It's two sides pointing at each other and saying "Look how insane they are! Those guys are nuts!" while the people in the middle are trying to reconcile that information without feeling too put on.

While I'm not American, that's always the vibe I got from the state your (you presumably are) politics're in. It's one of he reasons why anytime some sort of discussion comes up about 'are you republic or democratic' or 'are you conservative or liberal', I'm never able to really go into it because I see both sides as flawed and the system fundamentally broken. I'm too much of a reconstructionist/deconstructionist in my philosophical analysis to be able to ever 'follow a side' in a situation -- I only follow my own terms.

This is probably more serious of a discussion than was the point of the thread though, but, eh, I'm not gonna hold it against myself for spamming in a shitposting thread. Anyway, just woke up, so I'm gonna get something to eat.

<Snipped quote by ArenaSnow>
To be honest with you, labelling the other side as 'insane' has pretty much been one of the number one strategies throughout human history for getting rid of any sort of opposition. In terms of 'party-goers' though, are you talking about actual parties like hang-outs and such, or something else?

Not that it didn't happen before, but this is a phenomenon that's very much accelerated in the modern era. As scientific categorisation developed faster the Victorians started attributing everything, from homeless to women disobeying their husbands, to forms of madness. I'd guess it's no coincidence one of the kings most remembered as mad ruled England at the beginning of the nineteenth century, but I havent read ebough Foucault to be sure.

Oh wait. We were going for a less serious thread?

Also, when all else fails you can focus on minor grammar mistakes

Not that it didn't happen before, but this is a phenomenon that's very much accelerated in the modern era. As scientific categorisation developed faster the Victorians started attributing everything, from homeless to women disobeying their husbands, to forms of madness. I'd guess it's no coincidence one of the kings most remembered as mad ruled England at the beginning of the nineteenth century, but I havent read ebough Foucault to be sure.

Haven't read enough of it either, so I won't comment on that part, but you're definitely right about the information regarding the modern era. You only need to take one look at the mental health district to understand that - outside of it being a business like any other is - one of its primary goals is reality consensus enforcement.

This isn't to say that there aren't dangerous people out there with psychological issues that make them detrimental to society, but - as was stated in one of my favourite pieces of fiction and fits my own beliefs - 'the stereotype of the shifty-eyed serial killer is very much a Hollywood invention' in a lot of regards -- many psychopaths are excellent liars, superficially charming, and appear completely normal to most people. The people who look dangerous are not always the ones you need to be careful of, and it's a really bad misconception that social awkwardness automatically means dangerous. It's also an illusion to believe thinking outside the box means you're 'wrong' or automatically 'irrational' and 'illogical'.

As science progresses, so does the ability to brainwash people. The belief that only older societies cover up or remove elements that they dislike - and subsequently the belief that modern society is more rooted in 'the truth' than more old-fashioned times - is very much an illusion. The lies still exist, and it's simply the 'content' of the lies that changes and the methods used to represent them. For example, a lot of people who would be made outcasts in this era by being called 'insane' would have simply been considered 'demonically possessed' prior to the introduction of science becoming the new world's method of propaganda and replacing religion.

Peer pressure is another big cause of alienation, but that's been going on throughout all of history too.

>Would make a comment about how this is meant to be a shitposting thread and he's still being serious, but it's a fucking spam thread so people can get over it.

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>
While I'm not American, that's always the vibe I got from the state your (you presumably are) politics're in. It's one of he reasons why anytime some sort of discussion comes up about 'are you republic or democratic' or 'are you conservative or liberal', I'm never able to really go into it because I see both sides as flawed and the system fundamentally broken. I'm too much of a reconstructionist/deconstructionist in my philosophical analysis to be able to ever 'follow a side' in a situation -- I only follow my own terms.

This is probably more serious of a discussion than was the point of the thread though, but, eh, I'm not gonna hold it against myself for spamming in a shitposting thread. Anyway, just woke up, so I'm gonna get something to eat.

It's sort of built into the system. In some ways what is happening now is more a return to the norm than a deviation. There are a lot of situations, economic and political, where we aren't so much treading new territory as returning to the system as it was before World War 2. Because yeh, the economic instability, the vicious political division, the rabid editorial media, these are all mainstays of American society that just sort of faded into the background at the end of the twentieth century when we had sustained economic growth all across the board.

We can't have one good thread?

Look what you did.

<Snipped quote by KnightShade>
Haven't read enough of it either, so I won't comment on that part, but you're definitely right about the information regarding the modern era. You only need to take one look at the mental health district to understand that - outside of it being a business like any other is - one of its primary goals is reality consensus enforcement.

This isn't to say that there aren't dangerous people out there with psychological issues that make them detrimental to society, but - as was stated in one of my favourite pieces of fiction and fits my own beliefs - 'the stereotype of the shifty-eyed serial killer is very much a Hollywood invention' in a lot of regards -- many psychopaths are excellent liars, superficially charming, and appear completely normal to most people. The people who looks dangerous are not always the ones you need to be careful of, and it's a really bad misconception that social awkwardness automatically means dangerous. It's also an illusion to believe thinking outside the box means you're 'wrong' or automatically 'irrational' and 'illogical'.

As science progresses, so does the ability to brainwash people. The belief that only older societies cover up or remove elements that they dislike - and subsequently the belief that modern society is more rooted in 'the truth' than more old-fashioned times - is very much an illusion. The lies still exist, and it's simply the 'content' of the lies that changes and the methods used to represent them. For example, a lot of people who would be made outcasts in this era by being called 'insane' would have simply been considered 'demonically possessed' prior to the introduction of science becoming the new world's method of propaganda and replacing religion.

Peer pressure is another big cause of alienation, but that's been going on throughout all of history too.

Would like to chime in, as I am studying criminology at the moment.

If we are looking at mental health related to, for example, serial killers like you brought up.. this is like the iceberg. Killing and murder are high profile crimes that typically attract all kind of weirdos. You have to be some level of unstable to be capable of killing someone.

But another interesting point that was brought up that fits with your analogy of the shifty eyed serial killer is that in fact, if you look at corporate crime, people that typically indulge in corporate crime fit all of the criteria to be labeled a psychopath. I think this can be furthered to the point where we might also call politicians 'career psychopaths' at this point. Especially in America, where the line between corporatism and presidency/politics is often very skewed and grey. @Vilageidiotx can surely agree with the fact that politicians are often also in the borderline-psychopath regions in regards to how they act.

The key difference is that it is much more hidden, because like you said, these people are charming and they typically know exactly what to say in order to avoid 'detection' so to speak. Furthermore, the effects of their psychopathic nature are either seen as a) belonging to the job a lá, you have to be ruthless and unsympathetic to run a country/corporation or b) not noticed because they are so charismatic.

Now on the other hand I am also of the opinion that our obsession with labels is causing us to go ever so slightly insane and has a lot of bad health effects. For example, a lot of ADHD or ADD diagnoses are merely children that have a lack of concentration or are just 'busy' because that's how their personality is.

I find that a lot of people that have ADHD typically do not really have it, but are just very excitable people. I'm not sure on the statistics, but I think there is a gross over-diagnosis of these type of mental disorders (if we could even call them that, they're quite harmless) because these disorders are 'easy to diagnose'.

So, the observation that we are fascinated and obsessed by labeling things might be very true, and not positive whatsoever.

Uh, also, to win an argument, you gotta like.. strawman the opposition and yell. Loudly. Or something.

Just make the other person angry and you're guaranteed to win every time.

The thing about mental health is it is mainly for describing people who have serious trouble in society. You see this with homosexuality, which one hundred years ago was considered disordered because the nuclear family was not just a primary method of social organization, but also an economic one, so not naturally fitting into that pattern would make life difficult. It took changes in the economic and social patterns for people to look and say "Well, at this point we are making life difficult for them on purpose, if we let up they'll fit in as well as anybody." and bam, homosexuality drops off the DSM.

Go forward 100 hundred years into a time where education is critical and your ability to do the work is integral to your future, and ideas like ADHD appear. One hundred years ago somebody who had trouble focusing in school could drop out in the eighth grade and still get a good job without too much effort. 200 years ago school wouldn't even be an expectation. But now, school is pretty damned important, and having trouble concentrating school can be considered disordered.

As the requirements for living a standard life become tighter, so do our definitions of disordered.

Also why, though we all know politicians and successful businessmen tick off the boxes for antisocial disorders, we don't usually toss them into that category in a real way. Sure, they are psychopaths, but we as a society seem to accept psychopathy as necessary among the aristocracy. If it fits in with the model of social organization we've decided to go with, we just don't considered it disordered, even if those exact same traits would be considered disordered among the general population.

The thing about mental health is it is mainly for describing people who have serious trouble in society. You see this with homosexuality, which one hundred years ago was considered disordered because the nuclear family was not just a primary method of social organization, but also an economic one, so not naturally fitting into that pattern would make life difficult. It took changes in the economic and social patterns for people to look and say "Well, at this point we are making life difficult for them on purpose, if we let up they'll fit in as well as anybody." and bam, homosexuality drops off the DSM.

Go forward 100 hundred years into a time where education is critical and your ability to do the work is integral to your future, and ideas like ADHD appear. One hundred years ago somebody who had trouble focusing in school could drop out in the eighth grade and still get a good job without too much effort. 200 years ago school wouldn't even be an expectation. But now, school is pretty damned important, and having trouble concentrating school can be considered disordered.

As the requirements for living a standard life become tighter, so do our definitions of disordered.

Also why, though we all know politicians and successful businessmen tick off the boxes for antisocial disorders, we don't usually toss them into that category in a real way. Sure, they are psychopaths, but we as a society seem to accept psychopathy as necessary among the aristocracy. If it fits in with the model of social organization we've decided to go with, we just don't considered it disordered, even if those exact same traits would be considered disordered among the general population.

Pssh. Whatever, Hitler.

There is an old poem thingy about arguments…

"Raise your words, not your voice. It is rain that grows flowers, not thunder."

Just because you 'win' an argument doesn't mean you've actually won. Ideally if you're in an argument it's because you care and feel strongly enough about a topic and the other person that their opinion on the subject matters to you.

Of course if you're just arguing with a duche I tend to go with…

"If I waste any more energy arguing with you, I won't have any left to fuck your mother."

But I do like the homicide idea…

And if that doesn't work, just say these 2 words.

Canadian PSAs.

or just mention any creepy PSAs in general.