4 ms·

You're the one who insists on framing injustice as ultimately a mental health issue. The logical outcome of that is mental health solutions, not social and poli

by mrxd 12y ago

You're the one who insists on framing injustice as ultimately a mental health issue. The logical outcome of that is mental health solutions, not social and political change. The scenario you described is called injustice. If you go to the owner and say "This needs to stop because it stresses me out", you've betrayed the cause. You've traded justice for mental health as the issue we should care about.

dalke 12y ago
I apologize, but I don't understand what you just wrote. I don't recognize how I am "framing injustice as ultimately a mental health issue". I am a firm supporter of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and followup legislation. You can see through some of my earlier messages on HN. I have written may times about cases of injustice where there is no inkling of there being mental health issue. I mentioned Onacle v. Sundowner elsewhere in this thread, as a case where workplace "humor", isn't. Even looking back only on what I wrote here, I see no way to draw the inference you just did. I wrote: > It sounds like you're suggesting that it's due to my inability to handle name-calling, and I should seek mental health treatment to accept being called names all the time. > If so, you have an odd view on life. I meant it as a rejection of what you say I embrace. Telling targets of harassment that they need mental treatment is outright victim blaming. Could you explain how you drew your conclusion? Unlike you, I do not believe that stress is always a mental health issue. I agree with the EEOC guidelines at http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/psych.html http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/psych.html : > > 2. Are traits or behaviors in themselves mental impairments? > No. Traits or behaviors are not, in themselves, mental impairments. For example, stress, in itself, is not automatically a mental impairment. Stress, however, may be shown to be related to a mental or physical impairment. Similarly, traits like irritability, chronic lateness, and poor judgment are not, in themselves, mental impairments, although they may be linked to mental impairments.13 In any case, I did not use the word "stress". I said only that I protest. Under EEOC guidelines for discrimination in the office, a clear statement made to supervisors, or made in such a way that supervisors should be aware of the complaint, is sufficient for EEOC law to apply. I wrote it that way because EEOC law doesn't require people to be offended, hurt, traumatized, or even the target or beneficiary of discrimination. (Judges hate to have to figure out how someone "really" feels.) I believe similar principles should apply to a broader range of situations, including the harassment scenario I proposed, even though it doesn't fall under EEOC law.
- mrxd 12y ago
  I fully understand that you are committed to the ideal of justice. My point is that reframing an issue of justice into an issue of mental health for the practical purposes of addressing the concrete impact of injustice nonetheless undermines the larger vision in the long term. The original article is about the "new meaning of trauma", which contests the claim that trauma as the result of microaggressions is a serious and significant issue. You call the author an asshole and argue on the contrary that microaggressions are traumatic, so its clear that you believe its quite important that we view victims of injustice as sufferers of mental health problems. Or why call someone an asshole who says otherwise? I call this framing injustice as ultimately a mental health issue, and I disagree with it. I believe the focus should be on the question of justice. Apparently you do approve of treating it as a mental health issue. Probably because you believe it will motivate the removal of traumatizing triggers (i.e. racist and sexist words and actions). In other words, trauma is a convenient pretext for fighting bigotry. Trauma victims are a cause that everyone can get behind. It's more politically palatable. I have several objections to this strategy. First, it's a betrayal. We shouldn't hide the cause of justice behind a politically acceptable pretext. Second, mental health treatments advocate controlled exposure to triggers, not their removal. Third, true psychological trauma occurs due to events of exceptional violence. If you believe that injustice is pervasive in society rather than exceptional, it wouldn't produce trauma by definition. The model you present, of many tiny papercuts adding up to trauma, runs counter to psychological models of the human brain. Many small mental stresses adds up to habituation—that's the theory behind exposure therapy. The concept of microaggressions in fact suggests that victims are less likely to be traumatized by racism and to view it as normal. That victims of microaggressions are nonetheless upset by them implies that they are not traumatized, but angry, and rightfully so.

by mrxd 12y ago

dalke 12y ago

I apologize, but I don't understand what you just wrote. I don't recognize how I am "framing injustice as ultimately a mental health issue". I am a firm supporter of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and followup legislation. You can see through some of my earlier messages on HN. I have written may times about cases of injustice where there is no inkling of there being mental health issue. I mentioned Onacle v. Sundowner elsewhere in this thread, as a case where workplace "humor", isn't. Even looking back only on what I wrote here, I see no way to draw the inference you just did. I wrote: > It sounds like you're suggesting that it's due to my inability to handle name-calling, and I should seek mental health treatment to accept being called names all the time. > If so, you have an odd view on life. I meant it as a rejection of what you say I embrace. Telling targets of harassment that they need mental treatment is outright victim blaming. Could you explain how you drew your conclusion? Unlike you, I do not believe that stress is always a mental health issue. I agree with the EEOC guidelines at http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/psych.html http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/psych.html : > > 2. Are traits or behaviors in themselves mental impairments? > No. Traits or behaviors are not, in themselves, mental impairments. For example, stress, in itself, is not automatically a mental impairment. Stress, however, may be shown to be related to a mental or physical impairment. Similarly, traits like irritability, chronic lateness, and poor judgment are not, in themselves, mental impairments, although they may be linked to mental impairments.13 In any case, I did not use the word "stress". I said only that I protest. Under EEOC guidelines for discrimination in the office, a clear statement made to supervisors, or made in such a way that supervisors should be aware of the complaint, is sufficient for EEOC law to apply. I wrote it that way because EEOC law doesn't require people to be offended, hurt, traumatized, or even the target or beneficiary of discrimination. (Judges hate to have to figure out how someone "really" feels.) I believe similar principles should apply to a broader range of situations, including the harassment scenario I proposed, even though it doesn't fall under EEOC law.

mrxd 12y ago
I fully understand that you are committed to the ideal of justice. My point is that reframing an issue of justice into an issue of mental health for the practical purposes of addressing the concrete impact of injustice nonetheless undermines the larger vision in the long term. The original article is about the "new meaning of trauma", which contests the claim that trauma as the result of microaggressions is a serious and significant issue. You call the author an asshole and argue on the contrary that microaggressions are traumatic, so its clear that you believe its quite important that we view victims of injustice as sufferers of mental health problems. Or why call someone an asshole who says otherwise? I call this framing injustice as ultimately a mental health issue, and I disagree with it. I believe the focus should be on the question of justice. Apparently you do approve of treating it as a mental health issue. Probably because you believe it will motivate the removal of traumatizing triggers (i.e. racist and sexist words and actions). In other words, trauma is a convenient pretext for fighting bigotry. Trauma victims are a cause that everyone can get behind. It's more politically palatable. I have several objections to this strategy. First, it's a betrayal. We shouldn't hide the cause of justice behind a politically acceptable pretext. Second, mental health treatments advocate controlled exposure to triggers, not their removal. Third, true psychological trauma occurs due to events of exceptional violence. If you believe that injustice is pervasive in society rather than exceptional, it wouldn't produce trauma by definition. The model you present, of many tiny papercuts adding up to trauma, runs counter to psychological models of the human brain. Many small mental stresses adds up to habituation—that's the theory behind exposure therapy. The concept of microaggressions in fact suggests that victims are less likely to be traumatized by racism and to view it as normal. That victims of microaggressions are nonetheless upset by them implies that they are not traumatized, but angry, and rightfully so.