|
quote:Critique of my definition. I knew it was gonna be crap.  I just can't really think of a way to really express/define when a political belief crosses the line into batshit. It's very subjective and I am incredibly biased. I don't want to get too off topic by trying to come up with a standard but maybe it's a worthwhile exercise to do so. But, I mean, people with extreme philosophies seem crazy, right? quote:Your psychiatrist relative saw mostly conservative people because they were paranoid and anxious and paranoia and anxiety usually pushes one towards conservatism. So they are exreme conservatives because they are mentally ill? Oh dear. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with this conclusion. I'm mentally ill, is my mental illness responsible for my Far Left liberalism? I'm not paranoid but I do have the occasional anxiety.  Mental illness and extreme beliefs are an ouroboros! It's interesting because traditional Liberalism has kinda been pushed to the center right (note: may not be a factual statement this is my perception.) So in theory it might be easier for someone to fall into the parameters of far/extreme leftism just by the nature of where traditional liberalism lies. Yet far/extreme leftists don't really seem to be particularly visible/vocal or have a lot of presence or influence in the Democratic party. Compare that to the Republican party which seems to be pushing more and more right over the years. Republicans who lose their office are criticised for not being right enough and center-leaning and moderate Republicans are being driven out of the party. (Again, my perception) The extreme right conservatives appear to be very visible and very loud and have a huge presence and influence in the Republican party. Which seems to have embraced and begun attempting to normalize extremism. (Note: Still my perception. I am a biased piece of poo poo.) Since it's being normalized and "accepted", does that mean it's not crazy? If all of China and India believed the fluoride = Mind control conspiracy does that mean it's not crazy anymore? (does India and China even put fluoride in their drinking water?)
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 16:56 |
|
|
Jenner posted:It's interesting because traditional Liberalism has kinda been pushed to the center right (note: may not be a factual statement this is my perception.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Extreme views of all stripes are relatively often co-morbid with some form of mental problem, but in my view its usually not clinical. A lot of the things we call symptoms of mental illness are just exaggerated human traits, and delusions definitely qualify. I would certainly say people who actively campaign for and believe wholeheartedly in pure libertarianism or total communism are pretty much deluded, but not necessarily mentally ill.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Jenner posted:I agree that, at the time, abolition was an extreme left position. However, AFAIK, it was not supported by conspiracy theories and paranoia. (I might be wrong?) Abolitionists rallied against Southern Slave Power, which their opponents said was a conspiracy. Up until about the Civil Rights era statements like this from Kingfisher would still probably be regarded as conspiracy theory to many historians: The Kingfish posted:The slave system needed expansion to survive and the South wouldn't have allowed itself to be choked out like that- they would have sent filibusters to Cuba and eventually down through South America. It does seem like some abolitionists assumed there was a conspiracy killing Northern senators, so they did seem to go into crazy stuff sometimes. I'm not a historian tho
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Almost everything was once considered "extreme left" at a time. Including elections and anti-slavery.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
Atrocious Joe posted:Abolitionists rallied against Southern Slave Power, which their opponents said was a conspiracy. Up until about the Civil Rights era statements like this from Kingfisher would still probably be regarded as conspiracy theory to many historians: Conspiracy theories likely pop up around groups with fringe ideologies because they mistrust established sources of information and the sources of information that they do trust have less access to vetting resources. Among other reasons of course. I really object to the idea that belief in conspiracy theories is irrational or is necessarily a good indicator that someone has a mental illness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Almost everything was once considered "extreme left" at a time. Yeah, it's so weird to look at history and look around the world and somehow come to the conclusion that 2016 centrist america is the one true eternal truth and anything beyond slight deviation from that is madness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yeah, it's so weird to look at history and look around the world and somehow come to the conclusion that 2016 centrist america is the one true eternal truth and anything beyond slight deviation from that is madness. You'd think this rather obvious truth and the pattern of political progress would persuade a lot more people to relinquish strongly regressive policy opinions sooner and to come to grips with the futility of reintroducing them, but no; I've actually heard the argument that "All liberal policy positions are eventually conservative ones."
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
pathologization of people with different political opinions is really, really insufferable and is a great way to create a whole lot of people who hate your guts
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
Lamb Chowder posted:You'd think this rather obvious truth and the pattern of political progress would persuade a lot more people to relinquish strongly regressive policy opinions sooner and to come to grips with the futility of reintroducing them, but no; I've actually heard the argument that "All liberal policy positions are eventually conservative ones." The most "progressive" states of the 20th century collapsed and the conservative ones remained dominant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yeah, it's so weird to look at history and look around the world and somehow come to the conclusion that 2016 centrist america is the one true eternal truth and anything beyond slight deviation from that is madness. Yeah, the direction that this thread has gone in is a little bit odd. I assumed the OP was using "extreme" to refer to fringe positions that are strongly divorced from reality, not just people with positions that fall outside of mainstream political discourse. You can believe in things that are bad or evil or just unpopular without it being indicative of anything deeper.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Yeah, the direction that this thread has gone in is a little bit odd. I assumed the OP was using "extreme" to refer to fringe positions that are strongly divorced from reality, not just people with positions that fall outside of mainstream political discourse. You can believe in things that are bad or evil or just unpopular without it being indicative of anything deeper. Trying to define mental illness as just "deviation from the norm" is really silly and falls apart with any thought or investigation and is not actually part of actual medical thought on what mental illnesses are except in tangential ways.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
TheNakedFantastic posted:The most "progressive" states of the 20th century collapsed and the conservative ones remained dominant. This doesn't have much to do with the thread topic, but the term 'progressive' and its popularization, is really irritating IMO. Like, it's a term with no history, it refers specifically to a very narrowly defined strain of elite liberal thought in the US and UK in the 1910s or so, and nothing else. It's blatantly a way of severing connection to the greater left-wing tradition and its history and limiting it to a very specific subset which is acceptable to the current American political and economic establishment. Liberalism and leftism are terms that refer to well-established political traditions with long histories and a huge amount of internal variety, 'Progressivism' might as well have been invented by Hillary's campaign team specifically to sell the platform she's running on this cycle. loving millenials icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Oct 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
So first off, I don't think it's constructive to worry too much about bias - yes, people have confirmation bias, and other biases, that we should be aware of, but you cannot start your thinking from the conclusion that your thinking is faulty. It's just not practical. You have to do the best to mitigate irrationality, it's important to have self-doubt. But, I mean, you've got to own what you think, right? If it turns out you're wrong, accept it and move on. The faster you do that the better off you are. I think what matters more than exact policy positions, or knowledge, is the process that people arrive at those positions. If you irrationally believes something that happens to be correct, does that make you less crazy? Not necessarily. If you had no reason to think that, you're still out there. So if you look back in time, or across countries, certainly the majority of people can believe strange and crazy things, without themselves being crazy. I mean that's basically what religion is. For most people, your direct experience is going to form your beliefs. So if you're embedded in a society where trusted authority figures say This Is The Way Things Are, you're going to believe that, because how can you really say otherwise? If you're a part of a community, you're strongly incentivized to just accept those community social norms, because you don't want to get ostracized. That's not strictly rational in terms of belief, it doesn't really make it more likely to be true, but it is the behavior of sane human beings. So when you're seeing this broad shift in, say, the GOP political positions or the country as a whole, I don't think that's got anything to do with an increase in mental illness, that's a shift cultural or subcultural norms, in response to mass media and public events. In the case of the GOP, I personally think it's a consequence of the Southern Strategy embedding racism, by tying that racism to opposition to Big Government projects and welfare specifically. The result of that strategy being that these dogwhistles have taken on a life of their own, even as they exist alongside explicit racism that's just now reasserting itself. But I imagine there are a thousand theories you can throw out there. Regardless, that's a discussion for sociologists and political scientists, not psychologists. But I do think you can look at what some people with odd views say, and how they justify their beliefs, and conclude that they're not normal, based on that justification they use. Going further than that, I personally don't see how certain views can reasonably be justified, with the wealth of knowledge we have today, and so without necessarily hearing the justification, I do feel that some beliefs signal a confused mind. But they're the pretty cut and dried things. Some of the real, deep, philosophical questions, that ones that form the bedrock of ideologies, are I think unresolved, or at least uncertain enough that I can't really hold it against someone if they happen to take a different view on than I do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
Jenner posted:I'm mentally ill, is my mental illness responsible for my Far Left liberalism? I'm not paranoid but I do have the occasional anxiety. HorseLord posted:This is incoherent. How can you be a "far left radical" believer of the milquetoast center right ideology, liberalism? It makes no sense and makes me think you don't know what words mean - liberalism and socialism are opposed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 04:14
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:This doesn't have much to do with the thread topic, but the term 'progressive' and its popularization, is really irritating IMO. Like, it's a term with no history, it refers specifically to a very narrowly defined strain of elite liberal thought in the US and UK in the 1910s or so, and nothing else. It's blatantly a way of severing connection to the greater left-wing tradition and its history and limiting it to a very specific subset which is acceptable to the current American political and economic establishment. Liberalism and leftism are terms that refer to well-established political traditions with long histories and a huge amount of internal variety, 'Progressivism' might as well have been invented by Hillary's campaign team specifically to sell the platform she's running on this cycle. loving millenials The modern use of "progressive" as a synonym for "liberal" is really due to the centrist/conservative Democrats' reaction to the rapid expansion of the right-wing fringe media in the 90s. The Rush Limbaugh types uniformly used the word "liberal" with the same sort of invective normally only seen in slurs, and the influence of Limbaugh and the like was enough in the 90s that Democrats in not-so-blue states and districts started distancing themselves from the word "liberal" by subbing in "progressive" in its place when talking about their politics and policies. The end result is that "progressive", like "liberal", doesn't really mean much of anything in and of itself, other than indicating that the person or policy being labeled as such is implicitly in sync with the Democratic party line.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
gtrmp posted:The modern use of "progressive" as a synonym for "liberal" is really due to the centrist/conservative Democrats' reaction to the rapid expansion of the right-wing fringe media in the 90s. The Rush Limbaugh types uniformly used the word "liberal" with the same sort of invective normally only seen in slurs, and the influence of Limbaugh and the like was enough in the 90s that Democrats in not-so-blue states and districts started distancing themselves from the word "liberal" by subbing in "progressive" in its place when talking about their politics and policies. The end result is that "progressive", like "liberal", doesn't really mean much of anything in and of itself, other than indicating that the person or policy being labeled as such is implicitly in sync with the Democratic party line. It's a response to Reagan-era Republicans tarring the word liberal, but it's also, very conveniently, a way to sever historical connotation and much more easily shape the movement and ideology denoted by it. The fact that it didn't become a thing until well into Obama's presidency says a lot IMO, Clinton, Gore and Kerry weren't using the word progressive to describe themselves in the 90s, when Republican toxifying the word liberal had a much greater effect. And it's not like anyone under the age of 35 gives a poo poo about Rush Limbaugh and Reagan-era narratives on the word and concept of liberalism. It kind of is just an extremely clever way to sell Democratic establishment ideology to millennials icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Oct 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
Lamb Chowder posted:You'd think this rather obvious truth and the pattern of political progress would persuade a lot more people to relinquish strongly regressive policy opinions sooner and to come to grips with the futility of reintroducing them, but no; I've actually heard the argument that "All liberal policy positions are eventually conservative ones." This is because the notion of progressive/regressive is based on a weird teleological view of history. Amazingly the current culturally ascendant strain of thought keeps turning out to have been, in retrospect, destined and obviously true while it's failed competitors were doomed ignorance. In reality there's no arch to history and there's no real pattern to what we consider progress.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
extremism is a wishy washy term that means basically nothing by itself. folks hiding out in a bunker in the woods trying to evade the illuminati reeducation squads and preserve the intrinsic truth of a rhomboid planet might benefit from a visit to the psychiatrist, but that's on the fringes of the fringe. the average neo-nazi is likely of sound mind. deficient ethical standards, regrettably, are not mental illness. if they were, roughly 60% of the modern world would have to be committed. the sad truth of the matter is that people can logically and sanely elect monstrous courses of action based on in-group/out-group thinking and rational self-interest. blaming this behavior on neurological disorder is irresponsible deflection that purposefully ignores the real risk factors for violent and anti-social behavior.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
In my previous job I was working primarily with people who were either leaving or on the verge of going into extreme right wing communities and ideologies. Anything from former neo-Nazis who had left that life and were looking for help to teenage kids who were in danger of being radicalised. A lot of them definitely displayed some degree of mental illness, or had in the past. It was the kids that eventually caused me to quit, as quite a common theme among them was persecution and injustice they perceived to be directed at their religion and community. It was kind of difficult to make the case that this wasn't actually the case, so eventually supervisors and such basically told us to follow the 'we know things are bad, but maybe you should give less of a poo poo about what happens?' line of reasoning. Idk about the success rate of that approach because that combined with the adoption of the counterproductive PREVENT system caused me to quit. So from my own experience, extreme right wingers may be indeed suffering from some degree of mental illness, but the extent of it varies considerably.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 10:39
|
|
|
I don't think it's very productive to consider "disagreeing with me too much" to be a sign of mental illness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 10:55
|
|
|
gtrmp posted:The end result is that "progressive", like "liberal", doesn't really mean much of anything in and of itself, other than indicating that the person or policy being labeled as such is implicitly in sync with the Democratic party line. I like this because building their entire belief system around "whatever the democratic party HQ says must be right" lets them do wild poo poo, i mean really wild poo poo - all of the people who protested Bush's wars are now the biggest defenders of those wars, because the Democrats continued them. It's weird seeing them come out with literal neocon justifications for everything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
TheNakedFantastic posted:The most "progressive" states of the 20th century collapsed and the conservative ones remained dominant. Austria-Hungary, Germany, Germany 2.0, the British empire, the Italian empire, the Ottoman empire, the Japanese empire, the second French empire, South Africa, Falangist Spain, the Russian Empire, Yugoslavia? Post Sudan and nearishly the end of the UK I think we can say the trend is away from the process of conglomeration to ethnic or cultural fragmentation. Maybe in the future states will further subdivide along claims to resources. poo poo, you're right it is tribal Lamb Chowder fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Oct 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Lamb Chowder posted:Austria-Hungary, Germany, Germany 2.0, the British empire, the Italian empire, the Ottoman empire, the Japanese empire, the second French empire, South Africa, Falangist Spain, the Russian Empire, Yugoslavia? Heh. Point stands that the fall of communism is strong evidence against whoever is considered "the left" inevitably being victorious, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
What's the definition of insanity again? Because I'm voting for Hillary and I'm sure she will do everything to solve global warming and end infinite war
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
There is no such thing as someone who is perfectly mentally healthy, we all simply have different degrees and kinds of defect. Those with extreme conditions are declared "mentally ill" relative to the rest of the populace, but this does not mean the populace itself is inherently sound of mind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
I've seen it mentioned in the thread somewhere, but can someone explain to me why a preference for "alternative" medicines is classed as a left-wing stance?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 14:02
|
|
|
Chocolate Teapot posted:I've seen it mentioned in the thread somewhere, but can someone explain to me why a preference for "alternative" medicines is classed as a left-wing stance? Because it's popular among populations traditionally considered left (i.e., not gun toting religious conservatives). What you're doing, incidentally, is an example of partisan exclusionary tactics. "My side can't be bad, it's rational!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Because it's popular among populations traditionally considered left (i.e., not gun toting religious conservatives). I live in the UK where proper healthcare is provided to the patient without cost*, so alternative medicine has always been a grey area with regards to its political lean. *not counting other details but still Chocolate Teapot fucked around with this message at 14:27 on Oct 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
Chocolate Teapot posted:I've seen it mentioned in the thread somewhere, but can someone explain to me why a preference for "alternative" medicines is classed as a left-wing stance? Because the Venn diagram of veganism, alternative medicines, extreme left wing views, and strange, fey beliefs overlap pretty hard.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
Jeza posted:Because the Venn diagram of veganism, alternative medicines, extreme left wing views, and strange, fey beliefs overlap pretty hard. Fey? Like unworldly or close to death?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
Jeza posted:Because the Venn diagram of veganism, alternative medicines, extreme left wing views, and strange, fey beliefs overlap pretty hard.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Fey? Like unworldly or close to death? According to google it's a pretty uncommon turn of phrase, but unworldly is pretty close. Describing somebody's beliefs as fey means they are sort of mystical and unsubstantive. A bit like airy-fairy. I'd include people who obsess over herbal supplements, won't eat food that is microwaved, that sort of thing. e: A Buttery Pastry posted:Is this actually true? And not just some tired stereotype about hippies dusted off for the next generation? I'm not bothered to try and find whatever crap study there is out there on this, but I think day to day life is a good enough source for me. Obviously there are people of all political beliefs who practice or believe these things, but there seems a pretty clear correlation to me. A desire for the natural, general optimism about the human spirit, more health conscious, these are all things I would associate more with the left wing than the right. That comes part and parcel with a bunch of unscientific delusions. But the right wing has their own, for certain. Jeza fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Oct 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
Lamb Chowder posted:Austria-Hungary, Germany, Germany 2.0, the British empire, the Italian empire, the Ottoman empire, the Japanese empire, the second French empire, South Africa, Falangist Spain, the Russian Empire, Yugoslavia? Most of the successor governments or states to those collapses were conservative though and those that weren't collapsed again before the end of the century. In any case it's clear that the less radical and progressive countries produced the more stable system in the long term. TheNakedFantastic fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Oct 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:Fey? Like unworldly or close to death? Like Jon Anderson of Yes, basically. His appearance, his voice, his opinions, his spirituality, all of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Zachack posted:I consider the line to be when the views change from something you're for into something that you think will be a panacea. Do people describe you as "that guy who's really into workplace democracy. Like, really into it."? If yes, consider therapy. Being passionate is mental illness. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Jenner posted:I was talking to a family member who is also a psychiatrist a few days ago. They are center-Liberal and probably biased but he was saying Psychologists should do a study on extreme right wing individuals because, in his experience, they all seem incredibly unhinged, detached from facts and reality, and unstable. Radical right leaning is demonstrably correlated with heightened feelings of lack of control, powerlessness, anxiety, being overwhelmed by a complex world and a subsequent longing for authority and boundaries/safety.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
Chocolate Teapot posted:I've seen it mentioned in the thread somewhere, but can someone explain to me why a preference for "alternative" medicines is classed as a left-wing stance? Is it just the stereotype of "woo stuff is thought of as being the domain of women" and "the left is seen as more feminine"? Basically the premise of dharma and greg
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Is it just the stereotype of "woo stuff is thought of as being the domain of women" and "the left is seen as more feminine"? I think so but plenty of people into woo are conservative, plenty are very Christian as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 16:56 |
|
|
Honestly I don't think mental illness is the right title, I like the title 'narrativists' from the thread on decoding authoritarianism. Tbh tho as someone whose seen a lot of Americans fire off opinion on things I'd say your culture just breeds people with hosed up views. Moderates exist, but a butt load of people either shroud their racism with personal responsibility and bootstraps while being completely incapable of seeing institutional racism and another segment seeks to control language and culture because they're literally obsessed with race. QED: America is a gay country full of dicks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 00:42
|
|