4 ms·
Did you read the whole thing? It's an account of the author who writes honestly about his thought process, and in the end finds out that his prejudice was wron
by jaekwon 12y ago
Did you read the whole thing?
It's an account of the author who writes honestly about his thought process, and in the end finds out that his prejudice was wrong on one count, and may have been wrong in others.
The whole article in entirety is more helpful than anything I've read about this kind of condition. I'm not sure, and I think the author isn't sure, whether it should be called a mental illness at all. I think that was the point of the article.
So in cases like this, isn't it good to write plainly of one's past prejudices?
- wglb 12y agoI think the point is, and one that I would agree with, is that the label "crazy" is of no possible benefit. It dismisses and demonizes.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- bnjms 12y agoAnd it's a fine point but I would rather people speak plainly when giving accounts of how their prejudices were wrong. It is helpful for us to make fun of our past failings.
- geden 12y agodepends on the intent. the use and intent of 'crazy' here is a dramatic / stylistic one to do with making the writing interesting.