Showing 100 of 1218 comments.
problems with living
I think this sort of phrase is vague and serves to minimize the severity of people’s problems.
We humans are all interdependent on each other and on the ecosystem.
Ah yes, the scared freedom to go bankrupt over medical expenses.
I think that in this context it means bootstraps.
sman1109, I am an American and I know all about it. As in any war, the poor did most of the dying and the rich benefited.
Cuz free will. Cuz Szasz. Cuz bootstraps.
Please define ‘free will.’
Being a prole in late stage capitalism is depressing and anxiety producing.
The “founding people” were slavers, landlords, and other opportunists who sacrificed Africans, indigenous Americans, and poor Europeans so that they could live like European aristocrats.
That Lenin quote is not about the homeless; it is about the bourgeoisie or capitalist class who make money by exploiting everyone else.
Disability denial really has nothing to do with anti-psychiatry. It’s just that MiA draws a lot of verbose reactionaries in the comments, so it appears that way.
something can’t cause itself to occur.
This seems more like an argument *against* free will. But maybe I’m getting ahead of myself, because ‘free will’ is not defined here, so I’m not even sure what people are talking about.
The second is that they are endowed by their Creator (a problem for atheists, since the Founders clearly believed that rights do not emerge from nowhere) with certain unalienable rights.
Nope. Not a problem since most of them were deists. Even less of a problem for those of us who don’t treat their writings as holy writ.
Another problem with your argument is that you claim that suicide is some sort of an escape, or a “way out.” This is a major problem for atheists especially. A person can only escape from something if that escape leads somewhere else.
Nope. Not a problem. You are playing word games here. A person cannot be in pain if they don’t exist. In that sense, they do escape the pain by dying.
Furthermore, it is nonsensical to argue that atheists appreciate life more than religious people because they realize that there is only one life, because most religious people also recognize that we have only one life to live on earth, and that it matters very much.
Nope. This is some twisted logic. The fact that you are using the word ‘nonsense’ here makes it even worse.
Hey look, more stuff that nobody actually said!
Because someone subscribes to anti-Israel propaganda, Robert Whitaker shouldn’t write articles about psychiatry in Israel.
That’s not what Susan wrote, professor.
A good portion of the Israeli population has access to no such thing
But Palestinians don’t count as people in Israel, so…
What a creepy comment.
one of the tools my family uses in our path away from our nightmare tangle with psychotropic drugs is to replace the words “i can’t” with “i choose not to” every time one wants to say he can’t go to work, to the party, get off the couch…
I don’t know who “he” is, but I hope you don’t drive him to suicide.
Or you could mind your own business, Frank.
however don’t we already spend quite a bit on social spending here?
Great point, Richard.
I’ve come to the conclusion that a lot of the people who comment on this site – and I mean both the petty bourgeois (“go rake leaves”) professionals and the edgy “anti-psych” keyboard warriors – don’t really give a damn about people like us.
“Free will” is an illusion because there are no effects without causes.
Yes, that’s exactly it.
I am not accepting any of psychiatry’s claims, nor do I see what any of this has to do with abstractions like “free will.”
and lifelong SSDI
And again, that’s not how it works.
There are people who are so disturbed that they cannot in fact support themselves consistently through manual labor. This issue is not as simple as you are trying to make it.
I agree that it’s important to look at the labor participation rate to find the truth of the employment situation.
In a country in which jobs are increasingly being outsourced and automated, and the few available are typically temporary “gigs” with minimum wage and no benefits, any reliable form of subsistence that includes health care is understandably becoming a more viable option.
I’m not sure what your point is because SSDI is still not really a viable option. It’s certainly preferable to nothing, and it’s great to have medical care, but with SSDI alone one still cannot afford adequate food, shelter, and other needs. One is still below the artificially low official poverty line.
I think that we need Medicare-for-all anyway, and that anything short of it is barbarism.
If disability is generally considered a permanent condition, then why does the SSA regularly review its SSDI cases to see if the recipients are still eligible?
My initial comment was an expression of bewilderment at the suggestion that people on SSDI enjoy “lifelong financial security” because of it. That is far from the truth. SSDI beneficiaries are re-evaluated regularly by the Social Security Administration, and ~$10k a year is not financial security by any means. I’ve known many people who receive SSDI benefits and all of them are deeply impoverished financially.
If psychiatric “illnesses” aren’t real illnesses, then psychiatric “disabilities” which qualify people for permanent SSDI benefits, aren’t real disabilities.
Many of the conditions for which people are psychiatrized do cause sufficient impairment that the sufferers of them have great difficulty working a job or engaging in other common daily activities. While this is not necessarily a permanent situation, the people in it do need social assistance in order to survive and to overcome their difficulties.
lifelong financial security via SSDI
You keep talking about what you “think” she is saying
Yes, that was because I hadn’t read the article yet and was responding only to the quote with what I know about BLM. Now that I’ve read the article, I see that my understanding was correct. The line about therapy being a part of reparations comes after she has explicitly talked about black people being traumatized by the system.
Where exactly are these racism/imperialism/
colonialism-savvy “therapists” suppose to materialize from? Where are they hiding right now?
They seem to be in the minority for sure, but we are already dealing in the imaginary when we talk about reparations, so adding in the widespread availability of decent therapists doesn’t seem so outlandish to me in this context.
To your earlier point about the impossibility of solving collective problems with individual solutions, I agree 100%, but I don’t take the Khan-Cullours’ reparations comment that way. After all, she also said this:
We have to talk about changing systems first. We live in a culture that wants to talk about individual first, that tells people they need to take personal responsibility for their hardships. Let’s not do that. Let’s change the system that creates the hardships.
I’ve never been anti-therapy.
The notion that Black people can resolve their historic oppression via “therapy” is insulting and demeaning
Yes, it is, but I don’t think that’s what Khan-Cullours is saying.
Doesn’t sound strange to me at all. It’s definitely part of the solution.
I think this take is pretty simplistic.
Football destroys everyone’s mind.
I read the quote. Your criticism only makes sense if “a therapist” = psychiatry.
Turns out it’s not so healthy for human beings to treat themselves and others as commodities.
She seems to be saying that black people are traumatized simply by existing in our racist society and that they deserve support with that. Makes sense to me.
It’s a term that is too often used to silence dissenting opinions.
If they are bigoted, then they deserve to be silenced.
Islamophobes are not interested in reality; they are only interested in right-wing talking points that reinforce their own prejudices.
Cognitive Impairment from Long-Term Benzodiazepine Use Remains Even After Drug Withdrawal
It sure does. 🙁
I feel that there should be an organized social system of support for people in crisis. I don’t understand the tendency of some of the anti-psych comments to insist that nothing can be done for people. That’s not true, and though I hate to use the word “privilege,” I feel like it is unavoidable in describing the position of those who don’t need any help with anything who are calling for no social supports until after the revolution. Not to mention that this is a horrible political strategy.
Well, that’s certainly ironic.
It’s worth pointing out that mental/emotional struggles appear to be a part of human life, and that every culture in history has had both formal and informal ways of dealing with these challenges. So while abolition of coercive “treatment” and the DSM are very realistic goals, it does appear that something needs to be in place to assist people who are having difficulty figuring out how to respond to the stresses of ANY society, especially our bizarre Western post-industrial culture.
I think that Steve McCrea is making a very important point here.
I already said what I thought was most important about it. I recommended the podcast as a source of more detailed information about the history of these ideas. The bottom line is that there *are* interconnected systems of oppression at work (yes, with capitalism at the center) and not only is there nothing wrong with acknowledging that fact, but failure to acknowledge it alienates those members of the working class who are affected by these other systems of oppression.
I believe you about the therapy abuse and I’m sorry that happened to you. Some of my therapy experiences have been very positive, but the majority of them have been negative or just plain awful. There is a major imbalance of power in a therapy relationship and that makes it easy for abuse to occur if the therapist isn’t mindful of their own issues.
I was thinking of this, from Bonnie Burstow’s writings:
Myth: Antipsychiatry theorists oppose professional services.
Fact. While antipsychiatry theorists reject psychiatry and commonly critique other disciplines, there is no uniform rejection of other disciplines (except in insofar as they have become colonized by psychiatry). More concretely, besides that antipsychiatry advocates have often joined forces with others in lobbying for more non-medical services (e.g., supportive house, drop-ins, befriending services), there are antipsychiatry activists who are themselves practicing social workers and practicing psychologists.
I personally feel that anything beyond this is overreach and something other than anti-psychiatry.
Julie, I didn’t think that your comment had anything to do with me personally, but you made claims about a class of people to which i belong. One of the most painful things about my withdrawal experience has been that very few people have believed me about it, so I have no interest in looking around to see if anyone might be making up or exaggerating withdrawal symptoms. I also think that you have a tendency in your comments to minimize the damage that psych drugs can do to a person.
Abolishing the entire “mh” system is outside the scope of anti-psychiatry, and yet that’s what Nikkel is arguing against here as if it were an anti-psychiatry position.
Please share your examples then. I’ve experienced protracted withdrawal and I don’t appreciate you shitting on me and other people who have had that ridiculously horrible experience.
And oh, the worse you suffer from withdrawal, or claims of such, another claim to fame, the more attention you draw.
This makes sense only if comments such as those made by Tireless Fighter, Frank, and StDoP actually reflect some kind of consensus anti-psychiatry agenda. They definitely do not. So as Richard pointed out, you are making a straw man argument.
Also, abolishing psychiatry as a medical specialty and abolishing the “mental health” system are two separate issues that are conflated here. Though some people who consider themselves anti-psychiatry do call for the latter, that agenda is not inherent to anti-psychiatry. In fact, several prominent anti-psychiatry activists right here on MiA are therapists themselves.
“Intersectionality” is a bullshit liberal/”progressive” way of avoiding class struggle, or reducing it to a matter of powerless people lecturing each other about their relative “privilege” without any sense of context or the slightest notion of how to change any of the situations they profess to be enlightened about.
This is true to a point, but only if it is understood to describe the opportunistic neoliberal version of intersectionality that has become fashionable lately among centrist Democrat Party types. The idea of interlocking oppressions originated with the Combahee River Collective, which was a Black feminist lesbian organization and was also anti-capitalist. The goal of their analysis was solidarity rather than individualistic oppression olympics.
It’s important to remember that these kinds of analyses came about in the first place because people who experienced multiple forms of oppression in addition to class oppression and exploitation were not getting their needs addressed (much less met) in the prevailing left organizations of the time. This is often still true today, and when these other intersections of oppression are not addressed by leftists, then those who suffer under them are alienated from left politics. This is why actual leftists need to be careful not to minimize the struggles of ethnic/”racial” minorities, LGBTQ people, immigrants, women, and other marginalized groups.
This podcast does a good job explaining it all: https://www.blubrry.com/jacobin/29831767/the-dig-keeanga-yamahtta-taylor-on-recovering-identity-politics-from-neoliberalism/ “The Dig: Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor on Recovering Identity Politics from Neoliberalism”
Is there a social democrat equivalent of the terms “brocialist” and “manarchist”?
It would be great if everyone could follow Richard’s example and make appropriate use of paragraph breaks.
I suppose it’s no wonder that people look to Marx as a Savior.
See, if you had any idea what you were talking about, then you would know that Marx was never a savior, but was someone who provided useful analytical tools for understanding socio-economic systems.
America, including the murder of millions by abortion, the expansion of entitlement culture under a doctrine of limitless “rights,” and the welfare state (and I would include psychiatry among these problems).
Right, so according to you, the “real” problems with the USA are that it is too generous to the poors, that the women have too much bodily autonomy and access to reproductive healthcare, and that someone or other has too many “rights”…. What do you mean with that last bit? I’m really curious.
Yes, I’m familiar with the bogus arguments of self-loathing revisionist historians. I’m very familiar with liberal self-loathing and hatred of America and everything it stands for.
Nice work, professor. You literally don’t know the difference between liberals and socialists. And I wonder why you call it self-loathing to name slavery and genocide for what they are.
Frank’s right. Yes, you read that correctly. 😉
Thus proving that you know absolutely nothing about anything they wrote. But you’re still changing the subject.
Why change the subject?
The strength and virtue of the American colonists was admirable
Today I learned that slavery and genocide are virtuous.
Edgy. How do you explain Marxist anarchists?
I relate to this.
Conventional wisdom has it that the difference between professionals and amateurs is that one works for money and the other doesn’t.
and by work I mean labor in exchange for money
some people have market value, and others–many, many more people–are like deficits on the stock-market
So you are militantly pro-capitalism.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me from the context that Susan is saying there need to be systems in place to assist people when they have the kinds of problems that currently get diagnosed by psychiatry. Psychiatry obviously doesn’t do this – other than temporarily numbing people out (at best) – but psychiatry *is* taking up a lot of space that could otherwise be filled with support systems that actually help people.
Paying people not to work? Really? When was that ever the way to go? As is, what do we call them? Dysfunctional functionaries, or functional dysfunctionaries?
We call them capitalists. But you’d rather perpetuate negative stereotypes about poor people and trauma survivors.
That, and put money into getting them houses if they need them, an education or a skill, and steady employment instead.
i.e., social democratic or “welfare state” social supports
Honestly, this is pretty fucking offensive. [Source: actual poor person]
I’ve experienced some “Sensorimotor Psychotherapy” (another kind of “somatic” therapy approach) and have found it to be very useful.
“Trauma resilience” you say? I prefer treatment resistance.
You are very fortunate that way, aren’t you?
the ideological confusion that we have inherited from Marx and Freud
What does that even mean?
It might be that you didn’t intend it to be offensive, but it was anyway. You might take this opportunity to learn instead of whining about being moderated. Your comment was offensive in several ways, in addition to being completely off-topic.
Being lesbian, gay, bi, trans, etc., is not a “lifestyle choice.” The reality is that LGBT+ people are a product of nature’s diversity. It’s a common strategy of anti-LGBT+ activists to mislead people into thinking otherwise. That’s what makes this a political issue.
This is too timely not to share:
“On Contact: The Failings of the American Left with Charles Derber” [discussion of intersectionality and the politics of identity and priviilege when divorced from any critique of capitalism] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C4aCCihy7s
The psychiatric system’s roots and origins are of [*] white, cisgender, heterosexual, Christian men supporting the maintenance of dictatorship for this group of people and this group of people alone.
It has nothing to do with this particular article. My intent was to draw the MiA community’s attention to the fact that they are linking to sites that promote transphobia under the guise of feminism, and to explain why that’s a dangerous thing to be doing.
I guess no one is interested in acknowledging this, so I’ll share a relevant link to provide some context: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/10/23/christian-right-tips-fight-transgender-rights-separate-t-lgb.
Passing as Progressive, Feminist, and LGB-Friendly
As Right Wing Watch also mentioned in their coverage of the same panel [at the reactionary Family Research Council’s “Values Voter Summit”], a trend emerged during the session, as various speakers wrapped their opposition to nondiscrimination measures in rhetoric passing as progressive: transgender rights were depicted as anti-feminist, hostile to minorities and even disrespectful to LGB individuals. This seems to be part of a larger strategy, meant to weaken transgender rights advocates by attempting to separate them from their allies, feminists and LGBT rights advocates.
In her presentation, Kilgannon mapped out three non-negotiables in the fight against the so-called gender identity agenda, a conspiracy theory touted by anti-LGBT groups that disavows sexual orientation and gender identity. The first is to “divide and conquer. For all its recent success, the LGBT alliance is actually fragile and the trans activists need the gay rights movement to help legitimize them.” In other words, separate trans activists from the gay rights movement, and their agenda becomes much easier to oppose. As Kilgannon explained, “Trans and gender identity are a tough sell, so focus on gender identity to divide and conquer.” For many, “gender identity on its own is just a bridge too far. If we separate the T from the alphabet soup we’ll have more success.”
…if you’re cool with transphobia.
You are 100% troll.
Sick burn, bruh.
I’ve explained my reasoning several times already. And your comments about slavery fail even from a purely pragmatic perspective, because who the hell would want to be associated with any group or movement composed of people who say things like you did?
Oldhead seemed to agree with my criticism, so why don’t you ask him to explain it to you instead of dogging me about it? I don’t owe you anything, and I’m about done with this thread. If I see “but Szasz” one more time, I am going to throw up in my mouth.
I don’t even think that anyone should be saying that psychiatry is “analogous” to chattel slavery as it existed in this country. The case can be made that psychiatry is a higher form of slavery (as you put it), and certainly psychiatry’s historical links to American chattel slavery do warrant discussion, but I don’t feel that it’s appropriate to say that psychiatry is analogous to slavery as it existed here for captive Africans. It’s just too different, and making that comparison is just too insensitive to the people who bear the heaviest burden of slavery’s legacy.
(Note that I am not making an argument from identity politics here. I consider this a class issue.)
You might be right about my comment giving way to emotion, but part of my problem with some of these pseudo-academic musings about slavery is that they are talking about it as if it’s *not* an emotional issue. It is, and people have every right to get emotional about it.
See, I disagreed with Sera on that because I’d rather not the see the phrase ‘psychiatric slavery’ banned, and I thought that her arguments about that were questionable (unusual for Sera). However, I’d prefer to see it banned rather than to keep seeing you all go on and on about the institution of chattel slavery as if it no longer has any effect on people and pretending that psychiatrists can do the same things to people that US slave masters could do. StDoP even said that psychiatry is worse in some ways. Go ahead and keep saying these things as long as MiA allows it. I’ll be here calling it what it is – racist.
Let’s talk about slavery. Do I have a problem with the term ‘psychiatric slavery’? No. I feel that a compelling case can be made for describing the psychiatric system as such. That being said, I think that engaging in head-to-head comparisons between the psychiatric system and the system of chattel slavery that existed in the US is racist. It’s racist because it treats US slavery as if it is some sort of obscure historical curiosity with no bearing on the present. On the contrary, the legacy of slavery in the United States is very much alive in many ways. Along with the genocide of the continent’s original inhabitants it is an original sin that has never been atoned for, never made right. It affects all of us each and every day, and pretending that it doesn’t is racist as fuck. I’d honestly rather see MiA ban the phrase ‘psychiatric slavery’ entirely from use than see people who are presumably least affected by the legacy of slavery dispassionately waxing philosophical about it as if it’s an issue with no bearing on people’s lives in the present day.
Blah blah blah… and you prefer the dictatorship of money.
So in other words, no – psychiatrists can’t do any of those things to their “patients.”
This article is fucking infuriating.
Can psychiatrists rape their patients? Can they breed their patients? Can they brand their patients? Can they horsewhip their patients? Can they buy and sell their patients as property? Your argument is as distasteful as it is weak, and what makes it especially obnoxious is that you are obviously 100% certain of its correctness.
In any case, America and capitalism are, for the most part, good things
There’s no better place and no better system if you are rich and selfish.
Liberalism brought us 40-hour weeks, minimum wages, healthcare benefits, vacation and sick time, and safety provisions in the work place.
More precisely, it was organized working class resistance to capital that brought us these things.