Ex-cop manhunt in LA; tragedy ensues

[pochercoaster]

The majority of violent people I know are not mentally ill.

I do know a lot of mentally ill people who were the victims of said violence though, so, HMM.

I know this is an anecdote, but uh, give me a second to expand on it...

People can become violent for any number of reasons, in any number of situations. Violence can be committed by anyone. Violence is often contextual. It does not discriminate based on mental illness.

[rpgdemon]

Originally Posted by Kim

Welcome to "Furthering the Stereotypes of Mental Illness That Plague Our Society and Contribute to Oppression" Corner. Here's your host, RPG.

Up next, "Just because I think all criminals are black doesn't mean I think all black people are criminals!"

Do you believe that someone who would lynch someone doesn't need to be given help, because they don't see how lynching someone is a horrible thing to do?

Do you believe that they know how horrible lynching someone is, and do it anyway because they don't care?

Those are the only two options that I see as to why someone would lynch another human, and the first one demonstrates a disconnect from reality, and the second one is a violent sociopath*. Are both of those things not considered mentally ill? I'm seriously asking here, because that's what I think would be a subset of mental illness. Maybe I'm wrong.

*There are plenty of sociopaths who are not violent, as while they cannot empathize with people, there's no reason why they SHOULD be violent. That is not the point here, so if you steer the conversation to be about that, please have a reason that you explain well.

[Sifright]

Originally Posted by rpgdemon

Like, if someone solves their problems with a shotgun, that is a sign that they need help.

If someone sees a certain race as a problem, and "solves" that "problem" with a shotgun, they are a violent racist.

Transitive Property: That person is in need of help, and is not mentally sound.

or it's a sign that every other method has failed?

After all countries like USA solve their problems with violence all the time.

Want some sweet sweet oil? Invade Iraq.

Want some more sweet sweet oil?

Arm the rebel Syrian. (Interesting politics on this, the Syrian government tore up their oil contracts earlier in the year and were demanding more of a cut from the oil extracted, before nato intervened with the rebels coincidentally the rebels promised the previous oil prices )

Using violence isn't a sign of insanity. It's a sign that belief in any other method of compromise will not work.

Assholes are more likely to use violence because they don't empathize with the people they are going to hurt or just flat out don't care.

None of this makes you insane.

[rpgdemon]

Originally Posted by pocheros

The majority of violent people I know are not mentally ill.

I do know a lot of mentally ill people who were the victims of said violence though, so, HMM.

I know this is an anecdote, but uh, give me a second to expand on it...

People can become violent for any number of reasons, in any number of situations. Violence can be committed by anyone. It does not discriminate based on mental illness.

Anyone can be violent, that's true. Someone gets angry, they throw something, break a window, whatever, and feel like crap about it because they just did something bad, and they understand that they are an asshole. But someone who has a history of violence against a specific minority, and who does not feel any remorse for their actions, seems like they are mentally ill, whether or not they have been diagnosed, and whether or not it is something that IS diagnosed.

Like, do you think that someone who would commit violence against those who cannot defend themselves are mentally sound? I'm honestly confused. To me that seems like a huge flashing light that they need help, even if they are violent.

It almost feels like the point being made is that we need to help treat those who are mentally ill, except for the mentally ill who have already hurt someone, because those guys aren't sick, they're just assholes. That's the argument that I'm hearing coming back to me, and I'm almost positive that you guys can't honestly think that, because -that- is way more bigotted than the implication that those who hurt someone have to be mentally ill, and I'm reasonably sure that you're not bigots. So I'm trying to understand.

[Sifright]

Originally Posted by rpgdemon

Anyone can be violent, that's true. Someone gets angry, they throw something, break a window, whatever, and feel like crap about it because they just did something bad, and they understand that they are an asshole. But someone who has a history of violence against a specific minority, and who does not feel any remorse for their actions, seems like they are mentally ill, whether or not they have been diagnosed, and whether or not it is something that IS diagnosed.

Like, do you think that someone who would commit violence against those who cannot defend themselves are mentally sound? I'm honestly confused. To me that seems like a huge flashing light that they need help, even if they are violent.

It almost feels like the point being made is that we need to help treat those who are mentally ill, except for the mentally ill who have already hurt someone, because those guys aren't sick, they're just assholes. That's the argument that I'm hearing coming back to me, and I'm almost positive that you guys can't honestly think that, because -that- is way more bigotted than the implication that those who hurt someone have to be mentally ill, and I'm reasonably sure that you're not bigots. So I'm trying to understand.

People have committed violence against those who can't defend themselves since the beginning of time.

That doesn't make them insane. It makes them selfish bastards.

[Azisien]

Our entire planet was forged by violence (and occasional cooperation). I guess the core of humanity is mentally ill. It's in our genes!

[pochercoaster]

Like, RPG, it seems like you're taking issue with my position because you're following "not all violent people are mentally ill" with "we should lock violent people up and/or commit acts of violence on them such as the ones presently employed in prisons and thus continue the cycle of violence," which I can see how you came to that conclusion because it's not uncommon for people to express such sentiments, but that is distinctly not what I'm arguing. Correct me if my interpretation is wrong.

One can acknowledge that violence can be committed by anyone, mentally ill or not, without advocating to cast either outside of society and punish them with further violence. One can then also better approach violence on both an individual and a societal level in order to successfully reduce it if one acknowledges that violence can be (and is) committed by anyone. Conflating violence with mental illness is an ineffective way to go about it that also stigmatizes people who are mentally ill and, to that end, actually feeds into more violence.

Edit: also, I didn't read the article in the OP. I'm speaking in generalities.

[Jagos]

My second conspiracy is up on the first page.

[Sithdarth]

Lets begin here shall we:

Also, to respond to this, yes, I believe that being a bigot is a sign of mental illness. There is no reason a sane, rational person would believe that they can and should harm others for being different than themselves.

For absolute starters rationality is in all likelihood an illusion our brain cooks up so that we can feel some measure of control and stability. I mean I'm a guy with a hard on for rationality and thinking rationally about my own behavior and I know my behavior isn't even a majority rational. If at the most basic level I could control my behavior in a completely rational way I wouldn't have to avoid rooms full of people because they make me uncomfortable. Nor would I be so petrified of rejection that it takes me like 3 weeks of regular contact with a person to have a conversation. On top of that almost the entirety of the social construct is not at its core rational. I won't even get into faith because what could be said there is patently obvious.

But putting that aside and pretending like it isn't true lets shift gears a little. If we assume that rational behavior is possible who defines what is rational? People are amazingly diverse entities even within a single culture let alone across cultural divides. The term would be undefinable and any sort of judgment would be entirely subjective. But let me play Devil's Advocate for the bigot for just a moment. The thought process might go something like this:

"I dislike things that are different because I've had bad experiences with new things."

"Therefore, things that are new and different are likely to be bad."

"That guy over there looks different and he's doing something strange."

"I've heard that people that look like him have done bad things and hurt people and I believe he might do that to me because of my previous bad experiences with new and different things."

"I should do anything I can to protect myself/my family."

And at that point irrationality definitely takes over and all bets are off. Being irrational doesn't make you mentally ill. Being irrational just makes you human.

A mentally healthy person will realize that they cannot harm others for problems that have happened to them, and that harming others will not help their problems.

And you're proof of this is where? Again you're thought process and mine will differ significantly from each other and any other person. The things that you realize and the things that anyone else realizes in any given situation can be vastly different. This is natural and it doesn't make a person mentally ill. At this point you're argument at its core is predicated on that fact that you think that someone with a thought process that differs significantly from yours on the subject of violence is mentally ill. In short, different equals a bad thing.

Bigots and racists blame minorities for their problems, or have an irrational fear and hatred of them, for being different. That is totally a sign of mental illness. Violent racists especially.

I'll just point out that as I've said before irrationality is not enough to diagnose a person with mental illness. If it was enough then everyone would be mentally ill and it would lose all meaning.

I would like to draw attention to this part of that quote:

Violent racists especially.

The semantic structure of this sentence is strongly indicating that you believe any racist is mentally ill. Basically, by singling out "Violent" racists with the word especially you imply that you also believe the statement to be true to a lesser degree for racists that are not violent. Best case scenario you are just really bad at making good word choices.

Then of course there is this:

I do not believe bigotry itself is a mental illness, but bigots are mentally ill.

Pretty clearly no mention of violence here. It is in fact a direct statement of the belief that to be a bigot one must first be mentally ill.

Now, at this point you might be wondering what the point to all this is and that point is right here:

And racism is not a mental illness, and I even explicitly said that. You can have a mentally sound racist, who talks all about how them minorities took his jobs. He's an asshole, and racist, but he is mentally sound, just uneducated.

You directly contradict what you at first implied and then out right said i.e. that racists(bigots) are mentally ill. Unless of course you happened to have redefined the word bigot to mean violent racists without mentioning it to anyone. Thus, you have acted irrationally either by directly contradicting yourself, or by realizing that you're word choice was poor (or your position untenable), and then by proceeding to attempt to hide from the mistake instead of accepting and owning it as rationality would probably dictate (depending on how far ahead one was thinking). In short, my initial point is proven directly. We humans cling to the idea of rationality even though it is mostly illusion and thought processes that differ from your thought process are not sufficient grounds for declaring mental illness in and of themselves.

[Magus]

Well, I would like an analysis from the specialists here: is a paranoid delusion a possible sign of mental illness? Discuss.