Tuesday, November 13, 2018

Comments by oldhead

Showing 100 of 5853 comments. Show all.

  • The devil is in the details, in this case the term “alternatives,” so we need to be aware of the subtext. Detoxing from psychiatric assault does not constitute an “alternative to psychiatry,” it is a way of correcting the damage done by psychiatry.

    Anyway, this is not the thrust of my above statement, nor is it necessary for everyone to “get it,” it’s for those with whom it will resonate.

  • I’m starting a new thread with this quote from Frank as it’s a new tangent:

    This represents a problem when the “alternatives” “peer” “recovery” dizability whatchmacallit so-called movement is way too compromised to fight for human rights and against force any more.

    There is a continuing dynamic which has existed with “mental patient liberation”/anti-psychiatry organizing since its inception. It goes like this:

    Someone or a group of people start organizing against psychiatric assault, which starts to attract attention. Then people start to appear claiming they “sympathize” but that we can’t just be out there opposing psychiatry without having “alternatives,” and stressing all the horrific stories about individuals who “need something immediately” to get them from one day to the next.

    Since most “mental patients” have chronic guilt complexes bred into them, some of the would-be activists then start buckling and wanting to start “support” projects for the huddled masses of psychiatric victims, since they’ve accepted the guilt trip that they can’t justly oppose psychiatry without having “alternatives.” Next the anti-psychiatry activism starts to take a back seat to a zillion “personal support” emergencies among the growing network of hangers-on and, rather than politics and support having complementary roles, they end up being pitted against one another. Ultimately the project is disbanded and people go away with personal conclusions like “it’s hopeless” or “politics is bullshit.” People decide that it’s a personal failing because they have no viable “alternatives” — i.e. that a few people haven’t created a functioning paradigm that will address the misery of the millions of people which is created and perpetuated by the system we live under. But all this could have been predicted.

    So, like the Democrat-Republican pendulum, this sort of thing can go on forever, at least until we realize that, while both may be arguably useful at present, the functions of political education and activism and those of so called “support” are entirely different in their focus and operation. One is collectively focused and involves more “traditional” organizing — polemicizing, education, political pressure, demonstrations, whatever. The other is more akin to social work and oriented towards supporting individuals experiencing trauma, etc. While those involved in either of these would likely have an affinity for the work the others are doing, they are necessarily two separate projects. One is not dependent on the other, nor should either be considered contingent upon the other. And in the terms that most people here relate to, “establishing alternatives” to psychiatry is not a prerequisite for fighting to abolish it, however one defines that.

  • Perhaps the better analogy is if I said I see large corporate contributions are dangerous to our society, and the person said, “You only believe that because you’re a socialist.”

    Actually a socialist in my view would not see “corporate contributions” as overly relevant, at least if you’re talking about elections, as elections are also red herrings.

    But what would be wrong nonetheless about holding an opinion due to one’s socialism? So my response to that supposed “accusation” would be along the lines of “Duh…”

    the term “antipsychiatry”…is USED by psychiatric proponents as a means of discrediting someone. I don’t think they care what YOU think about the term, they use it in a way to try and convince other people that you’re irrational. That’s the problem.

    It’s not a problem at all, unless you’re unsure of something yourself. People talk shit and we expose it as shit, and expose them as either confused or deceptive, which helps enlighten and inspire others and encourage them to resist a little more boldly.

    If people are confused about anti-psychiatry there are plenty of people here to clarify. Enough anyway. So bring it on! 🙂

  • OK I get it, I think. They want to “help” us to become more effective cogs in their machinery and “deal” with those pesky human issues that hold back progress. A noble and charitable gesture, indeed.

    What can liberate us from this increasingly draconian state of affairs is mass understanding of what psychiatry is and what it does, and that it is not “medicine.” People also need to recognize the inherent bullshit in the “untreated mental illness” rationale for randomly seizing and torturing people. And it is our task to help bring about this sort of consciousness asap.

  • Um, I was right with you until you got in to the genetics (eugenics?) part at the end. Is courage genetically determiined?

    Regardless, thanks for accepting the difficult role you have been assigned by the Universe of messenger/martyr, I don’t envy you. I hope what you are undergoing is worthwhile and useful in widely exposing the totalitarianism and deception inherent in pharmaceutical propaganda/marketing.

    I noticed something else:

    It played a key role that my research team had criticised a Cochrane review of the HPV vaccines published in May 2018.

    Let me guess — Cochrane gave the green light to these vaccines and you challenged that? Because the hysteria directed at those who oppose the mass “vaccination” of children rivals that slung at those who oppose psychiatric drugging. In addition naturopathic and other healers have been mysteriously dying and disappearing for years, with the common factor seemingly their research into the dangers of vaccines. So be careful.

  • I mentioned my first time, which indirectly led to the second time, which was less voluntary — that was the full nine yards with screaming sirens, ambulances, jail cells, court commitment and Mellaril. The admitting shrink asked me if I heard voices too — “I hear yours” I said, and I was on my way; the rest is history.

  • @Frank — I asked about abolishing psychiatry (in principle, means to be determined), not ending forced “treatment”; your position on this is pretty clear by now. (Though you can see from discussions here recently that many do not accept the existence of truly non-coercive psychiatry.)

    @ Steve — MIA has never taken an anti-psychiatry stance per se; however recently RW has been actively disparaging such, which is pretty contradictory since all his research as well as most of what appears on MIA would lead a logical and consistent person to become vociferously anti-psychiatry.

  • Hope you didn’t choke on your scone! 🙂

    Always nice to discover a new level of paranoia.

    This is why it’s important for everyone to learn how to deconstruct psychiatry and communicate what they know to the masses in understandable terms, rather than waiting for symbolic “leaders” to publish books, give speeches and get disappeared. Once the barn door’s open and the information is out it is futile to target the messenger; everyone is a messenger.

  • The harm of psychiatry has long been exposed. What needs to be understood is exactly how it functions to oppress people and how this supports the neo-imperialist beast. And how there is no answer but socialism, to start.

    Unless you once lived in China or Cuba what you call socialism is probably different than what I’m talking about. Not that it exists in either of those places anymore either, though Cuba is probably a little closer. But psychiatry will be used to prop up any oppressive system, faux-left or right. It was “still there” because class divisions had not really been erased despite the “socialism” tag.

  • With all respect Steve this is pretty offensive. I and many others PROUDLY consider ourselves anti-psychiatrists, so many of us that we even have factions, all of whom would be angry at the notion that the term we embrace would be considered an “ad hominem.” The only people who would consider it such are those beholden to psychiatric ideology. The same people who talk about “pill-shamers.”

    If you are anti-psychiatry you are an anti-psychiatrist. If you are a Scientologist this is a description, not an insult. How other people react to the obvious is their responsibility.

  • Surviving & Cat — I’m not necessarily calling it selling out as MIA has never really claimed otherwise from what I can see, though I wasn’t here at the start. I find it useful in helping people develop anti-psych consciousness, even that is far from MIA’s stated purpose.

    On a related note, I am wondering who among the survivors around here considers themselves to be “abolitionists” at this point in time. Hands?

  • a psychosocial service that can recognize the value-laden aspect of existing psychiatric terms, and would help wearing down psychiatry by transfering power into the hands of people who abide to a radically different understanding of individual distress and social malaise.

    You seem to think that people are beholden to psychiatry because of some sort of intellectual debate about ideas. However like all aspects of capitalist culture it is backed up and enforced by corporate guns, and is in fact itself a weapon in service of capitalism. Psychiatry should have no power; “transferring” such power to people with “better ideas” (which you seem to advocate) would not confer legitimacy upon those forces, and would most likely create an additional obstacle to defeat.

    Socialist revolution IS the ultimate “social service.” Everything else is at best prelude.

  • Hallucination is a medical issue since it can be caused by brain damage – by your own admission. It is therefore a legitimate concept.

    Whether it’s a legitimate concept is irrelevant; if it’s induced by brain damage it is irrelevant to psychiatry, it’s then in the domain of neurology.

  • Telling someone else their beliefs are wrong may very well be cause for being moderated.

    I hope you will want to walk this back or rephrase it. Just about every discussion here involves people telling one another that their beliefs are wrong, and explaining why they believe so. If someone touts the medical model or supports drugging someone will (hopefully) be telling them this is wrong (or incorrect). Likewise if someone believes that 2+2=7. Otherwise conversation is meaningless.

    Were you perhaps thinking specifically about religious beliefs?

  • Yeah, what to do about the people who complain about all the horrid things they “have to do”?

    I did have an ethical psychotherapist who quit the state institution I was in following an oppressive incident and after that taught her students that the best way to make someone crazy is to put them in a “mental hospital”; such people are the exception but they do exist. Which is why we’re fighting a system, not individuals trapped in it.

    I do think one or two letters from MIA pros could have a valuable effect here.

  • I think they need to know that you have a community of support and a wide readership, if only so they don’t decide that your MIA affiliation is part of your “delusional system.” This is your choice of course, but it looks like not much else is working. If we were further along in survivor organizing efforts we could put more pressure on them. But I think MIA professionals in particular should rise to the occasion here. And I’m sure others would write letters if they knew where to send them. I think if these people were aware of how much light you are shining on them, even as they (to date) remain unidentified, they might suddenly become more reasonable. Perhaps Bruce might highlight you in an article as a current example of anti-authoritarian thinking being suppressed and punished by psychiatry.

    Then again you might not need the pressure of public recognition; since you already seem to have quite an audience I thought I’d mention it.

  • The idea that psychotherapy — at best a “band-aid” measure beset by contradiction — could be a tool for revolution is laughable. The commodification of human experience serves neoliberalism very well.

    Additionally the term “neoliberal capitalism” is similar to the term “biological psychiatry”; both imply that the particular “brand” of capitalism or psychiatry is what is significant — as though there were some “better” form of capitalism than the “neoliberal” kind, or a better form of psychiatry than the “biological” kind. In the case of both capitalism AND psychiatry, ALL forms need to be swept away.

  • We are all familiar with the horror stories, as they are our own. But trying to solve unsolvable problems generated by capitalism without dealing with capitalism, or by treating it as an abstraction, is just another dead end, and trying to solve them at an individual level is not activism, but social work, and futile as well.

    Abolishing psychiatry is like abolishing the death penalty, torture, slavery, etc. We don’t need “alternatives” to any of these sorts of things, and addressing the personal pain of their individual victims can not be used as a guilt trip or excuse to avoid the main goal, which is to end the source of that victimization. But an effective guilt trip it is, and continues to psychically neutralize many of us who should be identifying not as “peers” but as freedom fighters and comrades.

  • The “laws” of physics seem to be pretty fluid once you get past the material plane. Newtonian physics only seem to apply within certain parameters, and much of what we consider obvious apparently does not apply at other levels of focus. Such is the stuff of quantum physics, which I don’t pretend to understand, though it makes me think a reconsideration of or at least a slight adjustment to the concept of “dialectical materialism” may be in order.

    Your particular “mythology” seems as viable as probably infinite personal variations of the same sort of transcendent consciousness.

  • OK for all her other valuable insights, someone with more info than I needs to fill Ekterina in about Scientology; she’s really drinking the Kool-Aid here. But it’s starting to come across like this is my personal grudge or something.

    So where are the folks who usually chime in with these “Scientology” discussions?

  • Every time I read your latest personal installment I am filled with astounded outrage. What country are you in (though I know I should know by now)?

    You must have a bad — or ill-informed — lawyer, not that this would be a shock, as few lawyers know how challenge the catch-22 nature of the psychiatric system or its deceptive use of the “mental illness” metaphor and its metastases, or how to cross-examine a shrink without accepting the psychiatric narrative as representing a legitimate field of expertise.

    You are totally lucid and your rage totally rational, and I think you are being exceptionally patient.

    I also think that, if people like RW and some of the “progressive” psychiatrists and mh people who write here would directly intervene by contacting his overseers, Eric’s situation might change for the better. Especially if an expose is published (or feared) citing this institution’s name and the way people are sucked up into essentially a torture program.

    As for the candle, I think I would have insisted my lawyer demand an explanation, and in lieu of that would have stood up and politely asked the judge to do so himself.

    the second is that I use my intelligence in service of my own ideas

    I think this means to him that your independent thought, i.e. your “delusions” are harder to invalidate because you have them so well thought out. Otherwise he is accusing you of being a functional human being.

    Do these people read your MIA articles and people’s responses?

  • “Hallucination” is a legitimate concept.

    However one defines “hallucination” (which philosophically gets into what is considered “real”) it is not a medical issue unless caused by brain damage, at which point it is outside the realm that psychiatry claims as its own.

    On “psychology” — you are correct, I’ve said seemingly contradictory things. The suffix “-ology” generally connotes “study of,” and I see nothing that should be exempted from study. The “psychology” I referred to as psychiatry’s evil twin is what is often called “clinical” psycholgy, i.e. psychiatry light. (Has anyone ever heard of “clinical astronomy” or “clinical trigonometry”?)

  • @oldhead, no one seeks freely psychiatry

    I know that — please explain it to Frank.

    There are exceptions, depending on what you mean by “freely” — is it really a “free” choice if the entire social milieu is permeated with psychiatric propaganda?

    First time I saw a shrink I actually demanded my mother take me — I thought he would scold her for bringing me up in an emotionally/sexually repressed environment. The joke was sure on me! 🙂

  • Psychiatry is a tool of repression and social control, not medicine, so to treat it as though it’s a failed form of medicine or social service is very poor strategy. Something flawed in its basic assumptions is not “reform”-able. No matter what the form it’s still a pile of shit.

  • I’m not so much antipsychiatry as I am anti-mental-health-system

    OK at least you’re getting more specific; but exactly where or how do you make this distinction? (Being as the “mental health” system is essentially the extension of psychiatry into a gulag, and there is no element of it not controlled by psychiatrists and/or psychiatric ideology.)

  • The problem here is that some people freely seek psychiatry, and don’t have it imposed upon them from the outside.

    This is where education comes in. Perhaps such people should be forced to sign a waiver indicating they understand they are engaging in a discredited and potentially lethal endeavor (like the warnings on cigarettes)? Anyway, abolition does not necessitate force of law, but it would be a start.

  • If none of “these terms” have legitimacy, that’s a lot of vocabulary to overhaul.

    Tell me about it! 🙂 Though once the fraudulent principles behind them are exposed they should pretty much disappear in one fell swoop.

    As for “madness,” it’s fine as poetry but not much else; certainly not an “alternative” term for “mental illness.” Looking for such misses the point, which is to deconstruct the entire context even beyond Szasz — maybe even find that unlikely-sounding Szasz-Marx synthesis and an understanding of psychiatry in the context of alienation and repression. Or something like that.

    Yes, “psychosis” falsely implies a disease state, but why should we respect that? You seem to imply that psychiatry can be “put out of business” by competing with it on its own terms, which involves the illusion that human misery can be addressed as a series of individual problems to be addressed individually, rather than a collective malaise to be addressed politically, based on the exponentially accelerating reduction of humanity to our literal worth in dollars and cents.

    Tactically, I think psychiatry should be attacked from all angles, but we should be sure that it’s really an attack and not an adjustment.

  • You are saying that David Cooper’s brand of antipsychiatry is false, and OldHead’s brand of antipsychiatry is true.

    Nope. I’m saying that when Cooper used the term “antipsychiatry” he was not talking about abolishing psychiatry but pushing his own brand of psychiatry. So when I use the term I’m not discussing the same subject, it’s not even a matter of disagreeing about something.

  • Sigh. I’ll repeat (or “clarify”):

    Yes I embrace the term and Szasz didn’t. My point was that functionally speaking, words aside, Szasz was more clearly anti-psychiatry than Cooper. I see nothing that Cooper did to actually fight psychiatry beyond preemptively appropriating the term. Maybe you can educate me. I remain of the view that Cooper’s “antipsychiatry” was not anti-psychiatry in practice. As for Szasz’s contradictions, I am neither defending nor judging them; he is what he is, or was.

  • Yeah, you’re not helping Sinead by diagnosing her though. I’ve always liked her, though she seems to disappear from the public eye for long periods, not that I’m paying attention. She did a rap on the Irish potato famine that was educational, pointing out that the only reason the Irish were living on potatoes anyway is that the British took all the good stuff.

  • Just to jump into this again, it seems to me that ultimately psychiatry — and any “psychotherapy” — does take a religious position when it makes any sort of definitive statement about death, which it generally does by default if at all. But consider the interaction one might go through with a lifelong shrink or therapist who is about to die about what death means, its significance, its reality, the fate of consciousness, etc. — can anyone even pretend that these are scientific or medical issues, and not spiritual/philosophical ones?

  • We do not ignore it, but we know about it and reject it. (Though some give it too much power by getting hysterical about it.)

    Psychiatry is one institution of many, but one of the most virulent; it is a key institution of repression, whereby people are coached to blame their reaction to an inhuman system as the problem, rather than the system itself.

  • Once labeled as deviant, the person will be stigmatized by society…Self-stigma is created when people who have been labeled as “mentally ill” internalize the experience of stigma, experiencing low self-esteem and low levels of self-efficacy.

    A lot of words could be saved here, as this is the essence of the situation: Stigma is bigotry directed at those who have been subjected to psychiatric hate speech, i.e. “diagnosis.” Many people internalize this hate speech and start to hate themselves. Ergo: Eliminate psychiatric labeling and the problem of “stigma” has been solved.

    See how easy that was?

  • Solution for real life: Abolish psychiatry, abolish capitalism. The solution (the start of one anyway) is revolution. Providing false solutions because people ask for “help” is not helping.

    Also, the fact that you would seriously attempt to draw us into a discussion about the pros & cons of Scientology shows that you have many more connections to make. Which is fine. But for many here this is going over old territory.

  • No no no. “Peer workers” operate almost without exception (Stephen G. being one, and I think he’ll bear me out) to keep people hooked into the “mental health” system and encourage compliance. Whatever usefulness they may have based on their experience is largely negated by their operating as part of the system which oppresses us, hence perpetuating it. Plus they are being paid by the same system we are trying to eliminate; hardly a promising combination. (Again, this is a systemic statement, not a personal one.)

  • I don’t know what this is in response to. Scientology is hardly a religion though, so I wouldn’t put in in the same category as the others (unless you also accept the Universal Life Church as a religion). However they are in competition with psychiatry for the same demographics, hence their expert deconstruction of psychiatric mythology. Still I don’t consider those who simply want their slice of the “crazy” pie to be truly anti-psychiatry.

    (Btw when a thread has no more “reply” buttons, just reply to the last one available and your response will be the next post.)

  • Actually Cooper embraced the term. But except for Szasz they were more interested in being “radical intellectuals” than aobolishing psychiatry. Ironically, of the whole batch Szasz was the most anti-psychiatry — ironic because he rejected the term himself. I think this was because of a) his wanting to dissociate from leftsts such as Cooper; and b) his opposition to government controls.

  • The very definition of faith is the belief in something that cannot be seen.

    Don’t know if that’s actually the definition. “Belief” is an intellectual process. “Faith” to me is beyond belief; it implies an intuitive understanding. William Blake once said something to the effect of truth being something that is understood and not believed, but I may be a little off on that, I’ll try to look it up.

  • NONE of these terms have any legitimacy and they should never be used. Fuck “teams.” We are not dealing with medicine or science here. The only “prescription for psychiatry” I would adhere to is for it to declare itself illegitimate, go out of business, and offer reparations to its generations of victims. Though obviously it is not about to do that so the burden falls upon us, which is nothing new. We have nothing to lose but our chains.

    I like poetry too btw. It’s when metaphors are not recognized as such that the deception starts to creep in.

  • I have no problem with the word itself. Psychosis is a state of mind.

    No, can’t go there. Anything ending with “osis” implies a disease state. This is simply a term to describe an infinite collection of personal idiosyncrasies, expressions of pain, etc. which cannot be adequately articulated, and which do not constitute a legitimate “class” of anything. It is used as a way of feigning an understanding of a vast spectrum of thought and behavior which does not conform to accepted standards. (As evidenced by the inability or unwillingness of anyone to define “psychosis.”) It should not be used. (I’m not fond of “madness” either.)

  • There is a lot of criticism of psychiatry but what would be the alternatives? What would be the alternatives for people who ask for help?

    Hi, deinquisiteur pretty much said it all here. I just want to pick a little more at this concept of “alternatives.”

    The only real alternative to something evil is for it to cease existing — slavery or concentration camps for example. So when you talk of “alternatives” to something you imply that it is basically necessary but there are better or optional ways of doing it. This does not fit the bill with psychiatry, because it has no positive function to begin with, unless you accept the lies and pseudoscience, and the idea that the solution is to “go” somewhere for “professional” answers to problems attributable to and inherent in the very structure of capitalist society. Or the idea that there are individual solutions divorced from that context.

    The only legitimate purpose for a “network of survivors” would be to fight to abolish psychiatry (most immediately the forced kind) and support each other along the way — not as “co-counselors” or “peers,” but as comrades in struggle.

  • As an aside, “politically correct” started out as a term mainly used in left political discourse which was appropriated to ridicule the very idea of being politically correct as somehow absurd or totalitarian. (Odd, since they don’t similarly ridicule being “mathematically correct” or “scientifically correct.”) Anyway, when the likes of George H.W. Bush started decrying “the trend towards ‘polltical correctness'” it was clear that the term had lost its usefulness; after all, what would be politically correct in the original understanding of the term would be whatever would most effectively free the planet from domination by people such as him.

    If politics is a science, there’s nothing absurd about wanting to be correct. However what is “correct” politically depends on one’s political goal; what is politically correct if one’s goal is world domination might be different than if the goal were communism.

    In an ironic twist however, many of those who currently consider themselves “leftists” (though I don’t consider them such) have become so dogmatically bonded to rigid terminology and cultish thinking that they have become parodies of themselves, often resembling the stereotypes of “political correctness” ascribed to “the left” by “the right.”

  • How many bombers and mass shooters are women?

    This is accurate in general as far as “mindless violence” is concerned; however women have often been among the ranks of revolutionary freedom fighters (which on balance is a good thing, though I don’t know how it fits into your analysis here). Also women are now praised for fighting in imperialist armies, and rewarded with political office when they return. (Don’t know if I have a main point here, just citing some contradictions.)

  • Some words have more than one definition. This might be one of them (“abolition” is another). Trauma as physical injury and trauma as emotional distress don’t have to automatically be interpreted as variations of the same thing. If one were to be seen as a simile I’m not sure which one it would be; I tend to view trauma more in emotional terms and injury in physical terms.

  • @Steve — not sure I accurately understand what you mean, but it might accentuate my above statement in a way. When words are used which have both literal and more ethereal meanings, such as “trauma,” it becomes a slippery slope. While I can personally relate to the notion of “emotional trauma,” when this gets morphed into treating painful feelings as literal “injuries” requiring a physician’s attention we’re right back into “treating” abstractions with very concrete methods. And we end up with mental/emotional “injuries” rather then “illnesses.” It’s a fine line, wherever it’s drawn.

  • We do have the numbers but they are scattered, disorganized and conflicted at the moment, as anti-psychiatry consciousness on a mass level is still in utero. But I see people’s consciousness growing at MIA as they participate in these ongoing slugfests over the course of months or years, so I know it’s possible.

  • Then start pointing in another direction. Most people are not inherently masochistic or stupid, they just need to make some connections.

    On a related note, if someone told me they were bipolar I would ask them who told them that and why they believe it. That would open the door for exposing the fraudulence of psychiatry and the “mental health” system; exactly how would depend on their response. Then they would have more info with which to make an informed personal decision.

  • While I believe that hunger strikes are generally problematic, both tactically and in principle, and by no measure consider Gandhi to be a hero, this could have a chance of succeeding in garnering some widespread publicity, especially in light of the recent legal victory. Providing that Connie is truly exercising her own volition, and not being egged on in any way, or put in a position where she feels unable to change her mind or end her fast. I would caution that “controlled” hunger strikes don’t get as much publicity, as people get more excited about things with the potential for tragedy — “if it bleeds it leads.” (Don’t blame me, I’m just the messenger.)

    Anyway this sounds like a focused action around a specific issue, which I believe is a good way for the various sectors of the movement to organize at this point in time. I would urge those involved to keep this focus, and not start meandering into other issues. But as it stands I certainly support the effort, and would encourage others to, and convey all sorts of positivity to Connie.

  • Acting as if and (for lack of better words) capitulating to the notion that the public somehow has the right to choose to support and participate in a mass medical scam, must be unraveled as non-nonsensical and deeply problematic

    I like where you’re going with this — you should try to develop and articulate it a little better. 🙂

  • I think grammatically speaking “counterproductive” is part of a separate phrase, not the 3rd piece of a triple negative. But the phrasing is a bit awkward, though correctly conveying “not making someone uncomfortable” as an action, not just an effect. If that makes any sense. (Though Groucho’s statement isn’t THAT convoluted either, it means that he does disagree.)

  • Or as we were discussing earlier, one person’s anti-authoritarian is another person’s thief.

    What I think is being glossed over is that Bruce’s article stresses illegitimate authority, it does not oppose the very idea of authority. So it would seem that people’s most likely angles of debate here might be either a) challenging the very notion of “legitimate” authority; and/or b) the legitimacy/illegitimacy of various current or proposed forms of authority. There seems to be a tendency developing of equating “authority” with “authoritarianism.”

  • No. They did NOT stop listening because of anything you said “wrong,” but their own need to remain in denial. You obviously are blaming yourself for others’ ignorance and misdeeds. If they stop listening that doesn’t mean you should stop speaking the truth. Though actually I doubt they were listening in the first place.