Well yeah, I was the same because at 18 I didn’t understand how to think yet. Also because I hadn’t experienced those who never learned. At 31 I cherish the education I tried to avoid in my teens.

And it’s ironic because once I let that go my grades improved. Professors wanted me to think for myself and do something weird, but only when I thought for myself.

He spent 4 years damaging it and between him and the pandemic it still hadn’t recovered resilience.

The FAA obviously

That last one sounds very “I’m terrified I’m a bad person and need reassurance but also need to try to lighten it”

True, but that more or less applies to all religions. The problem is that it’s never just the wisdom of the beatitudes or the Tao Te Ching. At a certain point they start asking you to believe this guy rose from the dead, and a lot of us just don’t buy it

Yeah a lot of them are pretty open about going to Christianity because they’re directionless. It offers purpose, direction, and community. That all is something the left has struggled to provide to these people (but it absolutely can). So yeah, talk to the directionless young men in your life about food not bombs and union organizing or the right will.

Yeah he looks like a decent chunk of every bdsm community I’ve known

Maybe but I feel like food not bombs aee busy with the food thing

I wonder if anyone with a lactation kink has made cheese out of it…

It’s Ubuntu based, but it’s doing a lot of what Ubuntu is for. If canonical is happy with that that’s awesome, but I would suspect that they want these people going to Ubuntu itself. Ubuntu remains recommended against by a lot of people.

I believe society also has an obligation to step in, but with an open hand and possibly some incentives, not with a display of force. And yes, involuntarily institutionalizing someone is a display of force.

And my questions remain: define insanity as it is something you are willing to deny self determination to someone over and decide where the limits are in each direction. And the fact that you didn’t acknowledge the study I linked to the Wikipedia page for says a lot. The Rosenhan Experiment is a large part of why we drastically cut down on forced institutionalizations in the US, because psychiatrists were not getting the consistency in diagnosis to justify what they were doing.

Insanity isn’t a single thing, its a values based severity and pattern judgement of mental behavior that people make. A person with delusions is one of the archetypal “insane” people and yet some of them can hold a job and seem fine until the topic of aliens comes up. A person with executive function disorders may struggle to hold down a job while being fully aware and desiring to do so, but the idea of a padded cell may be so horrifying to them that they’d rather risk dying outside to it (and yet these disorders are quite common in significantly milder forms). Hallucinations are extremely stigmatized, but also in their mildest form they’re just normal (hearing your name in random noises for example). A person who chooses to live in a van traveling and performing for little money even when they have far more successful opportunities may be called insane by some, and I’m strongly suspicious that the ratio is dependent on their performance skills.

That’s before it gets political. To a person in China, Patrick Henry might be declared insane for asserting that if he cannot be given liberty then he should be given death. There are sitting congresspeople who want to institutionalize critics of the president and trans people. If you grant the power to institutionalize people without strict limits and controls you create a weapon of repression.

A person who speaks out against the party in a totalitarian regime may lose their job and home, and in such a case insanity and integrity may become identical. Hell someone in the 1970s insisting that the government is attempting to mind control people by dosing them with LSD and is infiltrating left wing organizations to disrupt them. At the time that was insane conspiracy theorism, today that’s American history thanks to the reveal of MK ULTRA and COINTELPRO. A hundred and fifty years ago you could be institutionalized for shit that horrifies people today.

The fact is, I’m comfortable with risking that some people die if it means everyone has more freedom from excesses in government force. I already accepted it with criminal justice as a part of my opposition to the absurd sentences America has and our fear of recidivism. I don’t want that person you talked about to suffer, I’d much rather that she get help. But when you give the government or medical institutions the power to lock up those they deem irrational and incapable of making their own choices you give them the power to strip freedoms from those they choose.

There’s a lot of writing on this, much of it is from those with a history of mental illness. I highly recommend reading some to better argue against it.

You can tell it isn’t real because everyone in Youngstown in a mafioso

I think that’s an incredibly risky philosophical position to take that should be examined in conjunction with discussing it with people of varying mental illnesses and recovery statuses.

Especially when we discuss the sane choosing for the insane we run the risk of unknown cruelty. Mentally well people have a long history of assuming they know what’s best for the unwell and in doing so accidentally doing something harmful. Things like criticizing the bodies of anorexic people, shaming those struggling with executive function, blunt refutation of delusion, basically whatever Phil McGraw does on his show.

So is it anyone with a mental illness that refuses treatment that can be institutionalized? Only certain disorders/symptoms? Only certain severities? Will we know it when we see it or will we accept that some people who seem like they should be won’t be or vice versa? Are we comfortable with the risks of abuse of power here? What about the weight of bias from the part of the mental health professionals assuming anyone in front of them must be unwell? In diagnosis there is no madman’s advocate, even when the cost of diagnosis is difficult to distinguish from imprisonment.

If you look at his other comment you start to see why people don’t reach out. I’ve never been in custody, I’ve always known that no matter how bad it is, inpatient care rarely helps. I’m rare in that I know someone who has been helped by it, but I know multiple people who were hurt by it.

Forcing people into inpatient care is dangerous for the sane and insane alike. There’s a long history of pathologizing dissenters and locking them up for it. But also locking people up against their will, in a system that those who volunteered for it often regret doing so, is not conducive to improving mental health.

You have to improve the system, fix it so a traumatized veteran would rather be receiving care than living on the streets. Once reaching out becomes the thing that those who’ve recovered from mental illness recommend doing rather than recommending against, then we can begin discussing ways to push the unwilling towards treatment.

May be possible.

“A far future construction of a dyson sphere may be possible, but remains highly unlikely.”

Quite/entirely/absolutely necessary. Quite is better for the negative while the other two are better for the positive.

“It’s not quite necessary that you bring a dish to the potluck, but it is requested that all who can do so”

“It’s absolutely necessary that you file your taxes by the deadline lest you risk an audit”

Every Midwesterner in the pnw laments the sky not trying to kill us here. It’s lovely and I love it here, but the storms that feel like the end of the world are beautiful and wonderful

Nah you’re right on both points, though I think both alternatives have their merits. I can enjoy the occasional bag of rye chips as a special treat. And I can enjoy the PNW months of rain instead of winter

Eris up to new shit

Legalize the gay bomb