It's all kicking off on...

...Mad In America the moderation of that website. Well, it was all kicking off, until the vast majority of survivors on there proved just how much they are willing to sacrifice their principles and their freedoms to cement their place within the increasingly oppressive community of MIA.

Don't tell me its getting politically correct or something like that.

For example using the word "intervention" instead of "chemical rape" do describe a forced injection.


Hope not.

Copy_Cat wrote:Don't tell me its getting politically correct or something like that.

For example using the word "intervention" instead of "chemical rape" do describe a forced injection.


Hope not.

Very politically correct. Basically, according to the writer of the offending article, the sententious moderator, who embodies the kind of moral certainty one expects from religious and psychiatric dogmatists, has attacked survivors who don't couch their anger in touchy-feely, unctuous, slimey phraseology, as basically being as bad as their oppressors, which is a classic case of a fallacy of moral equivalency. Basically it is one rule for the moderators of that site, and another for anyone else, excepting the obvious sacred cows of the community, like arch-coercer Sandy Steingard, who destroys lives by day, and goes on MIA to assuage her conscience by night.

-- Sat Jul 13, 2013 6:36 pm --

Basically he and Mr Whitaker want to make us all fit into the Procrustean bed of their behavioural code. If one is to attack someone, one must follow the moderator's supposedly infallible example, which is also the example of Shakespeare's Iago. If he attacks you, he uses culturally sanctioned methods, such as patronizing you; insulting you, but at the same time abrogating responsibility for the harm caused by HIS words (which is one of the main themes in his sententious, self-important spewing) through the linguistic-packaging of his insults and slanders.

He is a control-freak, abusing the internet as an outlet for his will to control. He spins all sorts of elaborate casuistries around his arrogance and control-freakery, but as far as I am concerned, when you disentangle the truth from from his webs of deception, this is the simple truth.

The people on MIA are mostly fooled by this, perhaps because they are easily beguiled by his specious reasoning, perhaps because they identify themselves with such intolerance and control-freakery, perhaps because they fear exclusion, and perhaps because they are prepossessed in favour of anyone in a position of power, anyone who wears a beard and glasses, with a smug expression etched into his face, which for most is suggestive of wisdom and expertise, and perhaps because of a combination of all these.

He says that most of the abusive comments are made by survivors, which puts one in mind of coercive psychiatrists who vilify and demonize their victims in order to justify the role they have taken on and live with their actions. He strategically recasts as "abusive and offensive" the superior candor, bluntness and ironic sense of humour of the more passionate patients, paving the way for all the smug, sanctimonious and pompous reviewers to take over, whose qualities, no matter how offensive to some of us, nevertheless come with the imprimatur of our culture, a culture that enshrines all the foregoing, and demonizes any who stray from these rigid normative expectations concerning how one should feel, think and express oneself. The war anger on anger and forthrightness goes on...

Basically, we should all be an extension of himself, and accept blindly his authority to go around controlling and sanitizing emotion, thought and expression. It is just another variation on the age-old historical and social theme of intolerance of human differences.

I know psychiatry is all about things like drug raping children to make a buck and they could care less how many die in the process, type into search the names of there drugs followed by the term "child death" and look at the results. Drug rape is the right word cause children are virtually always forced to take these drugs because it is the adults in their lives who are making the decision.

I hate when terms like "behavioral medicine" replace chemical lobotomy.

I guess what sucks is if the top of the page said "psychiatry drug rapes children to make a buck" it would drive some readers away to fast.

I should shut up cause I don't really know what's going on over there and am just guessing with the examples above. Sometimes I comment over there but usually just read looking for topic Ideas. Like recently MIA is where I found out about the Zyprexa injection deaths and made a topic here about it. That evil drug should be banned like thalidomide.

The internet is a big place to go about exposing psychiatry for the evil scam it is, I don't need any one website to do it.

But the worst thing about cencorship is that it ***** and also **** **** doesn't help anything.

-- Sat Jul 13, 2013 7:28 pm --

We both hit post at the same time, didn't see your post # 2

-- Sat Jul 13, 2013 7:29 pm --

No I was typing for 20 or so mins but what ever reading post 2 above this one of mine.

-- Sat Jul 13, 2013 7:33 pm --

Cledwyn Bulbs wrote:He says that most of the abusive comments are made by survivors,

What's the definition of "abusive comment" ?

a·bu·sive

Adjective
1.Extremely offensive and insulting.
2.Engaging in or characterized by habitual violence and cruelty.

Sounds like psychiatry to me.

He even gets the percentage of 99% from somewhere. Supposedly, 99% of the abusive comments are made by survivors. He is merely exaggerating, just like psychiatrists often exaggerate the incidence of violence amongst patients, in order to justify to himself and others his own tyranny. He blathers on about empathy (as if he was this fount of unconditional empathy who even empathizes with those whom he is in conflict with, regardless of interpersonal variables, which as I have found out, he certainly doesn't). He denounces certainty, yet his moral certainty should be plain for all to see in the imposition of his moral beliefs onto others. Who will control the controllers? Who will judge the judges, sitting atop their illusory thrones in the sky, nodding their heads in disapproval, with Olympian hauteur, at us squabbling mortal who stubbornly refuse to model ourselves on the gods like he?

Whenever someone questions him, he responds, dismissing what they say, and then they respond by sucking up to him, a pattern noticeable to the more perspicacious observer, perhaps aware that if they do what I did, which is basically tell him that I do not recognize his authority (and no, I used no expletives, and didn't call him stupid or anything like that), then they will be summarily banned for daring to question the unimpeachable one, the emissary of reason and virtue, the wise man of the MIA mountain, the king whose every edict must be obeyed unconditionally, otherwise face punishment by exclusion from the community, one of the few places where patients could articulate their grievances.

Yet he has the cheek to say that there are no personal motivations behind his banning of people, even though I was banned when I questioned his authority, in terms strategically deemed abusive by he, even though I didn't swear, and merely said I think it absurd that he reproached someone for questioning motives because they are unknowable, only then to completely contradict himself and say that throughout history many tyrannies and abuses have been founded upon good intentions (how does he know that?).

In response to your comment, yeah, I used it, and certainly agree that it can be very informative, but I really don't like the moderator on there. One of them is alright, but the one who wrote that article! I just despair at the way people are judging him by his words and not his actions. Just like any other tyrant or control-freak, he is obviously going to vigorously deny the accusations of his critics like myself, invoking abstractions like the "community", "conscience", and "justice" in order to justify himself, and claiming that what he is doing is absolutely necessary, playing the role of the poor victim. Why are they are even listening to this guy, judge him by his actions, just like we should judge coercive psychiatrists by their actions and not their words.

There are some really good people on there, but they do themselves no favours by allowing this character to do what he does, and should remove themselves from that community if they are true to some of the values they dangle ostentatiously on the end of their tongues without ever digesting them and thereby profoundly conceiving of them.

-- Sat Jul 13, 2013 7:50 pm --

I meant "commentators", not "reviewers". Darn. I must have had my Amazon head on or something.

Something seems wrong if they are banning someone who writes as well as you, seems counter productive. I'm going to go read that discussion again.

This one right ? http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/07/5-things-youve-taught-me-about-civility-empathy-and-asking-the-hard-questions/

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.

I hope you do some writing here, I just made a topic on this mobile psychiatric child kidnapping into psych scam.