Showing 9 of 9 comments.
Check THAT out.
I think you posited a great solution, which would allow people to choose what types of comments they want read.
So may I assume that you also have no issues with people choosing what types of news they choose to read (and the news media obliging)?
Power to enforce laws which are (theoretically) a reflection of the people’s will. To serve and protect. The question is always “protect whom?”…
Thanks for speaking up. There seems to be this implication that many people are too intimidated by the nasty & thuggish anti-psychiatry people to express their belief that psychiatry should be “reformed but not abolished.” Your post shows that the reverse may actually be true.
We have taken steps to remedy this and have implemented a customized Google search which we believe is a substantial improvement.
What are the security and privacy implications of this? Isn’t Google part of the Facebook/YouTube/Twitter tracking & surveillance monolith?
I am a social worker and as much disgust and outrage as I have for our current psychiatric and mental health systems, I personally cannot espouse abolishing it entirely. It is terribly flawed and based on little to no scientific evidence
This is your opinion, which many disagree with. Both sides are entitled to be expressed and evaluated on their merits, not because they won a popularity contest.
This is insane. I didn’t originally realize what was in this article and skipped it. I agree it will be a disaster for MIA and free speech in general, and heartily agree with Dragon Slayer, Frank and Kindred Spirit.
This reminds me of how the corporate media takes polls to see what kind of “news” people prefer to read.
People have the right to know as well whether Facebook technology is being used to power this “filtering” and “liking” process. If so this would prevent a serious security risk to every person here who ever clicks a “like” or “dislike.”
OK I see my buddy Oldhead’s comment did get through. I have been following these discussions closely, as has he, and have been looking forward to SM’s tenure as moderator. For me it basically comes down to this:
I have no intention of editing or censoring posts based on the possibility that the ideas expressed may make other people “uncomfortable.
If Steve can maintain his allegiance to this principle without interference from “on high,” I think that — contrary to the (quite justifiable) suspicions of some — there should no be no problems for the MIA anti-psychiatry contingent (which MIA wishes didn’t exist) in expressing and promoting its views. However in the past it has often been the case that ideas posed by survivors which disturb “mental health professionals” are considered more “insulting” than similar or more insulting barbs made in the other direction.
As for statements directed at “groups of people,” this seems to be a slippery slope. For example, if “mental health professionals” are to be considered “groups of people” in the same sense as racial, ethnic, or religious groups, that would be a clear manipulation of language consistent with that of all other “mental health” terminology. This does not mean that it’s fair game to throw blatant insults at “mhp’s”; however it must also be understood that some of them have thin skins and often “feel insulted” by statements which others consider reasonable and articulately stated. So while Steve’s breakdown of how he plans to approach conversations seems well thought out (I have no doubt it has been), the devil will remain in the details. And the fact is, just about any post here at any given time could be zapped based on a hard-nosed interpretation of posting guidelines.
So, I for one remain skeptical, though not cynical; I don’t know if Steve has enough power to pull this off but am wishing him (and all of us) well in this endeavor.
Still the question needs to be posed — does MIA accept the possibility that the end result of “rethinking” psychiatry could well be the conclusion that psychiatry should be abolished once and for all?