Am I the only one starting to resent Saturday Hatemail?

psychiatrist to commit or give him medication.  

The beauty of the 1st Amendment is I can take my well informed opinion and say what I think without the 'ethics' police trying to impose some professional association's standards for its member's practice to something that has nothing to do with it.  It should be obvious from the nature of this blog that I was neither claiming to have put Trump et al on the couch or offering a medical diagnosis.  

Just because I referred to the DSM and what I consider evidence of conditions listed/described therein, does not mean I have trespassed into the hallowed halls of the psychology priesthood or am practicing medicine without a license.  Anymore than you offering an opinion and argument about why some law is constitutional or not.
(BTW, I would also point out that you don't get to make any 'diagnosis' in any legally important way, and wouldn't even if you were a psychologist or psychiatrist.  You can testify.  But, the decision remains first, a lawyer's - the judge - and then ultimately a jury's, i.e., lay persons.)

Nor did I make a claim of special expertise or otherwise seek to inflate the apparent importance of my opinions.
I merely cited a readily reviewable standard.  If folks here, having read same disagree with my opinion of its applicability, fine.  They at least should have the decency to actually offer reasons, rather than just assert I should stfu because they imply anyone offering any opinion of the subject is 'practicing pyshc w/o a license' (which is what u are doing and franlky all you are doing).  They also should refrain from the obvious disingenousness of claiming that an opinion offered in a comment on a political blog based on observation of the actual behavior of these folks (in Trump's case over decades) is somehow the same as a decision maker claiming to refute as a medical expert (Frist) the medical diagnosis of professionals who actually examined and observed Shivo over years.

IOW, IMO you need to get the frak over yourself.  

U don't like that I gave a conclusion?  Fine, then perhaps you would either 1) agree that the things I cited might be evidence of such conditions, or 2) kindly point out how they are not.  

Otherwise, you have added nothing to this discussion beyond trying to shut me up and distract from the validity or lack of same of the points I made by holding me to a standard that is utterly inappropriate to the forum and purpose here.

Oh, and implied that I am 'unethical'.

Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, Michael Savage (2005).

And before Savage (aka Weiner) drove off this cliff, Ann Coulter usually included it in her stand up routine. And a very old routine it is.

I've heard variations on this from Limbaugh, O'Reilly and my own personal Bagger on the RW newspaper comments board.

I've concluded that anything which refutes their POV has to be, not only wrong, but also deranged.

I resent, and it's the authoritarian tone popping up out here more and more. Seriously...

leading me to wonder if a Karl Rove or Brietbart are out there reading DK and sending in hate mail.

We need to look for week to week similarities, though I still think it's a bunch of juvie computer taggers playing gross out.  Juvie taggers, Rove and Brietbart....very similar.

Is that schizoid?

but I was talking more about the comments out here, whether to the hate mail threads or other diaries.

and without conducting a psych eval, I just call "Get your govt hands off my Medicare" a demonstration of tremendous ignorance.

plan, as in Roadmap for America.. And he's been pushing his plans long enough and yet Tea Party folks feel it's Big Government out to get them, not the House Republicans and State Capitols.

The key thing to refocus at state levels where the GOP leaders are effectively setting up death panels to keep the people with more more expensive health care needs off their state's own insurance plans or privatize them.  Not that any sane insurer will pick them up at an affordable premum.

"What's the Matter with Kansas?" it's the miracle of how republicans repeatedly get middle and lower middle class people to vote against their own interests.

And it's not only state employees they want to screw; they want to end Medicare, give vouchers to shop for private insurance, as if insurance companies are eager to insure 80-year-olds with medical problems for reasonable rates.

And, as Spock often said, "Illogic is very human."

ignorant as in "hey, don't you realize medicare is a govt program, you moran?"

illogical as in, if a + b = c  and d + e = f, then -- hey, it's 6 am here and i never took a logic course -- you can explain it better than i can!!

People all over the world, in all sorts of situations, do this kind of thing. It's not delusional, it's illogical.

Is a guy who wears his "lucky shirt" to a football game  delusional?

Are the people who buy lotto tickets, week after week, experiencing hallucinations?

Are the people all over the world who still believe in magic and curses clinically insane?  

Ordinary people who are not mentally ill do silly, stupid illogical things all the time. They've done it throughout history and throughout the world.

In the realm of politics, are the people who believe very skillfully created propaganda designed to appeal to their fears and emotions schizophrenic?  

No. They're simply human. And that's the really frightening thing about them.

with contradictory or hypocritical.

Look it up.

Language is always metaphoric to the extent that words are portable from one situation to another.  And it is true that a secondary use of a word will retrospectively reframe its primary usage.  So it might be theorized that when we jeer at someone for being an "idiot," we implicitly jeer at all of those very unfortunate people who suffer from the psychological or medical condition of being an idiot, and that would be just mean.

But I don't buy it.  The medical meaning of "idiot" is, if anything, a secondary usage of our primary vocabulary.  We all know what an "idiot" is in common lingo, and NO ONE confuses that with the medical designation.  

It's only on occasions where the line of distinction is unclear that people get into trouble.  The term "schizophrenic" has acquired powerful uses outside the medical establishment.  Are we content to allow a smallish band of doctors, psychologists, and victims to reclaim the word so that we can no longer use it otherwise?  I would be hesitant to go that far.  

And, if we decide to forego our use of a word with medical implications, the collateral damage may be even worse, since we implicitly erase even its medical meanings from our consciousness.  

Sorry, but I prefer the messiness inherent in language. When people are mean to innocent victims, we should respond by calling them out on their meanness, not by trying to erase their language.  

 of doctors, psychologists, and victims to reclaim the word so that we can no longer use it otherwise?  

You mean, as opposed to just your claim on the word?

I'm not fully convinced...

But I don't buy it.

And you are....?

apparently, no matter how many word salads you have under your belt around here...

your understanding of neither the issue nor the error.

words that you deem unusable metaphorically.
Would "idiotic" be among them?  Because, medical idiotism notwithstanding, such a list would be idiotic.  How about it?  

more sense next time?  

I'm certain you could construct one if you wanted to carry it around for reference.  You might have to practice catching a quick glance at it on the sly, so as not to look awkward in the middle of a conversation.

Still, it would be much more useful and positive to understand the usage and mis-usage of the real terms that have been and are being colloquially misappropriated.  That would seem more likely to help develop the intellectual tools we all need to keep from being accidentally hurtful to others.

are you referring to the medical usage?  Or is it an inadvertent "colloquial misappropriation"?  Are you implying that medical terminology can be used metaphorically to describe social phenomena?  

If so, then why ban the social use of "schizophrenia"?  After all, "schizophrenic" has a well-worn history in English to mean "a state characterized by the coexistence of contradictory or incompatible elements" (just to quote a nearby dictionary).  That is not a medical usage, nor is it a "colloquial misappropriation."  It's the way language works.  

If you are trying to stop people from being nasty to one another, then I think you are fooling yourself to think it will go away by taking away their words (I'm sorry, is "fool" a medical term?).  And given your rather nasty response to my original post, I wonder whether you even care about "accidental hurtfulness" (your words).  ...remainder deleted...

but, do you know of any people who are diagnosed as prophylactics?

who remain undiagnosed as such.  I sternly promise, however,  to stop calling them that -- as soon as they are diagnosed.

who used the word "idiot."  And you used it a context with which I fully agree.  I don't see why you should chide me for defending that.  

was complaining about the incorrect use of the word 'schizophrenic'. He or she had a very valid point, Markos dismissed it by saying 'take your meds'.

The original comment seemed to me to have been written by a person whose thinking was highly disorganized, and who might well have been suffering from mental illness, even schizophrenia.   In that context markos' response would have been rubbing dirt in the wound.

I agree with the point made by this diary.  At the same time, markos makes many comments and provides this site.  Let's not blow this one remark out of perspective.

you don't have to be mentally ill to be crazy. Being crazy is "normal" in lots of places, unfortunately, today's Republican party being an excellent example.

It's not progressive. It's not caring. It's not right.

It's fucked up and you know it.

...if any other commentor told another commentor or diarist here to take his or her meds, what would be the result?

Exactly.

just depends on who is or isn't around, i guess.

ive done it and had it done to me. And occasionally it is appropriate.

It's a cloud of HRs, right?

no. appropriately. This isnt the Jimmy Carter wing of the touchy feely inner scream method huggy branch of the democratic party (that destroyed it). We care about actual issues that matter here. Not so much the issues of yuppies who have so little to stress over they invent things.

Heres a thought lets reform psychology, make mental and physical health care available for those who need it. Make america a place your children have a future and end sexism and racism instead.

and I'm not finding one.

The "instead" is particularly nonsensical.

Evasions aside, every time I've seen the comment "take your meds," I've seen it buried under HRs.

Appropriately so.

Telling someone to take their meds, if they are obviously adrift, is a sharp wakeup call that they urgently need to hear.

The original hate-mail writer to Kos is definitely not thinking, "Take my meds? Well, yeah, I guess my letter did sound a little unhinged." I can't think of an instance when I've heard the phrase used as a wakeup call, only as an insult.

I just want to clarify something -- so Kos is actually writing that reply back to the guy?  I'm almost certain that's not the case.  It's a schticky aside to an audience: us.

Which makes both my point and yours kind of moot.  Well no, not mine, because I'm awesome.  jk

But to reply to your comment, I've told someone to take their meds in all seriousness out of concern for them.  And I would say it in a light-hearted way too if I had to, if it got the job done.  If someone is floating up there, they need to come down.  Period.  

I think Kos's aside is brusque, tart, and justifiable.

he was criticizing the incorrect use of the term schizophrenic and was making a valid point.

When you go all caps and hit the spacebar twice before you hit the period, your brain is not cycling at a healthy speed.

Telling someone "to take their meds" is insensitive.

The English language is full of lots of adjectives, nouns and adverbs that can be used in a very colorful, yet non-offensive manner to get your same point across.

I can understand why someone that fights mental illness or struggles with it in others close to them would be offended.

 Just because something is commonly used by a lot of people doesn't make it right.   Should gays and lesbians be ok with the "that's so gay" expression that is popular among the youth today?

I said it's okay to write that somebody who is clearly not well should take their medication.

The LGBT analogy is a false one.  Gay and lesbian people don't need to medicate their sexuality.

Bravo for you.   I think you know this is disingenuous.

about the misuse of the word schizophrenic. The irony burns.

In my book, that means we lost.

to understand them.  Too many people here think they are dealing with rationale reasonable folks. Many times they are not. It is not the way things should be but it is the reality of the world we live in.

hink and understand it to be: 'Birtherism' is either delusion level mental illness or pure racism and bigotry, if not merely manipulation of those suffering those conditions.  'Get you government hands off my medicare' is schizophrenic, and the public understands what you mean when you use that shorthand, where they instead will balk at calling those who express it 'stupid'.

If we do not use appropriate terms that communicate both diagnositic and prpscriptive context readily understood - and often used - by typical voters then no one will.  The media sure as hell won't, they're too busy bending over for the rightwing so as to (the claim) seem 'balanced'.  The average television 'window' - the time in which you have both the attention of an audience and they are open to new information - is about 3 to 5 seconds.  To abandon characterizations that communicate much of the information we want voters to have about a proposal or politician, in language they use and understand without resort to a Thesaurus is unilateral disarmament.

And, I am sorry to say, but in this hyper-sensitized world, someone will claim they are offended no matter what word is used.  Best to at least make the point we need.

We don't have to become as mean as them. But we DO have to occasionally be able to go there to fight.

teahadists and radical reformists are worrying about hurting our feelings? Do you honestly think they give a good gawd damn if we have feelings? They would just as soon boot you to the curb as look at you and we are at literal war with them.

They are attacking unions, should we ask them if they was fries with that.

They are attacking women and their rights, should we get them coffee?

They are demolishing city governments and ruling by fiat. Wonder if they need some donuts to help them make it through their tough morning?

Fuck Them. Fuck 'em. End of story,  over.  Fuck 'em.

If they sold Roundup for Republicans, I'd buy it. If they made giant Roach Motels for Republicans, I'd get some. I'm done playing with them. They think nothing of us.

I am a kind, considerate, generous person and wish harm to no one, but I will not lay down and let someone walk all over me. I will not consider how their feelings might be hurt, either. Again, Fuck 'em.

--literally AND figuratively:

Every time. I just get this ball of anger in my stomach that won't go away and the adrenaline rush of fear, even tho' I know that she ends up pretty much OK. Still.....

Yeah, these are the guys we are dealing with and they don't give a shit for us. They hate us.

...that behaviour when a whole lot of them were swept into a Republican House majority in 2010. Even though the Senate is still in Democratic hands, Rand Paul was still elected Senator after that debacle. So they were rewarded for this shit.

That's what sickens me the most, I think.

would make a great Diary :)

the Right's attempt to subvert democracy or take away our rights. Nor did I say it's important that we don't hurt their feelings. What I said is that if the only route we win is by adopting their tactics then we have lost. I stand by that statement. And as somebody who has, in the past, worked with Earth First! and Act-up I hardly think I qualify as somebody that doesn't fight back. But, I also prefer to be polite to people unless they give me a reason not to. And I'll ignore the cognitive dissonance of you declaring yourself the kindest person ever who would never harm a person coming right after you declared you'd happily 'eradicate' the entirety of the GOP. We can win without having to become jerks. Do you think the civil rights movement would've happened if the prevailing attitude was fuck whitey, I'm going to eradicate them? Any victory gained through hatred is a Pyrrhic victory at best.

However, the point is really to post the most outrageous, improbable messages possible.  We aren't treated to any of the more articulate mail that people might find more challenging.  

The people who write these racist, homophobic screeds aren't our real problem -- they aren't influencing many, if ANY, others, and they may not even bother to vote.

The ones who write the articulate mail are far more dangerous to our country.  Aren't they likelier to be middle or upper class, professional or para-professional voters?

We'll never reach the people who write outrageous hate-mail -- and making fun of them doesn't really serve any purpose other than to amuse ourselves, and perhaps even make us feel superior.

Isn't that stooping to their level?

is good for page views - and makes ya feel so good, too.

I don't normally read Saturday Hatemail much, but I'm glad I did come across "Dear Socialist Fuckstick".  That rant is a thing of twisted beauty.

I dunno, I kind of like mean humor, I guess.

Just like I don't need to watch graphic violence labeled news to get that violence is awfull, I don't need to read a bunch of ugly hate-mail to get there there are a lot of sick and hateful people out there who are opposed to this site.

If stuff needs to be forwarded to the FBI or local police because it sound like this person is a danger to others,  and you want to warn the community about it, fine. Other then that, I don't need to read that shit.

It's not about kid gloves vs toughness. Calling the GOP plan "schizo" is sloppy diction, and also offensive.

Now, I'm not one to argue for the most restrictive use of language possible, but the argument this diarist is making is pretty specific:

The use of mentally ill, crazy, retarded, etc. as a personal/political insult. In the same sense that you shouldn't use gay as a synonym with lame or weak or use fag as a synonym for asshole or jerk. It's about respecting the people for whom those words have other meanings, meanings associated with their actual identity.

I'm not really sure how I feel about the diarist's point. However, he (I assume by the name) was disputing not the fact that we should attack our opponents relentlessly, but whether we should use a particular weapon to attack them because the use of that particular weapon also unavoidably attacks other people, who are distinct from our opponents and can even include our allies.

That pretty much sums up the central point.

Hit the Republicans hard, fast, swiftly and without mercy. But we don't need to be alienating potential allies while we do that.

I had my mother (deceased) and my two brothers diagnosed with schizophrenia.  It's a wretched disease that stole my mother away from me.  I remember back in my teens, she would ask: are you my real son, or the fake one?  (Broke my heart).  But I look at this as a freedom of speech issue.  People have the right to scream at the top of their voices something that goes against every fiber of my being and beliefs.  Democracy can be very irritating at times, and has been analogous to making sausage, but it is the system wave for better or worse.  There really is a teachable moment in this diary.

necessarily anything but unfortunately paranoid.

Not necessarily Republican, not necessarily TeaBagger, just...lost.

But pointedly correct about the insulting and childishly careless use of a misunderstood medical term.  No different from abusing hateable terms based on orientation or handicap or ethnicity.

Unhelpful taunts, like the one the diarist is showcasing foster stigma and contribute to  discrimination against people with mental health challenges. It's also the primary reason that people don't seek treatment. We should stop calling people we disagree with, mental or schizophrenic, and we should probably, specially front pagers, refrain from childish taunts. It's demeaning to both parties and it's unhelpful.  

Thanks Matt Z, for the thoughtful diary. I agree with you and I hope Cos heads your wise advise.

Then it seems Markos misses the mark, if not the point.

As for making fun os someone -- that is "fighting" anything. I could make fun of your misspellings and grammatical mistakes. What would be the point of that? We're not fighting any sort of battle when we make fun of email writers on the internet. It might amuse us, but let's be honest with ourselves -- that's the real reason for doing it.

win the day (though it might feel good for some to vent in retaliation.)

the root of our problem is a corrupt system, where corporate funding compromises our leaders and undermines honest reform.

that isn't going to get fixed by getting ugly and calling people names.

being liberal...."fighting dirty" doesn't work as a means of bringing out the best in people. "Fighting dirty" just provides perfect sound bytes for the "Fair and Balanced" set to demonstrate that the left is just as deranged as the right.

Frankly I do not see any value to broadcasting the pathetic ravings of right wing lunatics (note: that's not a mental illness). The stuff elected Republicans say is crazy enough. Beating up on semi-literate dupes of right just brings out the self-congratulatory bully in people....it has no value in learning how to persuade anyone not on "our side."

I happened to think it's fun, so I read and enjoy it. No one forces me to.

And there comes a point when we have to stop being so damn sensitive about language. There is no absolutely no reason why everything should be taken personally.

Sheesh!

and top of Rec list? I'd say you've struck a chord here.

I have to be in a certain mood for HateMailPalooza -- and it's usually more for the comments than the actual letters that I click on it. These days it's about the one place we have agreement, mainly that the writers are losers.

But I can see where the "take your meds" can be a bit upsetting to one such as yourself; I have a brother-in-law with mental health issues and would be upset if someone responded to him with a similar brush-off.

Take care of yourself, friend.

But at least three diaries on the rec list? GD...

As someone who takes 'meds' for 3 psychological conditions, and a member of a couple minorities, I don't care. What I do care about and notice is yet another example of hyper political correctness which does nothing but stifle conversation, expose a weakness of our side(that being that we are a herd of cats) and plays really badly with independents.

Personally, I hate political correctness and view it as a failure of society. That children are brought up to learn that every reference or slur against another that they don't like should be treated as if it were directed at them is a very narcissistic view of the word.

I couldn't care less if someone calls someone else who is genuinely an asshole; a faggot even if he isn't, as long as it insults him. Indeed I might call him that myself.

You don't need to take offense from every offensive thing said.

on the front page.  Don't click.  It's easy if you try.  Have a better rest of the weekend.

you shouldn't have opened this diary. Yet you did, and you chose to comment on it.

And enjoy your weekend.

He isn't particularly bothered by your diary; he just disagrees with it.

It's not a perfect solution, but it is one.  I stopped even engaging with conservatives when I realized how much it was hurting me.  I just couldn't stand being lied to all the time, and their culture was such that they couldn't conceive of changing.  I'm a lot happier, and the world's a little poorer for the lack of discussion . . . but there it is.

He isn't particularly bothered by your diary; he just disagrees with it.

You could say the diarist just disagrees with Kos' writing "go take your meds"

between considering something offensive - publicly offensive to a whole class of people - and merely disagreeing with it.
Not that one isn't perfectly entitled to say so in either case, but in the former one might feel a special need to do so...

But whenever someone says they are offended by a statement b/c of their class membership it doesn't mean they are taking on the mantle of that class and saying how all members (should) feel. The diarist doesn't seem to be doing that at all.  

quiet in NC expressed his opinion by being dismissive, the diarist by stating how he was offended.

Frankly I've lost track of who's on which side of this thread - "You too!" "No, you too!" - so I'll say no more for fear of tying myself in some kind of knot.

I read a lot of things I disagree with that I don't feel particularly angry or wounded by.  I just think the author is incorrect, or I come down on the other side of a judgment call.

I just posted a quick comment and then went gardening--I am very surprised to see this at the top of the rec list when I came back and I apologize if my comment sounded condescending--I realize it could be taken that way and regret my wording.  

My personal opinion on the matter is we can't please everyone everytime--that is impossible.  If you know something is going to piss you off if you partake--then the way to happyness is to not partake.  This is Kos's site and he as well as many, many others get a kick out of it--and I have to believe that 99.99999% of those persons that get a kick out of it don't go and think lesser of people with mental illness because of reading the weekly hatemail.  Everyone has their limits and it takes some personal responsibility for each person to recognize theirs.

That said, I will add that I don't see a problem with the conversation.

I wasn't really asking for or expecting an apology; it's always nice to get a preemptive one :-) I do think the "if you don't like it, don't read it" response is kind of unhelpful, though.

I don't believe that we need to act on every claim of offensive content, but I think it's not a bad idea to listen to each (so long as we don't have too many competing claims, I guess.) In this case, I agree with the diarist's point: I think the comments about mental illness can have a stigmatizing and/or desensitizing effect -- as if all a person needs is to take some pills and they'll be fine again. It's rarely that simple. And if the writer seems to be mentally ill, then by extension, holding the letter up for ridicule holds all mentally ill people up for ridicule.

(And when people hear this kind of talk repeatedly, it does affect their thinking about the target group. When a certain European nation became a frequent subject of jokes a few decades back, people in the U.S. really did develop a bias against the intelligence of people from that country.)

and you make really good points.  But we gotta find a way to laugh or the world looks dark indeed.  FWIW--I'm Dutch and we have some pretty good cheapskate jokes--my Aunt is Polish and I've yet to hear someone tell a better Pollock joke than her.  Not sure what European country you had in mind--but part of success is learning to laugh.  Good eve.

Mocking people with mental illness demeans the site.

mental illnesses as tools in snarky comments against people we disagree with. There are plenty of us here taking medications for various mental illnesses and we dislike hearing "go take your medication" being used as an epithet. Especially from the owner of the site.

I, too, have been bothered a bit by the overall tone lately from that series, and find myself in agreement with the diarist (even though yes, of course, I could choose not to read it, but that's not the point).

All I could think of was "well, setting the tone by example would be helpful...", particularly since there have been charges leveled recently that the site has become rather a cesspool of trollage.  But, I'm just not seeing that mindset much these days.

YMMV, of course...

Probably should take his medication.

He needs to take his meds.

the mentally ill are not being ridiculed.

be different if there was a front page article making fun of AAs or gays or Muslims?  Or do you think that would be okay?

 I'm asking this question seriously.  I'm trying to understand how people think about this issue of discrimination on this site because it seems to me there's a large number who seem to hold different standards for sexism and mental illness than for any other type of bigotry, and I'm trying to understand how and why.

Some forms of hate and ridicule are acceptable some minorities are acceptable Targets and some disagreement dare not be voiced. There is no understanding hypocrisy  so no point in trying.

and thanks for the respectfull question.  Most of my answer is in a response above so no need to repeat that.  
I see your point but think there are some differences--first off it is not really a front page post as you have to click through to see it--and the vast majority of the time the clicker knows what lies behind the curtain.  (As a subnote, I subscribe on my Kindle and nothing is clickable beyond the front page--which actually is kind of nice at times.)  Second, the main point of Hatemailapolooza is for some levity on a weekend afternoon.  I realize some can be offended when "take your meds" is used as a punchline but then again damn near any punch line is going to offend someone.  Yeah, not every punch line should say something offensive to people with mental illnesses--and the fact is: not everyone does.  Wide indistinct lines are open to individual interpretation--and comedy is nothing but wide indistinct lines.

But the main point is Kos means no harm--if you feel slighted anyway--then your best option is to avoid.