3 ms·
It really makes it patently obvious, when the subject is a mentally ill person that is doing well for themselves, that the agenda of the collectivist is really
by innguest 12y ago
It really makes it patently obvious, when the subject is a mentally ill person that is doing well for themselves, that the agenda of the collectivist is really about controlling how other people live, and the fact that they are mentally ill, or poor, or gay, or any other special group, is just an excuse to meddle with their lives. This doesn't affect just minorities. Oh, you want to marry someone? Well, then society must decide for you how you should live through laws and paperwork.
I wish I knew how to disabuse these people from their collectivist hypnosis but as you can see from your interaction, they don't use reason - "leaving them alone isn't a good decision" is just a feel-good sentence with no substance. Collectivists are touchy-feely and just as hard to disabuse as the religious.
You're exactly right in saying that it is through condescension that they perpetuate the stigmas that their well meaning (but myopic) intentions purport to fight against. For instance, they ban the poor from competing by raising the minimum wage, then cut the burgeoning poor a check because they're oppressed. They never see they are doing the oppressing by cutting them the checks. Why? Because intention is king in the kingdom of the collective.
- sillysaurus3 12y agoI wish I knew how to disabuse these people from their collectivist hypnosis but as you can see from your interaction, they don't use reason - "leaving them alone isn't a good decision" is just a feel-good sentence with no substance. Why is it unreasonable to offer help to the mentally ill?
- yebyen 12y agoOr anyone, for that matter. "Do you need help" is something you can say to anyone, ill or not. What a horrible place it would be if the only people you can help are anyone who does not seem to be in immediate need of it.
- innguest 12y agoBecause it overwhelms them (anyone that needs help) with pity and condescension. If they need help they'll either ask or find a way to telegraph it to those around them. If you're one of those people then it's OK to offer help. It is not OK for society at large to offer help that way, because it ends up being counterproductive - we end up collectively helping everyone and we're all that much poorer for it.
- davidw 12y agoFrom the article: > Unable to work, he collects Social Security disability He's doing ok because the 'collective' takes care of him.
- innguest 12y agoI didn't know that. I'd argue that those more local to him would be in a better position to help him than the collective, which needs to pool money from all its constituents, give it to bureaucrats who take their share of it, in order to eventually make a check arrive at his inbox. So if we really care for him, it should be eye-opening how those good intentions turned into "Everyone! Give one cent to this politician (or you'll be jailed) so he can eventually make some of this money arrive to the person that needs help". How about those around him help him? Churches want to help but current policies curb them (cue the recent 90-year old that was arrested for feeding the homeless).
- GFK_of_xmaspast 12y agoThose policies aren't there to enforce some kind of state monopoly on the distribution of aid, they're there because rich people don't want to be reminded homeless people exist.
- kstenerud 12y agoYou say it as though it were a bad thing. He has money coming in, has a roof over his head, does fulfilling work, and from his description is quite satisfied with his life. Where is the problem?
- Dylan16807 12y agoIt means that he needs help, even if he doesn't need offers of help, even if he doesn't need more help.
- davidw 12y agoI didn't think I put a negative spin on it. I was responding to the other person's rant about 'collectivists'.