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?

presidenting is hard :: these people are not your friends

hello mr. president! a while back, i promised that i would periodically be giving you some advice on how to do your job, since you seem a little unclear on how everything works. i didn't mean to go so long between missives, but the fact is that i've been busy and you're administration has been in overdrive giving me things to write about. what i've realised is that many of those things are ones i can't help you with: if you or anyone in your immediate circle worked with russians to compromise the 2016 election, that shit is done. robert mueller is going to find that out, because he's the kind of person who looks like the theme from dragnet just automatically starts playing every time he enters a room. so that's your problem. i'm just here to talk to you about what you can do now that you are, by law, the president. because, while chief detective mueller is doing his thing, we all need to live with your decisions. i'm even less happy about that than…

write brain

i was talking to a friend of mine about coffee, specifically about our mutual need for coffee, yesterday and, literally as i was in the middle of a thought, an idea occurred to me that i felt like i had to note. so there i am, scribbling a note to myself that was really just a word salad of related terms, which i later transformed into a weird but more comprehensible note that i could refer to later. [i don't want another beatriz coca situation on my hands.] i feel like this idea isn't a story on its own, but something that i could incorporate into a larger project, which is good, because i have a few of those.

now, of course, i need to sit down and do research on this, because it's become terribly important to me that the details of this weird little idea that i'm planning on incorporating into a larger thing be totally plausible, even though no one but me is ever going to care. i'm increasingly convinced that the goal of every writer is to find someone who will t…

luck of the irish?

i like st. patrick's day. i like the fact that there is a holiday that celebrates celtic-ness and drunkeness at once (you could argue they were pretty close to begin with). in fact, it's probably second only to halloween as my favourite publicly recognised holiday.

so every year, i have to have my little ritual and that ritual involves visiting a pub and partaking of the cheer. i've made attempts at watching parades in various cities, but i've more recently given up that practice because a) eight out of ten times, it's freezing cold and/ or snowing in canada on march 17th and b) the parades seem to consist entirely of trucks carrying people who are as drunk as i would be, if i weren't freezing my tush off watching them. so i've backed off the parade in recent years.

however, a visit to the pub, the longer the better, is still an important thing for me.

next year, however, i'm going to have to plan things a little better.

first of all, i didn't …