Skip to main content

mental health mondays :: beware of "crazy people"

this is the fourth or fifth time i've started this, but i'm never happy with where it goes, so i'll just keep things brief.

i wanted to write something today on the notion of the "crazy person" who takes a gun and kills a lot of innocent people. i had been meaning to write that because there is obviously an argument about to happen as to the mental state of the man accused of mass murder in aurora, colorado a little more than two weeks ago.

and i wanted to say that it's sad that we generally hear debates about mental capacity only when it's literally a question of life and death, when something has already gone horrifically wrong, especially since people with mental disorders are statistically far more dangerous to themselves than to others, no matter what such instances may lead you to believe.

and i thought it would be good to make the point that the notion of the "lone nut" is perversely comforting, but that a mass murderer is not necessarily suffering from a mental disorder, at least not in the medical sense, and that while you might think that their actions are insane, that does not mean that they aren't perfectly aware of what they are doing, the social laws that they are transgressing and the pain that they are inflicting.

but it seems sort of pointless, because yesterday in wisconsin, someone already made those points for me. someone who doesn't appear to be suffering from any conventional mental disorder and would probably forbid his legal counsel to file an insanity defence if he had not himself been killed.

there are a lot of people with a specific political agenda who will try to convince you that these sorts of acts are always carried out by "crazy people", people who are inescapably other and against whom there is very little defence.

but that's not true. and every time you hear someone describe these killers as crazy, it's important to demand more of an answer. crazy because there was legitimately something wrong with them, in which case it warrants looking at how an earlier intervention could have stopped them? or crazy because you don't agree with what they did, possibly because it makes you or your cause look bad?

the former is a legitimate debate. the latter is sleight of hand at the expense of people who need help. and it's pretty unhealthy. almost crazy.



Comments

I totally agree. As a mentally ill person, I'm offended when people refer to those murderous folks as 'psychotic.' Psychosis is nothing more than impaired perception, seeing/hearing things that are not there or deep-rooted beliefs that are not the case (but must be possible to count). Most who have psychosis have only mild or intermittent symptoms, and they can be as simple as seeing shadows in your vision or hearing white noise but can get very specific and complex. People get this image of what it means but it is completely different.

as long as you're here, why not read more?

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …