11 ms·

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-specifi

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...
      - imgabe 3y ago
        I think coming up with a comprehensive mental health policy is a little beyond the scope of a HN comment, and certainly far beyond my expertise. I merely posit that such a policy could exist, and could be developed. I don't see why not. I mean, the comments here are like "b-b-but homosexuality used to be considered a mental illness!". Right, it was, but now it's not. So it seems pretty clear that to prevent people from being institutionalized for being gay, we could simply continue to not consider it a mental illness. You know, like we're already doing. That doesn't seem very difficult. Maybe there are other things that are considered mental illnesses that shouldn't be. If there are, we already have an example in homosexuality of how we can stop considering them mental illnesses. It's clearly a thing that's possible to do, so if necessary, let's do that.
        creata 3y ago
        > I think coming up with a comprehensive mental health policy is a little beyond the scope of a HN comment True, but that's clearly not what I asked for. > If there are, we already have an example in homosexuality of how we can stop considering them mental illnesses. It's clearly a thing that's possible to do, so if necessary, let's do that. Also true, but (1) our understanding of what should be treated as a mental illness can regress, and (2) that's not much solace for all the people harmed between now and when we as a society agree that they shouldn't be considered mentally ill.
- creata 3y ago
  Not the person you're replying to, but I'm curious: what's wrong with position (3)? That's kinda where I am right now.
  - imgabe 3y ago
    It’s pretty bleak and pessimistic for one thing. If you want to solve a problem you have to at first believe that it’s possible to solve. Otherwise, why wouldn’t you just give up?
    - danShumway 3y ago
      > It’s pretty bleak and pessimistic for one thing. So, two objections: First, "bleak and pessimistic" or "realistic"? There are a number of rights that we guarantee specifically because we don't believe there's a good way to police bad actors without harming good actors. Our entire justice system is built around occasionally taking the worst outcome and refusing to convict people specifically because we're so scared of how easy it would be to abuse a system where people had the power to correct those injustices. "State power can be abused" is not really uncommon sentiment for any political group in the US, and it's a big part of our country's DNA. I'm not sure I'd phrase that as fatalistic or unhelpful, it's a big part of the backbone of our current democracy. ---- Second, it might well be that the problem is solvable, but even if that's the case it doesn't mean it's wise to give abusive regimes more power right now. Having optimism about our ability to build a society that does not stigmatize mental health and does not use mental health as an excuse to harm minorities, oppressed groups, activists, or social outcasts does not preclude saying "but we clearly don't have that society yet, and right now it would be a giant disaster to give our current society this level of power, and we know from history what a society that looks like ours typically does with this kind of power." I might be optimistic that my kid will be able to learn to drive some day. I do not express that optimism by buying them a car when they're 10 and letting them start it up and start driving down the highway unattended. I am optimistic that Flatpak sandboxing is going to eventually be good. I do not express that optimism by throwing out all of my VMs and using Flatpak as my only sandboxing tool right now. I understand that my optimism about the future does not change the current state of the world. I am optimistic that transgender rights are going to eventually improve over time, including in states like Florida and Texas. But I am realistic about how those states are run and managed at this moment, and I am realistic about what those states will do if granted these powers. Optimism does not require naivety.

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...
    - imgabe 3y ago
      I think coming up with a comprehensive mental health policy is a little beyond the scope of a HN comment, and certainly far beyond my expertise. I merely posit that such a policy could exist, and could be developed. I don't see why not. I mean, the comments here are like "b-b-but homosexuality used to be considered a mental illness!". Right, it was, but now it's not. So it seems pretty clear that to prevent people from being institutionalized for being gay, we could simply continue to not consider it a mental illness. You know, like we're already doing. That doesn't seem very difficult. Maybe there are other things that are considered mental illnesses that shouldn't be. If there are, we already have an example in homosexuality of how we can stop considering them mental illnesses. It's clearly a thing that's possible to do, so if necessary, let's do that.
      - creata 3y ago
        > I think coming up with a comprehensive mental health policy is a little beyond the scope of a HN comment True, but that's clearly not what I asked for. > If there are, we already have an example in homosexuality of how we can stop considering them mental illnesses. It's clearly a thing that's possible to do, so if necessary, let's do that. Also true, but (1) our understanding of what should be treated as a mental illness can regress, and (2) that's not much solace for all the people harmed between now and when we as a society agree that they shouldn't be considered mentally ill.
creata 3y ago
Not the person you're replying to, but I'm curious: what's wrong with position (3)? That's kinda where I am right now.
- imgabe 3y ago
  It’s pretty bleak and pessimistic for one thing. If you want to solve a problem you have to at first believe that it’s possible to solve. Otherwise, why wouldn’t you just give up?
  - danShumway 3y ago
    > It’s pretty bleak and pessimistic for one thing. So, two objections: First, "bleak and pessimistic" or "realistic"? There are a number of rights that we guarantee specifically because we don't believe there's a good way to police bad actors without harming good actors. Our entire justice system is built around occasionally taking the worst outcome and refusing to convict people specifically because we're so scared of how easy it would be to abuse a system where people had the power to correct those injustices. "State power can be abused" is not really uncommon sentiment for any political group in the US, and it's a big part of our country's DNA. I'm not sure I'd phrase that as fatalistic or unhelpful, it's a big part of the backbone of our current democracy. ---- Second, it might well be that the problem is solvable, but even if that's the case it doesn't mean it's wise to give abusive regimes more power right now. Having optimism about our ability to build a society that does not stigmatize mental health and does not use mental health as an excuse to harm minorities, oppressed groups, activists, or social outcasts does not preclude saying "but we clearly don't have that society yet, and right now it would be a giant disaster to give our current society this level of power, and we know from history what a society that looks like ours typically does with this kind of power." I might be optimistic that my kid will be able to learn to drive some day. I do not express that optimism by buying them a car when they're 10 and letting them start it up and start driving down the highway unattended. I am optimistic that Flatpak sandboxing is going to eventually be good. I do not express that optimism by throwing out all of my VMs and using Flatpak as my only sandboxing tool right now. I understand that my optimism about the future does not change the current state of the world. I am optimistic that transgender rights are going to eventually improve over time, including in states like Florida and Texas. But I am realistic about how those states are run and managed at this moment, and I am realistic about what those states will do if granted these powers. Optimism does not require naivety.