Michael

Question for you - was my response to the other commenter argumentative? I was trying to agree with them and expand on the point so if it came off differently I’d actually like to know that!

I just checked. I don’t feel that you were argumentative, no. But even if you were perceivably, I think it’s reasonable and rational to feel big feelings about sensitive subjects like this - especially considering your lived experience. This is personal to you and it matters to you. You care about the truth and you want to clear things up. Even if you were angry writing that, I suggest not blaming yourself. Give yourself a pat on the back for all the progress you’ve made. I see it.

I feel that censoring our feelings is harmful - we have to respect them. I believe for true mental health, we have to elevate and honor our feelings. Numbing, suppressing, or blaming/shaming ourselves for feeling feelings is harming ourselves. Is anger your highest expression? Or is it causing you to hit a wall? I’ve been facing that wall a lot in my life, and I realize now that I was the one erecting the wall. I chose anger and frustration instead of all the things I actually wanted to feel, do, and express.

I think that of all discussions, especially online it’s too easy to have arguments rather than discussions and part of that is also recognizing who is worth engaging with and who is really just not going to be receptive no matter how respectfully you communicate. That’s a hard part of these discussions online!

Yes, I feel this difficulty. I have engaged with people who I believe have used AI to discredit my points and argue in bad faith. I have engaged with people who insult me in every way they can, while skirting rules on civility. It’s exhausting, but I knew what I was walking into each time. I chose to engage with them in debate and challenge their beliefs. My lesson was that you can’t change somebody who isn’t open to change, no matter how sound your argumentation is and how much good faith you have - especially in an impersonal space like the fediverse.

Even if you don’t want to engage directly with a commenter, you can feel free to chime in and respond to their comments when you see misinformation. By not pointing fingers, by not shaming them, by remaining neutral, by keeping it short and simple/condensed as much as possible - we can diffuse the confusion and minimize the effort spent. Passionate emotional exchanges carry charged energy and are hard to parse or engage with, from a bystander’s perspective. If we see a bot, or somebody acting in bad faith openly - in defiance to the rules, it’s likely best to move on if mods refuse to take action and maintain the space’s integrity.

It’s such a big conversation with so many moving parts; society, culture, financial, government, lived experience that ALL need to be involved in how we move forward if we want to see real change. Part of the struggle, I believe, is that there are a lot of people who may see change as an admittance of being wrong - which sometimes, yes it is. Sometimes it’s been just being wilfully ignorant, sometimes it’s been based on the available research, it’s a sliding scale of errors. That acknowledgement that professionals make errors (not just in individual cases, including research limitations and the wider systemic issues) seems to be a really big barrier I see.

💯

I have not heard of this Soteria Paradigm - I will look that up now, thanks for sharing!

It’s awesome stuff.

Lastly, I’m not sure about you but I’m not American. I’m Australian. I think this discussion is very much global and nowhere (that I know of!) has mental health, or wider, healthcare “right”. There’s a lot of progress to be made everywhere.

It definitely is global. There is a lot of progress to be made for sure. Take care and much love to you! Hope to see you around on the fediverse.

A lesson I learned recently is acceptance. Not everybody has the will or ability to see the full picture by themselves, and I certainly don’t believe I have the full picture as an outsider looking into to the system - with no medical training or formal education/experience working in mental health.

I believe that we have to all be compassionate and patient for the best outcome to emerge. Every moment can be a teaching moment for ourselves and others.

Of course, I recognize the harm in misinformation and the amount of effort it can take to challenge it. When we speak about topics we don’t know head from tail about, it does have the real potential to drown out the signal. I believe it has across our discussion forums and discourse as a whole.

It’s important to recognize that we live in a society though, and if more people calmly, succinctly (and with the best intentions) identified misinformation and gently corrected it - there would likely be a less chaos and confusion in our discourse. People have the potential to learn from our example and put the lessons we have learned into practice for themselves. This can scale up. Not everybody has to be 100% correct to be speaking to their truth or some truth. The commenter you are responding to is likely reacting to something and I believe it’s helpful to acknowledge their concern and direct it the best we can so they aren’t so confused.

I understand your frustration - I really, truly, do. Your feelings are valid. And to your other points, I am in agreement. Diagnosis is a complicated subject. There is a TON of nuance to explore in that topic. I’m a neurodiversity advocate and I am somebody who strongly believes in the benefits of diagnosis to those who willfully seek help and support.

I believe mental healthcare is a limited approach in the form that it is currently taking. It’s disconnected from society at large, it is disconnected from our communities, it has the potential to disconnect those treated from themselves. It is extremely costly to access in most cases - I don’t believe it’s healthy for society to put people in debt for wanting to heal and improve - to relieve their crisis. We need to approach it differently. We need to call upon those working in the field to acknowledge the collective trauma that very clearly exists in themselves, which most certainly affects the standard of care.

As I mentioned to another commenter who responded; please check out the Soteria House paradigm. They have done incredible work and I believe there are many lessons that we all can learn from that model of mental healthcare.

Thanks for engaging! I hope I was of service.

You’re very welcome! There have been many times that I have wished I was in the field transforming it from the inside, but since that doesn’t seem to be my path, I’m just doing my best to encourage others to see the truth for themselves. I’m raising my voice for those that suffer inside oppressive and tyrannical systems, while many willfully turn a blind eye - dismissing their voices and the voices of those that advocate for them.

I really want us as a society and global community to start looking at the iatrogenic damage that is a result of current and past prescribing practices. To see the mechanisms of damage, and truly help these individuals heal. I have read about the incredible struggles and healing journeys some individuals embark on to heal from this sort of damage - most times completely by themselves… I don’t believe that it’s healthy for society that individuals struggle so much to heal damage that was likely in conflict with the Hippocratic Oath from the very beginning.

If you haven’t already, check out the Soteria House model of mental health care! I feel that many of the answers we seek in regards to reform have already been discovered and proven. It just takes a willingness for us to admit the problem and work together to manifest the solution.

While I don’t agree with the previous commenter’s views, really at all, Mad in America does great reporting. They also have lots of personal stories that you can read.

I invite you to expand your awareness beyond your personal experience with psychiatry and come back and tell me if you still don’t think there is abuse, negligence, and fraud in psychiatry:

https://www.madinamerica.com/

And yes, every field has bad actors. Anecdotes are not evidence of widespread corruption and profiteering. I definitely don’t agree with everything that is posted there, but nonetheless there is still a treasure trove of information there to digest.

Do me a favor though, and let the personal stories, blogs, etc. paint a picture. Read until you can’t read anymore. Read from the various accredited people (e.g. psychiatrists) who write on or contribute to Mad in America. Hear what they have to say. Really dig deep into the documented systemic abuse that is written about in detail throughout that website. See the face of activism in psychiatry and mental health. Understand the horrors of forced medication, polypharmacy, involuntary commitment, misdiagnosis, potentially permanent and relatively common side effects (iatrogenic illness) no doctor is able to help with properly (like tardive dyskinesia or akathisia - look at videos of the two conditions, it’s heart-wrenching), and also the rampant sexual/other types of abuse in mental health institutions.

Psychiatry is in dire need of complete reform.

Why is our planet so boring and stupid?

Because billionaires want it to only be interesting and beneficial to themselves and their class.

The intent was clarified within minutes of me responding (and ignored) - and if you look deep, a commenter still asserts that I’m suggesting licenses for all adults.

See: https://lemmy.world/comment/20879263

Can you not see the disconnect and the spin the person is continuing to push? They are suggesting an entirely new system (licenses for all adults) and applying that to me, while I’m over here pointing to something that already exists as a likely implementation: probation terms (which they refuse to address).

I never suggested “offender lists”. I’m not saying probation terms retroactively apply to past offenders, either.

You didn’t say anything about rehabilitation

I clarified that I did mean that umpteen times if you cared to look (including in the edit to the comment you just responded to), but the other commenter refused to listen to the nuance and called it “rhetorical flourishing”.

People have terms for probation. I said that if you are violent and reoffending (domestic abuser) that there should be restrictions for you entering into a new or existing relationship. Which is a viable term for probation to prevent abuse.

The system for probation already exists, I said nothing about licenses or licenses affecting all adults - which the other commenter repeatedly asserts I’m suggesting. It is twisting and it is likely in bad faith.

Just because I’m pointing out just some of the deeply unjust and inherent flaws in your proposal, doesn’t mean it’s spin.

You are saying I’m suggesting it affect “all adults”. That’s false, I gave a very specific example and circumstance for which this could be applied. Probation officers manage almost all aspects of those they are monitoring that are on probation and all adults don’t need to abide by that system.

You realize that you’re not making these arguments on a libertarian forum, right?

Are you seriously suggesting I am a right-wing libertarian for suggesting that there be terms for probation after somebody domestically abuses somebody, especially repeat offenders? Have you ever known somebody on probation or a violent offender and have experience with the systems they go through to reenter society?

The restrictions can be quite harsh and I don’t agree with all of them, but therapy and preventing abuse is desirable after somebody is released from incarceration (and during) for domestic violence.

The vast majority of us here are left wing and not inherently opposed to the concept of government or regulation, yet the vast majority of us here seem very much opposed to your ideas.

They saw your spin and took you at face-value. I’m not hurt.

You replied to yourself and meant to reply to this comment:

Not once did I suggest all adults and I never suggested licensing. Re-read.

Condition. For. Probation. Or. Incarceration. That’s the nuance and it’s not “rhetorical flair”. You misread or you are in bad faith.

Such a system already exists in some individual people’s terms for probation and adults don’t need to get a license.

Probation is an established system. You suggested licensing I’m not engaging with you anymore because that’s not my argument. It’s your spin.

Not once did I suggest all adults and I never suggested licensing. Re-read.

Condition. For. Probation. Or. Incarceration. That’s the nuance and it’s not “rhetorical flair”. You misread or you are in bad faith.

Such a system already exists in some individual people’s terms for probation and adults don’t need to get a license.

You are completely removing the agency of adults to make their own choices

Violent, reoffending adults who specifically engage in domestic violence - and I clarified that it should be as part of their incarceration/probation. Such restrictions already exist in certain cases as terms for probation and it doesn’t always revolve around protecting children.

Probation officers handle this just fine, there is no need for licenses affecting all adults. You twisted what I said, just admit it.

Why couldn’t you just respond like that to me?

The legal mechanisms required to enforce that would be some form of government permission and approval structure, such as licensing.

False.

For example, if one is a sex offender/domestic violence perpetrator in the US, they can be disallowed to have a relationship as part of their probation. Therapy can also be a requirement for probation.

How would the government track an individuals approval for personal private relationships?

How would the government enforce penalties on private citizens who engaged in an unauthorized private relationships?

There are probation officers who handle these cases and violating the terms of probation usually results in a loss of freedom/punishment of the person serving probation.

Never heard of this person, but given that there are accusations against them that are at the forefront of search results I’m unsure if I feel it prudent to expose myself to their works.

Nope. I’m suggesting that people who offend (especially reoffenders) should go to therapy (locked ward) instead of prison and be taught how to be functioning human beings who don’t hurt others, especially those close to them. The sentence would be similar to their incarceration.

What I’m suggesting is akin to a prison sentence and probation (which may have terms and conditions).

You are acting like I’m talking about all people, but I’m limiting this to people who commit violent, domestic crime against others, especially repeatedly.

Just untrue. Your twisting is not reflective of what I was saying at all.

The current system punishes people who commit domestic violence, and chances are, they go straight back to relationships and are incentivized to scare their partner to not report further abuse because they have been taught nothing through their punishment.

You can see my reply to limonfiesta, there is a profound misunderstanding y’all are having. I’m addressing our failing systems, like “criminal justice”, which is a total and complete farce.

Keywords are: violent and reoffending.

I’m suggesting that we actually rehabilitate offenders after they offend to give them better tools to deal with their emotions and relationships to prevent more hurt from happening.

Plenty of people that commit certain crimes have conditions for re-entering society in whole and I don’t think what I’m suggesting is unreasonable.

I’m a firm believer in rehabilitative and restorative justice, not criminal justice/punitive punishment (which is a far cry from justice and punitive justice doesn’t properly disincentivize crime).

Maybe if they are violent and reoffending they should be disallowed from participating in a close, intimate relationship until they receive intensive therapy, which may include medication?

This is just masking a problem that is multi-faceted and the results aren’t really that impressive.

Edit: I am not suggesting a license for private interpersonal relationships, I’m suggesting that we actually rehabilitate prisoners/offenders and give them therapy/mental health treatment. Commenters below are twisting my words and saying I’m suggesting things that are not in the above text, not even a little bit. I quickly stated that I meant this to be a term for probation (which is conditional freedom), not something retroactively applied to past offenders or applied to all adults in the form of a license.

They enabled my switch to Linux and out of Microsoft’s ecosystem with their investments and technology.

I’d reckon that there are few Valve loyalists, but rather a whole bunch of people grateful for their efforts.

You’re fundamentally misunderstanding what this development means for gaming affordability. Not having to buy a scarce, way overpriced Nvidia (or even AMD) external/discrete GPU to play the latest games means that PC gaming is a whole lot cheaper. If game developers are optimizing for hardware like the Steam Machine - budget external graphics cards and iGPUs suddenly become viable again as well.