Jump to navigation
RevolutionPlease wrote: I sure as fuck didn't change it.
That's true, cuz only mods can now alter thread titles (mere mortals who start threads no longer have permission to do so).
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
I suspect the title was changed due to a fit of prudishness.
Much like George Carlin might say, a thread title cannot contain any of the following seven words:
I do apologize. I was told to change it because, as a busy thread, it was showing up on the front page of rabble, and while of course we're more informal on babble, the front page is different.
I have no problem with swearing and do it all the time, but the editorial standards for the front page are different than mine are here on babble. Sorry again, RevolutionPlease.
I do apologize. I was told to change it...
I do apologize. I was told to change it...
Well, we knew it wasn't you suffering from a sudden case of prudishness, Michelle. You have as much of a "potty mouth" as me or anyone else here!!
I didn't say anything in the thread when I changed it because I thought that the discussion was going really well and I didn't want to derail it into a meta-argument about whether the thread title should be changed or not since I didn't really have a choice in the matter.
But since this thread is now officially derailed and over 100 posts anyhow, maybe I could just ask you, Sven, since you haven't participated at all in this thread up until your complaint about the thread title - what do you care? Was your only intent in posting in this thread to (yet once again) bitch about the way this site is run, complain about the moderating, complain about rabble.ca in general, without any regard for the discussion that was already taking place?
What is the matter with you, anyhow? If you hate it so much here, why do you stay? Do you get off on spending all day on a site you apparently hate, complaining about it?
I'm sorry, but I just find it so frustrating. Do you know how great it used to be, working for babble, and what a drag it is now to know that every time I come to babble, I'm going to have to deal with yet another nitpicking complaint about the site, about my moderating, or whatever? Especially from someone who doesn't really contribute much to the mandate of this site (left-wing, progressive thought)?
Look, at 98 posts, Michelle, the thread was about to be "closed for length" anyway, no?
"maybe I could just ask you, Sven, since you haven't participated at all in this thread up until your complaint about the thread title - what do you care?"
Is there some kind of unwritten rule against intervening some way into a debate one hasn't participated in up until? Sayng "what do you care?" , especially as a mod, seems a bit over the top... even if I don't like Sven much either.
No need to apologize Michelle, I knew right away why it was changed. Something about "Screw Psychiatry" though is just something I wouldn't say. Any better suggestions in the lexicon that could evoke the emotion I was feeling?
I dunno, I think you pretty much nailed it, but we'll see how things unfold.
Fornicate the hell out of Psychiatry...
As I recall, my physcologist explained the ugly truth about psychiatry in session long ago. By the end of it, I felt that he needed a rest in the comfy chair.
Force psychiatry to sleep on the wet spot...
Isn't this screed about ready to be closed?
What screed is that? If you have something to say why not say it?
Whether we agree with him or not, I think Caissa has [url=http://rabble.ca/comment/997432/Re-Fuck-psychiatry][color=red]clearly stated his views[/color][/url].
An anecdote, or even several does not a case make.
It's a bit like saying "I've personally never had a negative interaction with the police."
Yeah, or: "I've only had one friend who died under homeopathic treatment instead of taking a simple test to discover his operable tumour."
When was the last time a homeopath forcibly confined someone and gave them a treatment that had severe side effects?
You misunderstood. I just gave that as an example of the limited value of personal, anecdotal evidence.
I'm sorry I did misunderstand
although I don't think there is anything wrong with anecdotes providing we don't believe they should be the last word or if it prevents us from considering the experiences of others.
This whole thread has been full of personal anecdote. So why should mine be any less valid than the other one's that have been proferred?
Thanks, Cueball. There seem to be a lot of people on Babble who have had experience with the psychiatric profession.
It was fine. And your personal experience was respected, and no one called you on it or denigrated it. Fine. It was accepted as face value. Then you decided to charachterize the whole thread, including other peoples personal anecdotes, and experiences as "screed", denigrating them.
Very objectionable and rude. I find it interesting that one of the few people who offered a positive review of psychiatry, then exihibted such arrogant disrespect for the personal experiences of others, rejecting them as "screed" not through arguement, but by the kind of dismissal of personal experience based solely in authority and without arguement, which indeed was the basis of many of the complaints made about the psychiatric field, its methodology of study and its practice.
Caissa wrote: Thanks, Cueball. There seem to be a lot of people on Babble who have had experience with the psychiatric profession.
Perhaps you want to clarify the intent of that comment. It's not really a schoolyard taunt is it?
Merely an observation. Having seen a psychiatrist why would I taunt other people for having done the same thing.
Psychiatry labelled me mentally ill for the better part of my life - I have been diagnosed, at one time or another, with most "mental illnesses" - and drugged me out of my mind. I wasn't mentally ill - I was autistic and I was suffering from social contempt, cruelty, prejudice, exclusion, poverty, and ignorance. One thing I learned in my many years in the mental health system: a majority of people there aren't "mentally ill". They don't have faulty wiring. They're suffering. (A minority probably do have a biological problem. The ideological move is to make every form of social/political/economic suffering a biological problem.)
Exactly. So, let's get back to your charachterization of this thread as "screed"? One assumes you were not including your own anecdote in that category, just everyone elses.
My dictionary defines screed as a "lengthy discourse" or " an informal piece of writing" This thread meets both of those definitions, Cueball.
Now you are being a hoighty-toighty snob prevaricating on a dictionary definition in order to distract people from seeing that your underwear is showing.
This is bordering on bullying behaviour, Cueball. I must say it's not the first time you have exhibited it. My Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary does not attribute any negative connotations to the term 'screed". Do you want its etymology or are you prepared to agree that this thread has run it's course at post 131?
What have you got against underwear?
It seems to me that some are using valid concern about and solidarity with the mentally ill to invalidate criticism of some questionable aspects of this thread. They are seperate ethical issues IMHO.
Uh oh... thread becoming unstable... vibration increasing... jettison crew before questionable drugs are haphazardly prescribed!
I'm prepared to agree to that. Sorry, Sven, I guess this won't be the test thread either! ;)