It's all kicking off on...

Thank you so much for your compliments Copy Cat! I don't get many! I am also impressed by your writing, and your passion, which to say the least, is in limited supply in our age.

Copy_Cat wrote:Read it, copy cat in italics from link in page above.

My view is that we simply cannot in good conscience condone any form of communication which intends to emotionally satisfy one party at the expense of another. This kind of abuse feels much like the failures of communication and empathy that I see associated with the practice of biological psychiatry and the phenomena that get called “mental illness.”

"Intent"

Well that's a scary one. I got a ticket once that said "intent" to consume a 12 oz budwieser, on the street. How did they know I was not taking it home ???

-----------------------------------------

"When those of us who are able to gently explain the human rights issues at stake, we may find ourselves with powerful new allies! "

??? Its like gently explaining the NAZI holocaust !! I'm going to try doing this, lets make believe its 1940 or something.

Well all this eugenics "strengthen the strain" stuff does kind of make sense on paper considering all the weak people we have to carry as a society, but we should stop and think about how these "genetic undesirables" feel about what we are doing . Is this right or wrong ?


Wait the united states did come help out. Don't know if it had anything to do with gentle explanations.

I don't know I'm just a "copy cat", copy pasting and spreading the word like the guy or gal who made that first link or post that I clicked on when psychiatry was kicking my ass letting me know I was not alone, what was going on and what I was dealing with. and that others were fighting back and I could too.

I didn't like the tone of that whole thing I just read on MIA , that was a bit ###$ ed up.
I just skimmed it a bit the first time and went right over that.


"intent" WTF ?

I do like CCHR , Right in the psychs faces no punches pulled, ever.

As I see it, part of the problem is is that people are actually allowing him to explain away everything he does, when in reality, all the people on there who, quite frankly, have been labelled "bullies" (he keeps on recasting the passion of some people as "bullying", which of course, some in his position is going to do in order to live with the hurt occasioned by his actions. Obviously his empathy doesn't extend to those he excludes and hurts with his words!), should just ignore him. Just like we shouldn't listen to coercive psychiatrists who are obviously emotionally, psychologically and economically invested in manipulating and falsifying reality, the same basically applies to people like that.

The problem as I see it is, the masses (bearing in mind that most of the people on that website are not true outsiders, and certainly not spokespeople for our interests) are eternally biased in favour of the powerful, and any who exhibit the superficial trappings of power, prestige, and authority. This is why coercive psychiatrists and all the rest of the despots in our midst get away with murder, and why that odious character on that website is free to attack (and an attack it is when one strips away the ornamental-linguistic surface) the survivors with exemption.

I will respond to your comments on the next comment, because sometimes, when I write long comments, even though I am logged in, it tells me I can't post a comment because I am now not logged in, and the comment is lost.

Copy_Cat wrote:Read it, copy cat in italics from link in page above.

My view is that we simply cannot in good conscience condone any form of communication which intends to emotionally satisfy one party at the expense of another. This kind of abuse feels much like the failures of communication and empathy that I see associated with the practice of biological psychiatry and the phenomena that get called “mental illness.”

"Intent"

Well that's a scary one. I got a ticket once that said "intent" to consume a 12 oz budwieser, on the street. How did they know I was not taking it home ???

-----------------------------------------

"When those of us who are able to gently explain the human rights issues at stake, we may find ourselves with powerful new allies! "

??? Its like gently explaining the NAZI holocaust !! I'm going to try doing this, lets make believe its 1940 or something.

Well all this eugenics "strengthen the strain" stuff does kind of make sense on paper considering all the weak people we have to carry as a society, but we should stop and think about how these "genetic undesirables" feel about what we are doing . Is this right or wrong ?


Wait the united states did come help out. Don't know if it had anything to do with gentle explanations.

I don't know I'm just a "copy cat", copy pasting and spreading the word like the guy or gal who made that first link or post that I clicked on when psychiatry was kicking my ass letting me know I was not alone, what was going on and what I was dealing with. and that others were fighting back and I could too.

I didn't like the tone of that whole thing I just read on MIA , that was a bit ###$ ed up.
I just skimmed it a bit the first time and went right over that.


"intent" WTF ?

I do like CCHR , Right in the psychs faces no punches pulled, ever.

On the issue of gently explaining to the oppressors this issue, once again, it's just another variation on the theme of intolerance of human differences, which manifests itself in this regards in the way he characterizes as "bullying" and "abusive" the comments and commenters he removes.

Any tyranny depends for its sustenance on the willingness of people to lend their ear to those who exercise and profit from it. It seems to me that a consequence of any power imbalance is that the masses, eternally beguiled by the rhetoric and imagery of power, seem unable to exercise their critical faculties when confronted with powerful figures and their utterances. They prejudge their every word as reasonable, as an entirely accurate representation of the truth. A similar phenomenon can be observed on that web site.

Yeah the article is indeed fffed up, and clearly the work of a singularly conceited individual, the kind of person who is of a species of human being from which coercive psychiatrists and politicians are usually recruited. His comments below the article are equally offensive, but his position within the MIA community confers absolute power to offend others, to attack with impunity.

Yeah, he says "we can't in good conscience condone any form of communication which intends to emotionally satisfy one party at the expense of another. This kind of abuse..." From my perspective, it is he who is using his power to "emotionally satisfy" himself at the expense of those whom he excludes and makes the victims of his delusions of grandeur.

I mean, look at the guy's physiognomy. The configuration of his facial features conspires to give him a look of almost fatuous, even obscene, smugness, and his words only serve to corroborate this impression. Where's he getting his emotional satisfaction from? I'll tell you where, from his role on that website, yet he talks about deriving emotional satisfaction at others expense!

You aren't even allowed to discuss moderation decisions supposedly!

Anyone who values their intellectual and emotional freedom would steer well clear of that site. He should go back to Stalinist Russia, his natural habitat.

I find particularly vomit-inducing his peremptory commandments. It's like his own version of the Ten commandments. No wonder (as one can see from even the most cursory examination of his photo) he models himself on Jesus. Perhaps it betrays his own narcissistic sense of identification with the son of god, although he seems to thinks he is both father and son. Maybe he is just abusing the internet for the indulgence of his own god complex.

He says, "Shaming is not productive." He himself said it! What is it exactly he is doing when he dismisses a large portion of the comments by survivors or however they want to identify themselves, as bullies and verbal abusers? I'll tell you what, he is shaming people whom he is in some way he is in conflict with, and if he had an understanding of the psychology of human conflict, he would know that shaming is an inevitability of relations between conflicting parties. Who will control the controller?

He also refers, in a comment with barely concealed contempt, to language disagreements, whereby survivors challenge the language of others. Yet that is all they are doing, challenging that language, and the assumptions and presuppositions contained therein. This is hardly surprising on a website run by Robert Whitaker, who uncritically uses psychiatric words to verbalize his sentiments and attitudes, without realizing that words also shape our attitudes and sentiments, that there is reciprocity between thoughts and words, and at least often, in my opinion, can be taken as identification with the oppressors when one chooses to frame an issue in their strategically formulated idiom.

He says that one of the scariest things in life is all the uncertainty. It's obviously not that scary for he, otherwise he would abstain from imposing his beliefs on others and would value free, open discussion, cognisant of the fact that he is human after all, and like the rest of us, heir to all the follies, inadequacies, and limitations that the human mind entails. Just like personal biases and irrational tendencies intrude upon the "diagnostic" process in psychiatry, the same applies here.

He talks about "stigmatizing use of pseudo-scientific" labels. Tell that to Mr Whitaker, who uncritically uses these labels.

Another commandment states, "Nobody has the answer.." Sage words there from someone so confident in his own answers that he imposes them on others as a condition of admission into the community.

All this paternalist cant in his comments is most distressing. You cannot protect people from words. As long as there is conflict, there will be harsh words, and only someone with their eyes firmly fixed on a Utopian mirage can envisage a world without conflict. Perhaps he knows this, but suppresses awareness because underneath all this talk about the "good of the community" and all this patronizing, protectionist cr@p, he is just covertly promoting his own interests while making a pretense of concern for others, which constitutes something of a contagion in our society. Also, often, what we call "abusive" and "hurtful" words hurt because it's the truth. What he is prescribing and imposing as a condition for inclusion is that we ignore the truth or what we truly believe to be the truth if it hurts others.

Such an attitude, when applied, stunts the growth of and infantilizes the individual, and inculcates a sense of entitlement, as well as intolerance of human differences, because such people come to believe that they are entitled to be protected from the feelings, thoughts and expressions of others through means most tyrannical, instead of learning, as I have learnt, to tolerate offensive opinions and modes of expression (and of course, tolerance is not a semantic substitute for embracing others' opinions, but denotes merely allowing them to exist and to be uttered wherever). And what about all the feelings and modes of expression that come with the imprimatur of the hegemonic social group? Who will protect us from bourgeois hypocrisy, from thinly-veiled attacks that come packaged in pretty linguistic packaging delivered by the more cunning amongst us, from pomposity, smugness, arrogance, and all the other expressions and feelings that are culturally sanctioned and therefore escape scrutiny when discussions of "offensive expressions and speech" are held? Not that I want to be protected, of course.

What is this long ass twisted $#%^ doing right on the front page of the site?

http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/07/5-t ... questions/

Right on the front page ! Hit the delete button.

1000+ word long twisted philosophical bull rant to say "Don't overly attack writers who come here if you disagree, better to let them fall on there face slow then to knock them down fast". It would help the site get writers.

30 words and its said.

Comments that attack will be removed.

36 words.

Your fighting a multi billion dollar drugging industry, ALL of you should put your feely emotional philosophical bull rants on the back burner and stop fighting and crying like kids in the sandbox.

Now my delete button is gone !

All this fighting got me into writing fighting with all this fighting writing I was reading.

I hope your o.k , I do this activism too on the open web and know the slap n the face sting of cencorship. It sucks.

Maybe the doctor types will come to the site to comment and then fight with each other and bust all the lies, I don't know its worth a try, save us a lot of work.

Copy_Cat wrote:I hope your o.k , I do this activism too on the open web and know the slap n the face sting of cencorship. It sucks.

Maybe the doctor types will come to the site to comment and then fight with each other and bust all the lies, I don't know its worth a try, save us a lot of work.

Thank you for asking. I think I'm OK, but the fact that this has become almost something of a monomania for me perhaps suggests otherwise! I can't stop thinking about it!

I, like you, just cannot stand censorship, especially the ridiculous, self-serving justifications advanced in support of it.

He denies that what he is doing is anything like psychiatry, and of course there are points of incongruence and congruence between the two. One way in which it is like psychiatry is it involves the imposition of an arbitrary behavioural code whereby inclusion within a community is stipulated on the willingness to obey unconditionally that code. Another way is that it simply implies an intolerance of a whole spectrum of thoughts and emotions (and thoughts that he perceives to be attacks are still thoughts, such as where someone insinuated he has delusions of grandeur, and the distinction he tries to set up is entirely arbitrary, after all, when he moderates someone for saying such a thing, he IS moderating content, so his distinctions are meaningless and self-serving), one of the characteristics of organized psychiatry, though he is shielded against such a reality by his own often irrational self-justifications which he believes to be truths founded upon rational, personally detached considerations of the issue being discussed.

He dismisses any grounds for comparison with oppressive authority because people are there by choice, but exclusion is a form of oppression (although of course it is sometimes inevitable).

So drawing attention to the dissimilarities does nothing to efface the attitudinal and intellectual equivalences, although of course, such people simply don't have the power to extend the scope of their tyranny into the realms of coercion and violence, though one wonders what would happen if such people were to attain to such a position of power, a position that would offer them increased latitude to exercise their will to control and dominate, and to assimilate the rest of society to their own image. Such behaviour as evidenced by he has far reaching implications for how such a person would behave if he found himself in a position of real power. The simple facts are that his role doesn't confer the kind of power that for example many psychiatrists have.