It just seems a little weird because it's A-OK to call him a "wacko" but if I called him a "chink" I'd be kicked off the board. When I do kicked off the board, you guys might want to consider that hypocrisy.
Mass Murderers and Women: What We're Still Not Getting about Virginia Tech
Wed, 2007-05-09 20:49
#52
Wed, 2007-05-09 20:58
#53
I guess it's quite possible that the mainstream news hasn't reported on this guy's psychiatric status. For those that haven't heard, this guy was sent to a psychiatric hospital some time ago but never followed up on his out-patient commitment obligations. According to Torrey and the Treatment Advocacy Center, had he done so, this never would have happened. WELCOME TO THE DEPARTMENT OF UNPROVABLE ASSERTIONS.
Wed, 2007-05-09 21:03
#54
I apologize in advance for my intemperate outbursts above. All the same, I won't erase them. Mental patients' rights is kind of a hot issue for me. Nonetheless, that's not what this thread is about and I apologize for derailing it.
Wed, 2007-05-09 21:05
#55
So, how about those Canucks???
Wed, 2007-05-09 23:01
#56
quote:
It just seems a little weird because it's A-OK to call him a "wacko" but if I called him a "chink" I'd be kicked off the board.
That's because "wacko" is a derision of an individual behaviour or character of an individual person--directed solely at that person and not demeaning anyone else (unless it's plural).
"Chink" is a racial/ethnic slur that insults or demeans an entire ethnic group regardless of each person's behaviour or personal faults and collectively degrades them for no reason other than their ethnicity.
quote:
When I do kicked off the board, you guys might want to consider that hypocrisy.
Actually, I might consider it appropriate and in keeping with the policies of this site.
quote:
I apologize in advance for my intemperate outbursts above. All the same, I won't erase them. Mental patients' rights is kind of a hot issue for me. Nonetheless, that's not what this thread is about and I apologize for derailing it.
I appreciate your sincerity. But I don't think mental patients' rights are under attack here.
quote:
So, how about those Canucks???
Who? I don't remember.
Thu, 2007-05-10 15:58
#57
quote:
[b]That's because "wacko" is a derision of an individual behaviour or character of an individual person--directed solely at that person and not demeaning anyone else (unless it's plural).[/b]
You're right, but "wacko" also is a derisive term which demeans an entire group -- the mentally ill. I believe that's the use that was enacted above, earlier in this thread.
quote:
[b]"Chink" is a racial/ethnic slur that insults or demeans an entire ethnic group regardless of each person's behaviour or personal faults and collectively degrades them for no reason other than their ethnicity.[/b]
Again, "wacko" is a slur that demeans an entire group of people, regardless of an individual's behaviour, for no reason other than their "neuro-status," to coin a phrase.
quote:
[b]Actually, I might consider it appropriate and in keeping with the policies of this site.[/b]
The policy of your site is that racial slurs are not okay, but it's okay to slag the mentally ill? Guess I'll be looking for a new site, then. Slurs are okay here, as long as they're approved. After sanism, that just leaves fatism, and then we're done.
quote:
[b]I appreciate your sincerity. But I don't think mental patients' rights are under attack here.[/b]
Actually, they are. With the Virginia Tech shooter, here we have a guy with a serious and debilitating mental illness. He may not be able to distinguish reality from his own fantasy. This guy needed help, serious help, and he didn't get it.
quote:
[b]Who? I don't remember.[/b]
[img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2007-05-10 16:04
#58
We're way off track here and I apologize for my hand in that. This isn't about men, it's not about immigrants, and it's not about crazy people, it's about guns and their availability.
Thu, 2007-05-10 16:04
#59
Slurs based on any enumerated grounds are not allowed on this board with good reason.
It seems people don't see the slurs against disabled people as quite the same but they are just as nasty and demeaning against the target group of disabled peole as any racist or sexist statement.
Thu, 2007-05-10 16:20
#60
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]Slurs based on any enumerated grounds are not allowed on this board with good reason.[/b]
A policy with which I agree wholeheartedly.
quote:
[b]It seems people don't see the slurs against disabled people as quite the same but they are just as nasty and demeaning against the target group of disabled peole as any racist or sexist statement.[/b]
I agree, and that's just going to have to change.
Thu, 2007-05-10 16:34
#61
quote:
Originally posted by Phrillie:
[b]Again, to recap, when a mentally ill person commits a horrendous crime, then they're no longer mentally ill, they're now a sicko, a wacko, a monster. Okay, got it.[/b]
Wrong. They are both a mentally ill person and sicko. These are not mutually exclusive. I never said, nor do I believe that being mentally ill = sicko. I repeat:
Not all paranoid schizophrenics are mass murderers and not all mass murderers are paranoid schizophrenics.
In my opinion, all mass murderers are "sickos". Ergo, this one particular mentally ill person was a sicko.
Thu, 2007-05-10 16:46
#62
[url=http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/city/story.html?id=f5a710fd-98f... this count for a 'feel good' story?[/url]
This happened about half a block from my home.
quote:
A woman was assaulted yesterday after being dragged into a downtown parking lot during her early morning walk to work. As the victim was walking along Somerset Street West near Lyon Street just after 5:30 a.m., she was grabbed from behind and forced into a nearby parking lot. A passing cyclist heard the struggle and intervened, causing the suspect, a five-foot-seven Caucasian man, to flee.
[b]Three cheers for the cyclist.[/b] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] I hope he is found and given a medal.
The thought occurs to me that possibly not the cyclist, but the assaulter and the woman assaulted are probably from the neighbourhood.
Thu, 2007-05-10 16:47
#63
quote:
Originally posted by Summer:
[b]Wrong. They are both a mentally ill person and sicko.[/b]
Right, and by "sicko" you weren't at all suggesting that he was mentally ill.
quote:
[b]Not all paranoid schizophrenics are mass murderers and not all mass murderers are paranoid schizophrenics.[/b]
Yeah, but when a paranoid schizophrenic IS a mass murderer, isn't it fun to call him all those epithets?
quote:
[b]In my opinion, all mass murderers are "sickos". Ergo, this one particular mentally ill person was a sicko.[/b]
I try to assume "good faith," but you're pushing it here, and I'm sure you know it.
George W. Bush is a mass murderer (indirectly). Do you refer to him as a sicko?
Thu, 2007-05-10 16:55
#64
This thread is getting sickening. Calling a disabled person names is offensive. Your defence is the same as saying I called only her a "B" but I didn't call all women that so its alright. Well it isn't all right it is a nasty comment based on gender just as all your euphmism's for the mentally ill are nasty comments that are used to insult and demean people with disabilities.
Thu, 2007-05-10 17:16
#65
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]This thread is getting sickening. Calling a disabled person names is offensive. Your defence is the same as saying I called only her a "B" but I didn't call all women that so its alright. Well it isn't all right it is a nasty comment based on gender just as all your euphmism's for the mentally ill are nasty comments that are used to insult and demean people with disabilities.[/b]
I'm not a big believer in newspeak, and in reducing vocabulary.
As the linguist Steven Pinker has noticed, toilets become bathrooms become washrooms become lavatories. It's not words that bother us, it's ideas.
And here, whacko was not meant to describe everybody with a mental illness. It meant a very specific type of insanity, in this case the desire to kill a lot of people.
For the record, bitch is the feminine form of the word asshole. In most languages, you have feminine and masculine nouns, English has fewer of these. And I'll continue to use the words bitch and asshole to describe those rare individuals whom I find are without compassion, or particularly vengeful.
It's not the vocabulary. It's the message.
Thu, 2007-05-10 17:33
#66
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]It's not the vocabulary. It's the message.[/b]
Right, and the message is that a mentally ill person commited a horrendous crime and now he's no longer a mentally ill person, but a wacko, a sicko, a monster. The vocabulary may be, as you suggest, irrelevant. But how much easier it is to label that behaviour "sick," because now we don't have to deal with it, right?
Thu, 2007-05-10 17:35
#67
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]This thread is getting sickening. Calling a disabled person names is offensive. Your defence is the same as saying I called only her a "B" but I didn't call all women that so its alright. Well it isn't all right it is a nasty comment based on gender just as all your euphmism's for the mentally ill are nasty comments that are used to insult and demean people with disabilities.[/b]
I don't 100% agree with 500 Apples above. The word bitch is a word used exclusively to describe women, just as the word chink is used exclusively to describe the Chinese. Asshole is not exclusively male. Sicko and wacko are not used exclusively to describe the mentally ill.
As an aside, i would appreciate a link to substantiate the assertion that Cho was ill. Everything I have read contains mere speculation and comparisons.
Thu, 2007-05-10 17:36
#68
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]And here, whacko was not meant to describe everybody with a mental illness. It meant a very specific type of insanity, in this case the desire to kill a lot of people.[/b]
As far as I know, the DSM doesn't list the "desire to kill a lot of people" as a mental illness.
Thu, 2007-05-10 17:37
#69
quote:
Originally posted by Phrillie:
[b]But how much easier it is to label that behaviour "sick," because now we don't have to deal with it, right?[/b]
Deal with what?
I believe the families and friends of the 32 victims are dealing with it. As is the entire school.
[ 10 May 2007: Message edited by: Summer ]
Thu, 2007-05-10 17:39
#70
Okay, Summer, here you go: [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/06/AR200705...
Thu, 2007-05-10 17:43
#71
quote:
Originally posted by Summer:
[b]Deal with what?I believe the families and friends of the 32 victims are dealing with it. As is the entire school.[/b]
Deal with the fact that it is our society which is sick. Read James Neff on Columbine, he knows what's going on. To paraphrase, every time you make it okay to ostracize an individual, every time you send your teenager to the mall with a credit card, you feed the beast.
Thu, 2007-05-10 17:57
#72
quote:
This isn't about men, it's not about immigrants, and it's not about crazy people, it's about guns and their availability.
Well, two outa three ain't bad! [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
I think it's actually more about the violent, paranoid and alienated culture we have, thanks in part to an economy and its culture of greed, selfishness, easy money and getting ahead at the expense of others, that influences how many people feel they can use guns--especially in the US, where economic conditions for so many people are so stressful and oppressive.
Obviously, for someone with a mental condition that makes them prone to violent behaviour, that can be pretty lethal mix.
I read a while back that there are almost as many households with guns in Canada as there are in the US. Yet our overall gun violence is nowhere near their rates.
Don’t get me wrong. I support responsible rules around firearms (especially hand guns). Bu the gun violence isn’t a matter that exists all by itself. Rather, it’s clear a symptom of a much bigger problem.
Thu, 2007-05-10 17:58
#73
A snippet, printed with no permission whatsoever:
quote:
[b] For me, that horrible period of life was more than 20 years ago. It was absolute hell then. It must be a sheer spiritual apocalypse on the soul of teens today, as things have distinctly gone from bad to worse. It has become hopeless and depraved, sending a veritable few over the edge to grasp hard steel and cock back shotguns to make it come to an end. An end to the system of pain, and as we've seen in Littleton, and end to themselves as well.What we are seeing in Littleton, Colorado, and in the past 10 years in various other schools around the nation, is literally war. The geeks, the weirdos, the nerds, the outcast, the troubled-gifted, the challenged and the general "breakfast club" is no longer comfortable with crumbling into a million pieces and dissolving into the background to appease the accepted and normative jocks, 'socies' and picture perfect all-American jackasses soon to be our future political jackasses; afflicted of soul and body for the rest of their lives, the outcasts are fighting back. They have declared war on the normals and it's a real war, with real blood and real guns. Its a unique kink in the process of social evolution (or de-evolution), in a sense. Just so many decades of this can go on before the free radical stops bouncing around and starts attacking and creating a cancer that eventually kills the host.
The question is, is it deserved? That is not to say did any of these young people in Littleton deserve to die, but rather: Is this war, this 'rage against the machine' deserved?
I say yes. It has been a long time coming. It is much deserved ... disturbed system that creates a hierarchy of acceptability and conformity, and in turn demonstrate to their children that the 'way things are' is good... right... the 'way it should be' because it has always been that way.[/b]
ETA: This is James Neff, writing on the Columbine massacre.
Substitute "Virginia Tech" or the next one, whatever, we're talking about the same thing.
[ 10 May 2007: Message edited by: Phrillie ]
Thu, 2007-05-10 18:07
#74
quote:
Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:
[b]I read a while back that there are almost as many households with guns in Canada as there are in the US. Yet our overall gun violence is nowhere near their rates.[/b]
That's interesting. Do you recall if those were hand guns? My (anecdotal) evidence is that Canadians keep a lot of hunting guns, but far fewer hand guns.
Thu, 2007-05-10 18:15
#75
quote:
Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:
[b]Obviously, for someone with a mental condition that makes them prone to violent behaviour, that can be pretty lethal mix.[/b]
Don't want to get all preachy here but in fact there's very little compelling evidence that the mentally ill are more violent than anybody else. By contrast, the mentally ill are very likely to be the victims of violence.
Thu, 2007-05-10 19:10
#76
Hello again,
quote:
Don't want to get all preachy here but in fact there's very little compelling evidence that the mentally ill are more violent than anybody else. By contrast, the mentally ill are very likely to be the victims of violence.
I tend to agree, although I don't have any stats on this. What I was trying to get at is the to specific individuals with a specific condition that makes them prone to violence it could be a lethal mix--not that mental illness or disorders necessarily mean violent behaviour.
I have read that clinical depression, for example, affects an estimates two million Canadians. It's easily the most common mental or mood condition. Yet only in rare cases does it provoke violent behaviour of any kind and only in extremely isolated cases does it cause severe acts of violence.
quote:
That's interesting. Do you recall if those were hand guns? My (anecdotal) evidence is that Canadians keep a lot of hunting guns, but far fewer hand guns.
If memory serves, that is pretty much the case.
Thu, 2007-05-10 19:32
#77
quote:
[b]What I was trying to get at is the to specific individuals with a specific condition that makes them prone to violence[/b]
Yes, and, ugh, I hate to be so ... whatever ... but there is no "specific condition" that makes you prone to violence, assuming that you're talking about psychiatric conditions.
As for the gun issue, I see hand guns and hunting guns as entirely different entities. I'm ambivalent about hunting guns but I won't allow a hand gun in the house.
Thu, 2007-05-10 20:40
#78
quote:
Originally posted by Phrillie:
[b]I'm ambivalent about hunting guns... [/b]
I'm a leftie myself.
quote:
[b]... but I won't allow a hand gun in the house.[/b]
Very good. I also require visitors to check their heat at the door.
Thu, 2007-05-10 20:56
#79
Very good, unionist.
To clarify, I didn't mean I invited people over for dinner and they had to leave their guns in the cloakroom. It was more that a family member (that I'm married to) wanted to have a gun and I kiboshed that.
But your post made me laugh, so thanks.
Thu, 2007-05-10 20:58
#80
quote:
Originally posted by Phrillie:
[b]But your post made me laugh, so thanks.[/b]
You're welcome (or as our ineffable youth would have it, "no problem").
Thu, 2007-05-10 21:06
#81
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]You're welcome (or as our ineffable youth would have it, "no problem").[/b]
Gawd, I hate that "no problem" response!
It's like mowing your neighbor's lawn or shoveling his driveway out in the winter, getting thanked for it and saying "no problem". It's the functional equivalent to "it wasn't a burden" or "it wasn't an imposition".
Basically, it's merely stating the absence of a negative (no "burden") and what's missing is the element of an affirmative positive ("It was my pleasure" or "I'm happy to help you").
When service people say that, I think: "Oh, I'm glad I wasn't a burden to you!"
Thu, 2007-05-10 21:25
#82
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
[b]Gawd, I hate that "no problem" response![/b]
[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] Me too! I'm too old for stuff like that. And just think what damage it does to the theme song from [i]Cabaret[/i]:
quote:
Kein Problem, aucun problиme, no problem,
Zum Kabaret, au cabaret, to cabaret!
Fri, 2007-05-11 07:06
#83
Maysie
Popping in to comment on the issue of name-calling against the mentally ill, or those who are framed as mentally ill.
Calling anyone a "sicko" is mocking those who may or may not have mental health issues. It's not okay. Yeah, actually, it [b]is[/b] as bad as using racist and sexist and other offensive terms.
This isn't a language police issue, it's about what kind of world we want to live in. Women were labelled "hysterical" 100 years ago, now we're labelled and medicated and...don't get me started. Name-calling a marginalized and vulnerable group is fucked up and not okay!
The fact that the mentally ill have been stereotyped as being violent is identical to the construction of the racist stereotype of the black male rapist and the homophobic stereotype of the gay pedophile. Can we put on our critical-thinking lefty hats here, and not use verbatim sound bites like the doofuses on the right? Jeez Louise.
Also, I see using the word "sicko" to describe Cho, similar to the use of the word "monster" to describe Paul Bernardo. It's a way to distance "us" (the presumed "normal ones") from "them", the killers the media chooses to focus on for a particular moment. This allows for no space to look at the violent society we come from, and how violence against women is acted out on women's bodies when mass murders like this happen.
And there are, in fact, three characteristics that we can say about most mass murderers. They live in the developed/colonized North and West, they are white and they are men. But it seems we don't want to talk about that. It's kinda why I started the thread after all. Full circle.
Edited to add: Notice how Robert Pickton has been framed neither as a "sicko" or as a "monster". This is directly related to who his victims were, and not at all about what he did and how horrific what he (alledgedly) did was. Of course I don't think he is either of those things, but it's selective isn't it, how these labels get applied.
[ 11 May 2007: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]
Fri, 2007-05-11 08:24
#84
[b]Rumination on 'sickos and 'nutbars'[/b]
*** warning, possible thread drift here.
I used to work with a bully. He was not a stupid man, but if he could not convince you of something, he would yell and ridicule you until, as least, you went away.
I recall him refering to Muammar al-Gaddafi as a 'nutbar', so immediately, I looked for the contrary position. (That was back 'in the days of my youth' that I thought facts might make a difference to bullies, personally or internationally.)
It seems that after Muammar took power in Libya in 1969 he jacked up the price of oil. The world, at the time said: "ppffftttt!" and bought elsewhere.
Crafty Gaddafi then admitted defeat and dropped his oil price lower than anyone else. (Obviously a nutty thing to do. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] )
France thought this a fine idea and bought so much of this cheap oil (maybe $1.50 a barrel in those days), that Lybia supplied 60% of their needs. [img]cool.gif" border="0[/img]
[b]We all know what happened now, don't we? [/b] [img]cool.gif" border="0[/img]
He quickly tripled the price of oil and every one camplained that he was breaking all manner of agreements.
France, caught with its oil lusting pants down, complained mightly, but could not invade fast enough to allievate its' shortage - [b]began to pay.[/b]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Zaki_Yamani]Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani [/url] the Saudi oil minister, and world class smaret dude, saw this and was dazzled. Thus was born OPEC.
Maybe you agree or disagree with OPEC's activilites, but it is pretty impressive work for just another 'nutbar.'
[url=http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&... is the google page [/url] about Quaddafi - you can see the remains of [b]evidence that he is indeed, mad.[/b]. They even quote such intellectual luminaries as [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/21/wgad21.x... Bolton [/url]warning how dangerous [i]the Lybian dictator[/i] is and how he cannot be trusted.
Fri, 2007-05-11 08:44
#85
Croghan your post was a deliberate troll. you have been told that the terms you have decided to feature prominently in your post are offensive and not appopriate.
No one wants to hear how in the past you have made offensive statements that denigrate mentally ill people. It is not appropriate to label all your favourite enemies using purjorative terms for the mentally disabled.
Fri, 2007-05-11 09:25
#86
Maysie
Um, yeah, Croghan, WTF is up with that post? The thread drift is annoying but the problem is your continued use of derogatory phrases that we're trying to have a discussion re. how inappropriate and offensive they are.
Please stop. Now.
Fri, 2007-05-11 09:41
#87
What BCG said. Using derogatory terms after being asked not to by a moderator is over the line.
Fri, 2007-05-11 18:21
#88
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]Notice how Robert Pickton has been framed neither as a "sicko" or as a "monster". This is directly related to who his victims were, and not at all about what he did and how horrific what he (alledgedly) did was. Of course I don't think he is either of those things, but it's selective isn't it, how these labels get applied.
[/b]
Hey, BCG, thanks for the insight. You're absolutely right -- Pickton just isn't thought of that way. I don't, however, think it's completely related to who the victims are (although I'm sure that's a huge factor). Timothy McVeigh was another killer to whom those labels weren't applied.
It's hard to figure about the coverage of Cho. If he truly was a "sicko, etc., etc." then how could he be condemned for his crimes? I think we have to decide once and for all whether we are going to have compassion.
Sat, 2007-05-12 06:31
#89
Actually, that's completely how I think of Pickton - that and a monster.
Sat, 2007-05-12 06:53
#90
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
[b]This isn't a language police issue[/b]
If that's not a language police issue, then what [b][i]is[/b][/i] a "language police issue"???
Sat, 2007-05-12 07:10
#91
Quit trolling in the feminism forum please, Sven. I won't ask you again. Next time, it will come with a vacation.
Sat, 2007-05-12 07:19
#92
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]Quit trolling in the feminism forum please, Sven. I won't ask you again. Next time, it will come with a vacation.[/b]
For Christ's sake, Michelle, please explain why that question is "trolling".
[ 12 May 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]
Sat, 2007-05-12 07:20
#93
Because it serves absolutely no purpose in this thread, it's off topic, it's nitpicking, and not even slightly feminist in tone. You're just posting it to jab at bigcitygal.
Once again - this forum is not your forum. This forum is for feminists to discuss feminist issues from a feminist point of view. You are a guest here. Act like one.
Sat, 2007-05-12 07:32
#94
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]Because it serves absolutely no purpose in this thread, it's off topic, it's nitpicking, and not even slightly feminist in tone. You're just posting it to jab at bigcitygal.Once again - this forum is not your forum. This forum is for feminists to discuss feminist issues from a feminist point of view. You are a guest here. Act like one.[/b]
With regard to "it serves absolutely no purpose in this thread, it's off topic", BCG brought up the issue of "name calling" in the first place. I didn't raise this issue out of thin air.
With regard to it's "not even slightly feminist in tone", I don't even know how to answer that. Neither BCG's post nor my post regarding name calling had anything to do with feminism. It was a language issue regarding mental health.
"You're just posting it to jab at bigcitygal." What I am doing is asking what a "language police issue" could possibly be if what she is arguing for is not a "language police issue". I would have asked the same question if it was someone else.
That all said, how about if I just take this "language issue" out of the feminism forum?
Sat, 2007-05-12 08:31
#95
remind
It would seem that Sven, either knowingly derailed the thread and used commentary that was not feminist, or even progressive, or he does not realize his actions. Though he has been here long enough to have read other discussions re-word usage, and even outside links that exhibit bigoted, denigrating, or hate speech.
In case, he does not realize his actions, and they were not deliberate, I will clarify what I saw/felt from his post in regards to the rules here at babble and in the feminist forum.
1. We do not use denigrating, bigoted words even when exampling other's behaviour that we are not supportive off. I.e. your telling a story of your past and peppering it with words that should not have been used. Even though in your story, you say you were trying to illuminate to this man how in error he was, for "his" word use.
2. Using sexualized terms to describe situations/activities that are non-sexual really is inappropriate at anytime, it is even more inappropriate in the feminist forum.
So, now that you know this Sven, you will have no further excuse to do something like this again, and then claim ignorance.
Now, having said that, I do not believe Sven was anymore out of line than Steppenwolf Allende, actually. Who said this:
quote:
Nope. Here’s where I jump off. It’s true there are many forms of violence, including violence against women, that are more covert or non-physical. But I think this is a huge stretch. Worthless gossip about other people’s parenting styles is certainly annoying. But unless it involves blatant slander, as accusing someone of doing or being something they are not, doesn’t constitute violence or “domination” over women.
Your wrong, it is violence against women, and this type of activity is used way too often, and accepted as if it was not too much of anything. And that is a dangerous fallacy. It is in fact where it all begins.
How dare you come here SA, and dismiss, what many women experience by way of verbal violence, perhaps 10, 20-100 times, or more, per day in all its various forms? Really I want to know.
It was NOT gossip, it was slander, and it was being used, in part, to inform my daughter, that she, has "his" expectations as a parent to live up to, or he will label her a bad mother. It was a control of behaviour mechanism. As in fact is "gossip", you the scenario if you do not behave as "society" thinks you're going to get "gossiped about" mentally.
Secondly, he was using it also to bash her, by saying/infering she is deficient, and thereby less than him, on several levels actually.
1. She has an inability to think clearly and critically, unlike him, because she has a poor choice in friends, as she chose a person who is a bad mother, and she cannot see this person is a bad mother.
2. Her standard of mothership is deficient, as she does not see her friend a bad mother, unlike him.
And he set the notion, that a women being successfully independant is really being a bad mother, or cannot be a good one.
The fact is he, does not want her, in part, to have an example so close to her of a strong independant woman, being successful as a mother too. Plus a whole whack of other reasoning that men use to dominate women.
Moreover, if women protest, and object, to this time of entrenched systemic societal control mechanism, they are labelled as having mental problems in any of the various verbal ways.
[ 12 May 2007: Message edited by: remind ]
Sat, 2007-05-12 14:58
#96
The term "language police" offends because it implies that progress is all about dressing up language. It's not.
I accept Summer's explanation that, to her, "sicko" doesn't mean "mentally ill." It's the word that she uses to denote a monster.
The problem is that the public often equates "sicko" to mean "sick" and then to "mentally ill." What's forgotten is the vast hordes of the "mentally ill" all around us who are completely harmless.
It was a huge sea change for society to understand "nigger" wasn't an acceptable word and (I hope) that "sicko, "nutbar," etc. get retired from the lexicon fairly soon. Until then, everytime I see or hear someone using that terminology, I'm going to call them on it. I'm not policing the language; I'm questioning the faulty reasoning that lies behind it.
Sun, 2007-05-13 11:14
#97
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Phrillie:
[b]The term "language police" offends because it implies that progress is all about dressing up language. It's not. [/b]
People, who use the accusation of "language police", in the context of correcting people on their use labelling words, are trying to force tolerance of their intolerant and nasty verbage.
[/qb][/quote]everytime I see or hear someone using that terminology, I'm going to call them on it. I'm not policing the language; I'm questioning the faulty reasoning that lies behind it.[/QB][/QUOTE]
Absolutely, and the same can be said for denigrating words against women, that starts the cycles of violence.
Had an interesting talk yesterday with a fellow, who has a violent offender history, but not against women. It was gained in fact, from his actions against a known pedophile who had 6 charges against him, that he was eventually convicted of, including that of this fellow's 5yr old daughter.
Anyway, from his history of being in the system, he has developed and registered some new programs for decreasing male violence. Though the programs are derived from his experiences/findings, he does have a BSW and certification in counselling and facilitating.
Through the program's attendees, he states that he now has grievous concerns about teen age girls and their safety. As he said he was surprised to find that, overall, male youth are in fact speaking and acting in a much more violent way against female youths than that of the 20-30 year old male demographics.
Next week I am going in a broader search of demographics and studies, in a cross compare, to see if this was just ancedotal opinions on his part, or an observation of actual occurance. To bad the Status of Women isn't in full effect, they could have fielded a study on it.
Sun, 2007-05-13 18:18
#98
quote:
Sorry for the digression but something is really bothering me. The Treatment Advocacy Center (E. Fuller Torrey's brainchild) is stating the Virginia Tech shooter was a paranoid schizophrenic. Since when is it okay to call a mentally ill person a "sicko monster"?
It's important to note that Torrey is a fanatical biopsychiatrist, his "organization" should be called the Coercive treatment advocacy center as the main function of it is to advocate for forced drugging and confinement. He certainly has no qualms about advocating violence against those with psychiatric labels. An even darker and more disturbing irony is that it is well established that certain psychiatric drugs actually increase the likelihood of violent behaviours. SSRI's have been linked to many inexplicable violent crimes and side effects not only include increases in violent fantasies but also decreased inhibitions, impulsivity, agitation and emotional reactivity. These are also common withdrawl effects for many psychiatric drugs including neuroleptic, anti-dpressants and benzo diazepines. There have been speculations that Cho might have been taking psych drugs.
It is worth noting that those with psychiatric labels are no more( or less)violent than anyone else. They are though more likely to be victims of violence than people in the broader population. It is also important to note as BCG already has that most acts of violence and most perpetrators are never acknowledged, the people are never caught the victims rarely supported. Violence against women and children is common and mostly unreported.
Sun, 2007-05-13 19:21
#99
I take your points but I think you'd have to agree that some people are mentally ill. Leaving aside the issue of whether or not Cho was, do you think it's okay to call mentally ill people in general "sickos"?
What is the rationale for involuntary treatment, if not to protect society? Are the mentally ill safer on medication or not?
Sun, 2007-05-13 19:41
#100
[QUOTE]I take your points but I think you'd have to agree that some people are mentally ill. Leaving aside the issue of whether or not Cho was, do you think it's okay to call mentally ill people in general "sickos"?
What is the rationale for involuntary treatment, if not to protect society? Are the mentally ill safer on medication or not?
/QUOTE]
No I don't have to agree that some people are "mentally ill" because there is no scientific evidence to suggest that a) psychiatric nosology is valid or reliable b) the eitiology of psychoemotional distress in bioligcal or a fixerd ongoing state.
The interesting thing about your logic is that although you oppose the use of obviously offensive terms such as "sicko" you in no way challenge the underlying discourse that claims those with psychiatric diagnosis are somehow more dangerous than others.
Forced treatments druggings and electroshocks not only traumatize and destroy peoples lives they kill. What is the rational for involuntarily confining and abusing people who are no more likely to be violent than anyone else? As already mentioned reactions to drugs increase not decrease the likelihood of violence in people who are taking them.
It is a rather species argument that "society is protected" by allowing the state to engage in systematic violence against a certain group.
Sun, 2007-05-13 20:01
#101
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b][QUOTE]No I don't have to agree that some people are "mentally ill" because there is no scientific evidence to suggest that a) psychiatric nosology is valid or reliable b) the eitiology of psychoemotional distress in bioligcal or a fixerd ongoing state. [/b]
Psychiatry may not be valid, nor reliable, as you suggest, and perhaps I'm using the wrong term. Instead of the "mentally ill," would you accept "emotionally troubled"? Do you agree that some people's reality is not accurate? Can we agree that Cho's actions were not okay?
quote:
[b]The interesting thing about your logic is that although you oppose the use of obviously offensive terms such as "sicko" you in no way challenge the underlying discourse that claims those with psychiatric diagnosis are somehow more dangerous than others. [/b]
And the interesting thing about your logic is that you are attributing to me a position which I don't take. I neither challenge nor accept that those with a psychiatric diagnosis are more dangerous than the norm. In fact, if you read my post again, you might see that I was in fact asking you.
quote:
[b]What is the rational for involuntarily confining and abusing people who are no more likely to be violent than anyone else?[/b]
But that was my question to you in a slightly different form.
quote:
[b]It is a rather species argument that "society is protected" by allowing the state to engage in systematic violence against a certain group.[/b]
But I didn't say society was protected. I was asking if that was the rationale for involuntary treatment.