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?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

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 …