieves and murderers do whatever they want? That doesn't seem to be working out so well in California. At no point did I say there were never problems with institutions. I'm saying fix the problems instead of getting rid of institutions altogether. Now, are you saying it's not possible to fix or what?
        creata 3y ago
        If something goes really badly, and someone wants to try it again, the natural questions to ask that person are: * What do you think are the reasons why it went badly last time? * What are you proposing we do differently? * Are you sure that they weren't already doing that last time? * How do you think that this change would avoid things going badly again? Could you explicitly answer those questions? Maybe I'm just bad at reading, but so far, all I can get out of your comments is that we should "make reasonable rules and follow them", but I assume that's what people thought they were doing last time, too...

DropInIn 3y ago

For some us states I have zero doubt they'd make such things eligible criteria for placement in a facility, regardless of thier presence in the dsm. Just look at what's happening right now with them violating hippa to attack women trying to survive miscarriages...

harimau777 3y ago

I have ZERO doubt that the Ron DeSantis' of the world would try to lock up LGBTQ people. It's honestly hard for me to imagine anyone not thinking that people like him would try to do it.

soligern 3y ago
I’ll reluctantly back you up on this one. There are definitely people in power right now that would definitely lock up LGBTQ/Black/Women (honestly white males too) under false pretenses. Still, we have to do something about the homeless problem. These handful of people ruin millions of peoples lives.
bobsmooth 3y ago
Did Trump do it? Is Ron worse than Trump?
- danShumway 3y ago
  On LGBTQ issues, yes. Ron is unquestionably worse than Trump. It's part of his current campaign strategy to call out that Trump is "weak" on LGBTQ "issues." Trump and DeSantis are individuals and their political views can't be reduced to a single scale running from "good" to "bad". They have different approaches to politics and they have different areas that they care about and they approach their political goals using different strategies. They're both bad candidates, but they're bad in sometimes different ways. And there are many, many issues where DeSantis is better than Trump (although that's not saying much, and it's not saying that DeSantis is good on those issues). LGBTQ+ discrimination in specific though is an area where DeSantis is worse.
- harimau777 3y ago
  This is just the personal impression that I get, but I think that most progressives feel that Ron is worse than Trump. The one exception is that Ron seems to be worse at politics than Trump so I could see some people viewing him as less of a threat.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

abenga 3y ago

> Do you think they're suddenly going to put homosexuality and BDSM back in the DSM-4 and lock people up for it? Are you asking whether rights people enjoyed for decades can be rolled back? You can't think of a single instance of that happening?

imgabe 3y ago
Lots of things can happen, I’m talking about addressing problems that are happening and not letting hypothetical fearmongering get in the way of doing that. What’s the point here? We should never do anything if even one person can come up with some possible hypothetical scenario where it turns out badly?
- abenga 3y ago
  The point is _right now, as we speak_ there is a concerted effort to roll back rights and freedoms women and gay people have enjoyed for years; you should not give people doing this more tools to harm people.
  - imgabe 3y ago
    There is also right now an epidemic of homeless people harassing, assaulting, and even murdering people and generally making major cities nearly unlivable. So when you create a false dichotomy between "treat mentally ill people who might murder you" or "lock up gay people", YOU are in fact giving tools to the people who want to lock up gay people. However much your average, non-gay person supports rights for gay people, I guarantee you they support not getting murdered more. So when you force a choice between "maybe, hypothetically, gay people get locked up" and "you might get murdered", people are going to choose the "don't get murdered" side. People, really, really don't like being murdered. Instead, how about we don't force that choice on people? How about we offer the option "don't lock up gay people" and also, "don't let mentally ill people murder anyone"? Call me a crazy idealist if you must, but I really think we just might be able to do both things.
    - 3y ago

boppo1 3y ago

>Do you think they're suddenly going to put homosexuality and BDSM back in the DSM-4 and lock people up for it? Yes. A young woman was recently locked up for 90 days for terminating a pregnancy because she did not have access to legal abortion. There are people who basically want 'white sharia'. I'm sick of the civic rainbow-religion. Get those flags and the moral authoritarianism out of my face. But let us not forget there really are people who think two guys shouldn't be able to hold hands in public or fool around in private.