Now, it's back to using the mentally ill as icons of the opposition?

Any publication that doesn't hold to AP guidlines on references to mental illness should be treated as publications pushing name calling ahead of credible reportage.


http://www.ap.org/content/press-release/2013/entry-on-mental-illness-is-added-to-ap-stylebook

<snip>

Do not describe an individual as mentally ill unless it is clearly pertinent to a story and the diagnosis is properly sourced.
When used, identify the source for the diagnosis.

<snip>

Do not use derogatory terms, such as insane, crazy/crazed, nuts or deranged, unless they are part of a quotation that is essential to the story.

Do not assume that mental illness is a factor in a violent crime, and verify statements to that effect. A past history of mental illness is not necessarily a reliable indicator. Studies have shown that the vast majority of people with mental illness are not violent, and experts say most people who are violent do not suffer from mental illness.

<snip/more>

The OP has nothing to do with "mental illness." The term "crazy" hasn't been banned.

And that's AP's standard.

LGBT and feminists to the mentally ill?

Would you push an article titled with a term disparaging people as f**gots?
Would you push an article titles with a term disparaging people as p**sies?

The problem is it is still ok to use derogatory colloquialisms referring to the mentally ill as derogatory adjectives.

No words are banned, no words are expected to be banned.

Yet, there is some expectation of moral awareness.


That's what the AP's guidelines were all about.

It's also absurd because the OP isn't an article, it's a blog post.

You're conflating issues. I mean, what are you going to apply the AP guideline to next: calling someone an idiot? Saying Michelle Bachman is nuts?

Just like calling homosexuals 'fag**ts, and men who are not macho 'pu**ies.

The reason these things continue is because those who use them don't realize the damage they do.

WHY???

Because there isn't a problem? REALLY?

The thing about this sort of chauvinism is that the perps NEVER think they are committing it.

Check out feminist theory.
Check out race theory.

Really I can wait until you do.

What about that don't you understand?

Why would you want to draw on THAT type of source for your arguments?

Because you approve of the offensive, chauvinistic, sterotypical language in their titles?

Because you really think that derogative street terms about the mentally ill satisfy your intellectual needs?

"Why would you want to draw on THAT type of source for your arguments? Because you approve of the offensive, chauvinistic, sterotypical language in their titles? Because you really think that derogative street terms about the mentally ill satisfy your intellectual needs?"

...demonstrate how bizarre your false equivalency is. It almost seems like you were searching for an opportunity to post the disparaging language.

Putin Actions “Crazy” Says Bill Clinton
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024646390

Yes, it's in quotes, but has doesn't Clinton know about the AP manual change?

When the Crazy Drifts Toward the Evil - By Josh Marshall
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024663633

Does that post have anything to do with people with "mental illness"?

The Stress Of Being A Computer Programmer Is Literally Driving Many Of Them Crazy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024677613

How about that?

Trying to link the OP to the AP guidelines for referencing people with "mental illness" is beyond absurd.

But, February and March were actually pretty good months about this.

Really. I contemplated a post drawing attention to it.

But now, posts citing Alternet and other blogs which have no fucking standards at all are being cited again.

all of that will soon dissolve in the presence of the 'importance' of what Ed Schultz calls 'psychotalk' as Nov 14 approaches

is wrong, it will continue.

The wrong side of history usually has HISTORY; the OP's title was just a fragment of the mass on the wrong side.

Do you think about your opinion?

Do you ever review your opinions in your dreams?

I expect not.

You've got your reality, and in it you can use, free of guilt, whatever demeaning language helps you express yourself.

"You've got your reality, and in it you can use, free of guilt, whatever demeaning language helps you express yourself."

...denying that there are idiots who do idiotic things or morons who do moronic things?

Do you deny that there are people who do crazy things?

None of that has anything to do with the AP guidance on labeling people with "mental illness."

Again, the false equivalency is bizarre.

I guess the BEST place to begin is with the word 'ridicule'

an action intended to cause contemptuous laughter at a person or thing; derision. verb (used with object), rid·i·culed, rid·i·cul·ing.

Many political things are deserving of ridicule.

Generally speaking, among civilized people or a certain 'class', people, who are mentally ill ARE NOT deserving of ridicule.

"Moronic" is an archaic term, used only in the vulgate. It refersto persons with borderline cognitive abilities to deal with the activities of daily life.

Person's with this level of dysfunction still exist, but they are not referred to in this way. Can you catch up with the 21st century?

I don't know what you mean by 'do crazy things'. Are there people whose behavior is deviant relative to social norms? Yes. Is deviance from social norms considered mental illness or 'craziness'? Emphatically, NO. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was treated that way, and the global psychiatric industries understands that 'deviance' = ' craziness is a wretched standard that destroys people.

The AP guidelines are a first attempt at getting rid of unfairly stigmatizing language as adjectives. It is usually directed as name calling against political opponents, but the damage it does is broad. Most people know nothing about mental disorders other than what they have learned in the 'vulgar' discourse of the street. People acquire misunderstanding and then they apply basic rules of logic to it.

The result is punishing, unwarranted, discrimination against most of the mentally ill. If you want to endorse and defend that, it's your choice.

"Generally speaking, among civilized people or a certain 'class', people, who are mentally ill ARE NOT deserving of ridicule."

Not only bizarre, but it also has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted.

But you and I privilege our own positions.

I think my opinion is shared by the APA, the AP, and the psychiatric community.

'Crazy' is as offensive as 'pussy' and 'faggot'. I'm saddened that you don't already know that.

You seem to be in the wrong thread again, this one has nothing to do with mental illness.

Last edited Thu Apr 3, 2014, 03:18 PM - Edit history (1)

And that in itself is sort of sad.

Hegemony of insulting, demeaning language, doesn't place that language morally, or rhetorically, on the side of the 'Right'.

Were you appointed by the owners of this site to peruse posts for words you are sensitive to and then lecture on prejudice or did you assign the job to yourself?

but I will say, lecturing the community by hijacking threads with words you find offensive, is not going to win you any friends or influence many people.

I'm tired of being told what I can say.

But you should know what comes from the words you use.

The OP here has no grasp of how 'crazy' is as demeaning as 'faggot', as an adjective.

As you can see below, there are multiple meanings for crazy. I guess you don't think using "love crazy" is appropriate? And you can 'say' what you will, but it sucks for you to completely hijack a thread over a word you don't like. The word "faggot" has always been a pejorative. Crazy isn't as used in the OP.

CRAZY:

1

a : full of cracks or flaws : unsound <they were very crazy, wretched cabins — Charles Dickens>

b : crooked, askew

2

a : mad, insane <yelling like a crazy man>

b (1) : impractical <a crazy plan> (2) : erratic <crazy drivers>

c : being out of the ordinary : unusual <a taste for crazy hats>

3

a : distracted with desire or excitement <a thrill-crazy mob>

b : absurdly fond : infatuated <he's crazy about the girl>

c : passionately preoccupied : obsessed <crazy about boats>

You must not have read my response very closely. I didn't say "crazy" was appropriate simply because it is in the dictionary. It has MULTIPLE meanings. You are the unproductive one.

I'm glad I cut our conversation short. I figured they had no real point but to hijack this thread. Sad.

so obnoxious.

Editorials -- and certainly blog posts -- are held to a looser standard.

In this case, the writer is being sarcastic and not drawing any conclusions as to Koch's mental health. I personally don't care for the headline -- not the best word, in my opinion, given the content.

If you don't like "crazy" being used as a pejorative term, I understand that. But it really doesn't have anything to do with the Stylebook.

Actually it does have to do with the AP style book and MORE.

Take one of the most, if not the most, powerless, discriminated against groups in the US and say that referencing them as the adjective that ALWAYS suggests their condition is the problem, and try to tell me this isn't significant.

I will tell you EVERYTIME that you are wrong.

It's simply the cruel hegemony of the majority. It's ok to name call using the mentally ill as adjectives, because they are abso-fucking-lutely at the bottom of the barrel.

Acceptance of such a thing suggests an inexplicable lacuna in the 'liberal'/'progressive' mindset into which demeaning epithets re the mentally ill can legitimately be thrown.

that many people don't want to acknowlege as real.

As has been pointed out, one of the accepted definitions of the word is "2. senseless, impractical, totally unsound." As applied to persons, the word "faggot" has only one known usage.

You're demanding that a word be removed from use entirely because you don't care for one colloquial usage. And making such a demand and requiring compliance from more than 800 million people who speak English as their first or second language would be....um....what's that word?

Hint: See Definition #2 above.

I think all words can be useful with care

I also thing that uncareful use of words cultivates prejudice and harm.

If you aren't at all concerned about harming or sustaining a social prejudice against the mentally ill, I understand completely.

"Technically, a faggot is a burning torch"

If you aren't at all concerned about harming or sustaining a social prejudice against the mentally ill, I understand completely.

I think all words can be useful with care.

Fuck that.

And I should point out that the homosexual community does not have an exclusive license for use of anal sex.

And it's perfectly conceivable that I could write an article advocating the mass extermination of all mentally ill persons, and do so adhering perfectly the AP Stylebook. Would that be OK?

I'm afraid that if you're trying to stop people from speaking colloquially, you're trying to hold back the tide using a push broom. People rail against using the words "moron," "imbecile," and "idiot" because at one point they were used to describe persons with varying degrees of impairment -- but they've entered the lexicon as synonyms for "stupid" and there's nothing to be done about that.

Calling someone "crazy" is becoming less and less about their state of mental health. We say that Sarah Palin is "batshit crazy" when in fact we mean that she's dumber than a sack of hammers. Nobody (seriously) thinks that Palin would benefit from therapy. And trying to stop the inexorable march of the English Language is an exercise in futility.

And by the way, as I was Googling for "old terms used for retardation" I can across an article where someone thinks we should stop using the term "Mental Illness." So the parade has already passed you by.

to advovates of the mentally ill. It's really is, in fact, as simple as that.

You said these words could be used. Hold on a sec, I'll get the exact quote...

I think all words can be useful with care

There we go. So you see, they're not unconditionally demeaning. Unless you're suggesting that it's acceptable for me to be demeaning to people provided I do it "with care."

Get back to me on that, won't you?

The reckless use of such demeaning terms as "throw away" adjectives are damaging.

Whoa! That's way too erudite.

Shoot me

Yes, I believe you did.

The Koch brothers are evil, what do you think about evil people?

Using language that demeans and creates prejudice against the 'crazy' mentally ill, is more harmful to the mentally ill than to the Kochs.

It's exactly the same as with the use of the words 'faggot' and 'pussy' to demean political opponents. The damage through the use of such language falls disproportionally upon the homosexuals and women. The use of 'crazy' does exactly the same thing upon the mentally ill.

Sounds like a bunch of failsauce, but keep at it...I'm sure someone will think you have a point.

Major depression and panic disorder with agoraphobia.

I am mentally ill. The Koch Brothers ARE fucking "crazy".

I have zero problem saying that.

It's your choice. It's a choice that ignores the detrimental effects of stigmatizing words.

If you want or need to endorse the stigmatizing use of words, go for it.

If you haven't given it much thought maybe read here:

http://www.cornwallhealthyschools.org/stop-stigma/

or here

http://www.nami.org/template.cfm?section=fight_stigma

or here

http://www.karentyrrell.com/stop-stigma-mental-illness/

or here

http://www.healthyplace.com/stigma/stand-up-for-mental-health/stand-up-for-mental-health-campaign/

or websites like these

Though I haven't had a period of panic attacks like those (they were amazingly horrible), I still consider myself to be an anxiety and panic sufferer because of what I went through, and the possibility that it could happen again is still there.

But you're 100% right, the Koch Brothers ARE fucking "crazy."

Thread hijackers are sad people imo.

And no-one who wasn't would take offence at the use of "crazy" as derogatory.

Stop trying to limit other people's use of language without good cause.

And that is a position that fails to see crazy as equivalent to 'pu**y, ni**er, or fa**ot'

AND THAT my friend is only due to the demeaning hegemony of cultural attitudes toward the mentally ill.

Think about that for a while.

Think about how access to jobs, promotions, family, friends, etc hangs on vulgar (street level) knowledge of and associations with crazy.

It's exactly the same whether the question is race or gender or sexual orientation.

What don't you get about this?

nt.

They do character attacks on their own guests if they get off the script.

of The John Birch Society. They were raised on this ideology, it is like a religion to them.

The RW have a very easy time of it. They just copy what we say and throw it back it at us.

Aren't the ALEC meetings closed to only those sanctioned by the Kochs?

Spoiled brats or traitors to our country? I vote for both.

Take your whine elsewhere.

He seems to believe that he is entitled to behave in any manner he likes and the rest of the world should refrain from making observations and responding. Chuckles seems to believe that any negative response to his actions by others has to be because that person is has no argument and is guided by radical collectivist thought.

on the French Revolution. His ego is not doing him any favors ...

From his 38 stratagems:

and then we call him crazy in order to prove him wrong.

In a sense I agree with him. And I believe the only thing I say about him is that he's really, really, really super rich, and powerful. And maybe greedy too.

But a policy debate really should be about policy, and not about the people advocating for, or against, various policies.

Okay, so I do call people greedy when they advocate for policies that will put even more money into their already deep pockets. I don't think it is unfair to point out whose bread is being buttered.

"so he says that we engage in character assassination and then we call him crazy in order to prove him wrong. In a sense I agree with him....Okay, so I do call people greedy when they advocate for policies"

...you're calling out people for a "character assassination" and agreeing with Charles Koch's "character assassination" while engaging in a "character assassination"?

I am saying he has a little bit of a point, while also admitting that I am not perfect.

And you handily snipped my quote without noting ... that you did so.

I call people greedy when they advocate for policies ... which put more money into their already deep pockets.

In that sense, greedy, is a term that seems to fit, whereas "crazy" is just a name we like to call people who we perceive to be in the other tribe, or on the other team.

"I am saying he has a little bit of a point, while also admitting that I am not perfect. "

...a really big "point," his own hypocrisy. He also has a couple of really big problems: logic FAIL and whining.

when you write that somebody is "whining about character assassination" and then you call him crazy right in the frigging headline.

"to me it seems like a logic fail when you write that somebody is "whining about character assassination" and then you call him crazy right in the frigging headline."

...assumption is logic fail. It's almost as if some don't understand what a "character assassination" is. To claim that criticism of the Kochs is a "character assassination" is ridiculous.

Is this a "character assassination":

Charles Koch whines in WSJ op-ed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024774266

How about this:

THE CRI DE KOCH - By Charles P. Pierce
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024774814

The Kochs have been engaged in disingenuous attacks, spreading disinformation and voter suppression. They are actively working to deny people access to health care. Calling them on it is not a "character assassination." They have no character, crediblity or good reputation for such criticism to be labeled a "character assassination."

Calling a liar a "liar" or a murderer a "murderer" is not a "character assassination."

Koch thinks government ought to be run like a business, so his decisions should be final. He simply doesn't understand that the government of our American Experiment was designed to kill off that part of the culture. We don't need bosses nosing in to every crack to get their cut. We hated the British system. We wanted it defeated and we did so, with our cConstitution.

Almost, and for only awhile.

They never stop trying to attack and exterminate the natural urge to spit in the face of authoritarians. Asshole aristocrats with too much cash are always the problem. They want to be obeyed, not take part in our community. The very idea of community, where a bunch of poor folks get together and defy them, makes them furious. How dare we not just take orders? After all, THEY are the JOB CREATORS, i.e., they have all the money, and we should be afraid for our lives and just obey.

Screw them. And the stupid Americans who think what the Kochs believe is a good thing for US.

his father and the John Birch Society railed against Communists. I guess he realizes that calling us all "Commies" is passé.

On Huffpo he talks about "collectivists" wanting the government to control the "means of production."

He's talking about communists. He is well and truly cracked.

Just change the term 'collectivists' to 'oligarchs.'

60 replies to this post and only 4 of them actually touch on what Charles Koch was actually saying. We don't have time to be arguing with each other over whether or not a slang term for a mental condition was used or cited improperly. The Koch brothers will destroy everything we believe while we all having a keyboard fight over words. They are the enemy not us. I am sorry for the rant but I seen so many self centered posts over the past few weeks over topics that while they are important to the individual who posted it are not dealing with what is happening right in front of us.

OP dealing with that issue of concern. It should be the over-riding principle guiding responses to OPs..imo.