Anti-psychiatry

fwiw i doubt that its disability and inadequacy that bothers your people. maybe tolerance of inadequacy and disability. so quite where you could fit in in all this, is a question.

usually. but i'm not offended and you are inventive enough to ignore iyswim

Anyway, to end this derail

I only posted on Kraepelion because to encourage Bodach to read it. Its a fair enough description of thwe sort of problems that I have encountered. Tho I haven't gotten as angry at staff as you, Bodach, so I guess that it could be different from the sort of problems that you have encountered.

I don't know if you are malignant lazyriser. I have "been friends" some "horrible" people before, and if you are and Devrim was right to question you're contributions, then you can'r be good for working class prospects, or culture.

I'll fuck off to another board if the admins ask in a a way that is fair; and thats all I can offer I'm afraid. Trying to make my posts make sense to someone with a totally different brain gives me a headache. So I'll can't promise I'll try

Suppose that was another derail.

In what way is psychiatry for the ill if they don't want to be treated?

One could argue that we know whats good for them and they don't. But its just not structured to give ill people what they forgotten that they need. A home, understanding, people.

Its structured so as to try and give them particular things i.e. sanity. But who's to say that sanity has any good initself? If it doesn't then

Is there something good initself about being sane? That question can be answered only by considering how the value we put on sanity is we look at the links there are with it and other good e.g. not murdering, not poverty. This is a question as to whether individuals pracitically have to treat sanity as being inherently valuable in order to avoid society being poor, and not murdering people. Can people get rich without treating irrationality as inherently bad (not just instrumentally bad).

If you have to think its inherently good to get other goods, then people are right to argue that its ok to force rational thinking on people only if its a universal good.

But anyway even if it was shown that people in general have to think that sanity is inherently good to get other things they value, is sanity universally a good thing. Not all inherently good things are, e.g. it may be for some inherently good not to lie to people who love you, but is this something that can be applied to all relationships.

And then you have to ask whether it is ever ok to force a good that someone doesn't want, onto someone.

If any of those problems can't be argued, then it would seem that its not good for mad people to be forced into psychiatric services, and its only good for society. And you've got to ask whether its ok to still do so. That is, can you single out a group to be ok to use extreme and life-long methods that forcibly prevent suicide, because its good for society. I suppose you could argue that its not ineherntly better to be sane but that its not for society that we stop suicides, its for the suicidal. But then its only ok to stop suicides and not ok to force sanity on them over and above what you have to to avoid them killing themselves. Which just is not what how psychiatry work ime.

And even if you take the last option (not inherently good, but ok to single out psychotics to avoid them killing themselves) you've got to ask whether something which has no moral status can be used to single out a group for consideration in deciding which actions are prescribed to us (i.e. is it ok to single out something that has no value as a way to demarcate people in consideration of acts that are moral. E.g. is it ok to say that we are morally obliged to give people with brown eyes a gift, if doing so will improve society as a wholek, when having brown eyes has no value. Is that sentence illogical, like a naturalistic fallacy).

I didn't say that anyone was out to get me, just that if the nentally incapable are not wanted on libcom, then I will leave as a good example. And that does seem to be what you're posts are asking.

Same goes for LeedsSolfed. If they don't want mentally incapable people in their tiny tiny grouo then its not a big deal not to get inviolved with them. You may have triuble stopping me from posting about socialism on Urnabn75, but I would imagine that your people won't be put off by some crank that has nothing to do with real living socialism. I mean, these are only the polite things to do, considering that mentall incapable people are screwing over the "working classes". Which is what you said.

Well lets celebrate that fact!

Either you want less mentally capable people here, or you don't!. Of course I won't leave unless the admins/LedsSolfed agree. But that'll leave you with a problem with the admins/solfed. So we may see you fit in with your people after all!

Lol.

Anyway I may be without taste, but there seems to be very little substance to your posts, afterall. Unless you do want mentally disabled people out of socialism.

Maybe you are right, can the compassion junkies only need state their intolerance, rather than a purge.

LeedsSolfed seem ok: tho they too seem reluctant to persue being an acquaintance of mine. For why this is I do not know. But my specific problems are just a derail from the actual OP.

That was either a really out of order thing to say. Or you do believe that its mentally ill people's fault that no-one is a socialist. On the assumption that you don't just post to wind people up, whcih is it to be: a mass purge; or rjust their ritual himiliation.

I think you're starting to contradict yourself tbh. One minute you say it the mentally incapable's fault, the next you don't...you're on kinda shaky ground imo, as in i've offered a purge, but you don't accept: so it must just be a way to get your kicks.

Be careful, or I'll post up a list of your "chronic aversions" lazy riser

fwiw i don't think this site has become more of a support group than any ofther internrt bb. Of course you can be the judege of the little rlmeetnigs that you must be so fond of. When you srart throwing around words like "incapable" and "inadequate" there is something slightly "demeaning" about your posts, you are right. But i'll just sit back and watch you fuck up your life still further, and wonder how it is that you are so different from me, except of course, to te very worse kind of moralists.

BlessWell I assume... otherwise I don't see what you're complaining about. Your "incendiary" op seemed deeply bitter about things.

If your life isn't miserable, and anonymous, then why is socialism's failure such a problem to you?

I'm not sure what you are saying here? That your life is an obscurity, but you have your fame in real living socialism?

If so, that seems to extend to simply an ability to humilate. Unless, of course, you do want the mentally incapable our of real living socialism (read, of course, as that you don't want to have to look at the disabled. Cos socialism failure is a non-problem to the non-person behind your posts).

So if you want to force the incapable away from being around you then....

of course its much more likely that you are just full of hot air.

I don't know if there's much of a point still talking to you. You are so full of contradictions that I can only conclude that you're trying to make yourself feel better because you are worried that people perceive you as inadequate.

I'll just say one more time, that I don't understand why you brought this up unless you wanted something to change. Are your expectations really so low, do your posts really lack any substance, that you don't want the mentally incapable out of living socialism?

Yawn. Don't worry lr: no-one's perfect.

As will notice at no point have I actually mentioned you

Yes yes. Can we leave this now, I have no desire to be humiliated. I only suggest that if you want to help socialism to have a word with the admins etc. and I'll leave it like that.
------------------------
Wrt Krapelein. Funny, maybe his descriptions of schizpohrenia are more relevent to my case becasue I'm trapped in some kind repeat of 1912: when the book was written.