Armchair, public diagnosis of antisocial behavior as an illness is ableism: the believe that “normal” people do not do bad things, so if somebody is doing it is because they are ill or disabled. It discriminates against people with real illnesses and disabilities by associating them with antisocial behavior. It makes “normal” people feel superior to people with disabilities and more afraid of them. There are no “normal” people. We all are part of a continuum, and we all can, at any time acquire a disability, either by disease, accident, or age.
10 Likes
I leave it open that she’s just a shitty person with bad life-coping strategies, and she needs someone to tell her “That’s fucked up. Quit it!”
3 Likes
And then somebody else is offended that you’re stigmatizing mental illness again and the two of you have the same off-topic argument over and over. Isn’t it simpler just not to go there?
This sounds more like a philosophical argument than a medical one
4 Likes
Thanks for your reply Mindysan. I want to clarify that I definitely don’t think the rule should be scrapped, just that it leaves open this other way to stigmatize mental illness, by only allowing behavior to be attributed to character.
I’m just talking about pointing out that someone may be mentally ill, not saying “that person is schizo”.
Again, I think it’s a good rule! The problem, and I don’t think it’s an insignificant one, is that the way it’s worded, it’s okay to watch a video of someone having a psychotic break (I’m saying this hypothetical person IS having the break, not that I think they are) and call that person an asshole but not to say maybe they’re behaving that way because they’re ill.
Actually, the rule says Do not make assumptions as to anyone’s mental state. I guess the problem as I see it is that when you say someone is a jerk or worse, you ARE making an assumption about their mental state; you’re assuming that they are mentally sound and therefore bear the full blame for their action. Any comment attributing behavior to character makes an assumption about mental state.
1 Like
I genuinely think it’s a problem for e.g. someone with bipolar to watch a video of someone having a full manic episode and then read comments that condemn that behavior as a character issue. At that point it’s already been gone there (for lack of better phrasing).
I guess I worded it poorly. By “acting without will” I meant acting without control of one’s actions.
I understand that side of it; I guess I’m saying that it’s not right to forbid ableism without also forbidding condemnation, that it’s not right for us to stigmatize mental illness by pretending it’s not a possible explanation for a behavior.
This accurately describes every shit-stirring drama llama in my life. I go to great lengths to avoid these energy leeches.
4 Likes
Definitely, people like that are exhausting and can really hurt themselves and others.
It was flagged by someone who felt that
“This behavior is what condition B looks like”
is saying the same thing as
“Person A’s behavior shows she is suffering from condition B”
which would be a violation of the site prohibition on armchair psychiatric diagnosis.
This seems to be right on the arguable line of how far the prohibition extends; when the mod team gets around to it, we’ll find out which side of the line it’s on. Too harsh enforcement of the prohibition could basically shut down all discussion of opinions on mental illness, but too lax enforcement could unnecessarily stigmatize and mislabel people, so the policy can require the mods to make difficult judgement calls.
1 Like
Well of course they do. Wouldn’t work otherwise. Nor any other type of jet.
1 Like
But it does drive clicks - look at the numbers of comments in threads like this. Sensationalism sells, and none of us is above falling for it/letting it suck us in.
1 Like
… my balls.
What about your ba - oh, now I see: There’s three of them? And they are really very small? (About the size of a full stop?)
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
