Background; I've been playing in bands for years and years. A little while back, we had a 20-band, dual stage 'fest killed off early by a group of white supremacist skinheads that showed up and threatened non-white people just because, literally as soon as they walked in. We had no security or police presence, so the organisers called off the night early, and the skinheads left. It's happened more than once, but that's a possibility in the punk and metal scenes unfortunately.
Lately at work (hospital) I've seen quite a few Nazi & white-supremacy style tattoos, and many of these people have been absolute pigs to the non-white staff. I get that free speech is a thing, make your own mind etc.
This behaviour still upsets me greatly.
Is strong, overt, aggressive, in-your-face RACISM something we should consider to be a mental illness?
I'm starting to think of it that way. It's almost like a phobia type response, being afraid of the unknown, only turned into something darker and hateful.
I'm wondering how you all feel about this.
I would be very cautious about this due to the law of unintended consquences.
If it becomes a disease it becomes a defense. I for one am not thrilled at the prospect of a world where some ***** can assault or murder some other person and claim diminished repsonsibility due to the fact that their Rascism made them do it.
I believe it was used as plot point in one of episodes on the original Law and Order series. I think in the Season 5 episode Profile but I can't be sure and the above was one of the points raised in the episode.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
"a condition which causes serious disorder in a person's behaviour or thinking."
A disorder is something that interferes with their ability to live their life; which is a litmus test that most forms of racism don't pass.
Which is not to say that I don't think that there are "defects" in brains that enforce racist tendencies, but to me it's a human condition and less an illness which is defined as a disorder. A disorder has very specific and intentional meaning.
Yeah, it is funny to me how "alcoholism" is considered a "disorder", simply because it does affect someone's ability to carry on with their day to day life. People can and do get on SSDI, take qualified leaves of absence, etc, because of alcoholism. But if I'm just dense and have a taste for other poisons like gasoline, no such protection.
I think most people are inclined to think of a principle of fairness where someone received protection for their status, only if they were unable to exercise choice to avoid that status. Whether something constitutes a "protected class" under the equal protections clause of the US Constitution does take that into consideration, but disability discrimination under the EEOC and similar statutes doesn't. It just looks to whatever status is in the statute.
On the topic of White Supremacy, would you think it's a service or a disservice to White Supremacists to classify it as a mental disorder? The OP seems to be talking like it would be a disservice, just to label it outwardly as something unhealthy. On that, I'd tend to think that opinion and free speech shouldn't be taken as evidence of what rights of privileges one should have. But if it does lead them to so something that is against the law, like disturbing the peace, you definitely want to be able to take those actions in isolation and apply penalties. In the OP's story of those people disrupting the rock concert, or being pigs at work, it sounds like you could take some sort of action on that basis alone. Police take security at public gatherings quite seriously. Same with most HR departments, they would want to know about any disruptions like that.
Labeling something as a disorder and placing it under that category of "physical / mental traits outside a person's control" is a dangerous proposition that needs to be done with extreme caution. The last thing I think any of us want is for someone to commit a hate crime and be able to argue for a lesser sentence by claiming their racism is due to a mental disorder that they can't control.
This is where laws differ, country to country. Here in Australia, a crim facing a heavy sentence being found insane, mentally insufficient etc. will likely serve the same sentence, only in a mental institution instead - where of course the rules for release are different.
What I meant, by mental illness relating to extreme racism, isn't from a legal standpoint, but rather from a perspective of how you might handle these people, but I understand what you're all talking about.
Where I work, (ED department) there are few pleasant ways you can handle these people, as most of the staff I work with are from all over the world. The majority of the doctors aren't white, and Australian born locals (like myself) occasionally get called "token" as there's so few of us with an aussie accent. We are a migrant country afterall.
So handling these vocal, extreme rasicts is problematic, as any security you're likely to send to them are almost exclusively Indian, Pakistani or Afghan, which tends to inflame the situation further on a lot of occasions.
"a condition which causes serious disorder in a person's behaviour or thinking."
This doesn't seem like a very helpful definition. The first thought that came into my mind when I read this is "relative to whose behavior or thinking?"
If we define it relative to the average human being, then we can potentially get into really murky waters, socially speaking.
That's a philosophical way to look at it.
How would you define mental illness?
A. A behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual
B. The consequences of which are clinically significant distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e., impairment in one or more important areas of functioning)
C. Must not be merely an expectable response to common stressors and losses (for example, the loss of a loved one) or a culturally sanctioned response to a particular event (for example, trance states in religious rituals)
D. that reflects an underlying psychobiological dysfunction
E. that is not solely a result of social deviance or conflicts with society
F. that has diagnostic validity using one or more sets of diagnostic validators (e.g., prognostic significance, psychobiological disruption, response to treatment)
G. that has clinical utility (for example, contributes to better conceptualization of diagnoses, or to better assessment and treatment)
seems a great place to start.
The short answer is "no, just because someone disagrees with you on a topic does not make them mentally ill."
Is strong, overt, aggressive, in-your-face RACISM something we should consider to be a mental illness?
No. People think and feel the way they do and you can't label that legally without ramifications. Besides, while it is a different discussion altogether, I think racism is a human instinct present in all human beings by default. Acting on it is something different though. Humans are a sentient species so regardless of what your instinct or emotion tells you you have the option to not act on it. The behaviour you describe is rude and disrespectful and thus deserves a proper response. The reason for why someone is rude and disrespectful is (usually, but at least in the case of racism) irrelevant.
A. A behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual
Strong racism is a behavioral pattern that occurs in an individual.
B. The consequences of which are clinically significant distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e., impairment in one or more important areas of functioning)
As far as impairment of functioning, that could be considered to be applicable.
C. Must not be merely an expectable response to common stressors and losses (for example, the loss of a loved one) or a culturally sanctioned response to a particular event (for example, trance states in religious rituals)
Off the top of my head, there's no common stressors and losses to which strong racism would be an expectable response. And strong racism is (generally) not culturally sanctioned.
D. that reflects an underlying psychobiological dysfunction
Is it psychobiological? Probably not. There's no inherent reason why it couldn't be, but it also isn't confirmed to be so (or it would already be widely considered to be a mental illness).
E. that is not solely a result of social deviance or conflicts with society
Racism stems from thinking of oneself as different, in a superior manner, compared to other people.
F. that has diagnostic validity using one or more sets of diagnostic validators (e.g., prognostic significance, psychobiological disruption, response to treatment)
Prognostic significance would be the only validator of those listed. Though a behavioral pattern is going to be relatively straight-forward to predict. But it fundamentally comes down to a societal aspect before this criteria. (Heck, the previous criteria is questionable.)
G. that has clinical utility (for example, contributes to better conceptualization of diagnoses, or to better assessment and treatment)
Uhh... Maybe. Could therapy be developed to counter racism? Well, getting someone to accept that it is a problem might not be the easiest, but it certainly could be done.
So in the end, strong racism would barely scrape through these criteria. And that is very arguable. I am inclined to say that by these criteria, it is not a mental disorder. It is just an aberrance.
G. that has clinical utility (for example, contributes to better conceptualization of diagnoses, or to better assessment and treatment)
Uhh... Maybe. Could therapy be developed to counter racism? Well, getting someone to accept that it is a problem might not be the easiest, but it certainly could be done.
Sounds awful lot like a response a generic conservative might give to gay therapy.
G. that has clinical utility (for example, contributes to better conceptualization of diagnoses, or to better assessment and treatment)
Uhh... Maybe. Could therapy be developed to counter racism? Well, getting someone to accept that it is a problem might not be the easiest, but it certainly could be done.
Sounds awful lot like a response a generic conservative might give to gay therapy.
Or a psychologist might give towards alcoholism, or some kind of addiction, or any other mental health issue... I'm not seeing the point here, beyond a strange comparison between something horrifying and something else that is not really related.
Racism has its foundations in the way the human mind works. Our brains organize information into discreet categories, its how we function. This is true even when the categories are arbitrary and not really based on sound logic. It makes sense that we do this, it helps use sort berries into edible and poisonous, animals into safe and dangerous, or, for something related to this site, cards by color, function, and power level. This system is flawed of course, see the problems with mushroom identification or the frequent over or under valuing of cards, but it serves an important evolutionary purpose. Our ability to categorize enabled us to learn more quickly and allowed us to use schema to make better decisions in novel situations. Its an over simplification, sure, but its the basic process that leads to, say, players being able to see a single shot lifegain card and automatically know its bad, or for a hunter gatherer to get sick on orange berries from a bush and then avoid orange berries from other bushes. Two extremely important categories we form are "Like me" and "not like me". We are social animals, so our sense of self extends, in a way, to the group we identify with, from family, to tribe, to team, to nation, to race. We adopt these as part of our identity, and thus in a way as part of ourselves, and tend to view them favorably and take actions to protect them. The category "not like me" on the other hand is institutionally equated to competition, or a possible threat. Again, there is an evolutionary advantage to this. This instinct allowed early man to pass on his genes by taking actions which protected his tribe that did not benefit him specifically, and it caused early man to be wary of strangers who might harm his tribe or compete with them for resources. In a modern setting, this is a counterproductive instinct. We know that there really isn't that much difference between races physically, and even less so psychologically, emotionally, and intellectually, and in a civilized society our connections and interdependence reaches far beyond the familial or small tribal that our instinct evolved to deal with. Those our brains classify as "not like me" are often in reality quite a bit "like me" and we rely on those people in our daily lives, while other people that our brains classify as "like me" are quite different and have goals that are opposed to our own. In modern society, two neighbors, black and white, stand to benefit more from each other's success than from the success of some random person in Gambia or Russia, despite what our instinct's tendency to place importance on physical appearance would tell us. In reality, this instinct has been counterproductive ever since humans started building permanent settlements and nations. Our modern world is so interdependent that we can't even rationally root against people on the other side of the planet that we will never interact with, as the economic troubles of one country have a negative impact on everyone else, and the economic rise of nations has benefits to the entire world.
In short, while their are evolutionary underpinnings to racism (and other forms of bias), they are relics from our uncivilized history as hunter gatherers. They are actively harmful to us in the modern world, both to society, to the targets of bias, and to the holders of bias themselves. Racism (and bias) is not a mental illness, however, because it is not an abnormal phenomenon. It is, rather, a universal human flaw to be overcome, much like our natural fear of the unknown, or how people need to learn manners or self control by being taught.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Meaning of Life: "M-hmm. Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations"
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Whether its blue players countering your spells, red players burning you out, or combo, if you have a problem with an aspect of Magic's gameplay, you can fix it!
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've been playing in bands for years and years. A little while back, we had a 20-band, dual stage 'fest killed off early by a group of white supremacist skinheads that showed up and threatened non-white people just because, literally as soon as they walked in. We had no security or police presence, so the organisers called off the night early, and the skinheads left. It's happened more than once, but that's a possibility in the punk and metal scenes unfortunately.
Lately at work (hospital) I've seen quite a few Nazi & white-supremacy style tattoos, and many of these people have been absolute pigs to the non-white staff.
I get that free speech is a thing, make your own mind etc.
This behaviour still upsets me greatly.
Is strong, overt, aggressive, in-your-face RACISM something we should consider to be a mental illness?
I'm starting to think of it that way. It's almost like a phobia type response, being afraid of the unknown, only turned into something darker and hateful.
I'm wondering how you all feel about this.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
"a condition which causes serious disorder in a person's behaviour or thinking."
If it becomes a disease it becomes a defense. I for one am not thrilled at the prospect of a world where some ***** can assault or murder some other person and claim diminished repsonsibility due to the fact that their Rascism made them do it.
I believe it was used as plot point in one of episodes on the original Law and Order series. I think in the Season 5 episode Profile but I can't be sure and the above was one of the points raised in the episode.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
This doesn't seem like a very helpful definition.
The first thought that came into my mind when I read this is "relative to whose behavior or thinking?"
If we define it relative to the average human being, then we can potentially get into really murky waters, socially speaking.
Yeah, it is funny to me how "alcoholism" is considered a "disorder", simply because it does affect someone's ability to carry on with their day to day life. People can and do get on SSDI, take qualified leaves of absence, etc, because of alcoholism. But if I'm just dense and have a taste for other poisons like gasoline, no such protection.
I think most people are inclined to think of a principle of fairness where someone received protection for their status, only if they were unable to exercise choice to avoid that status. Whether something constitutes a "protected class" under the equal protections clause of the US Constitution does take that into consideration, but disability discrimination under the EEOC and similar statutes doesn't. It just looks to whatever status is in the statute.
On the topic of White Supremacy, would you think it's a service or a disservice to White Supremacists to classify it as a mental disorder? The OP seems to be talking like it would be a disservice, just to label it outwardly as something unhealthy. On that, I'd tend to think that opinion and free speech shouldn't be taken as evidence of what rights of privileges one should have. But if it does lead them to so something that is against the law, like disturbing the peace, you definitely want to be able to take those actions in isolation and apply penalties. In the OP's story of those people disrupting the rock concert, or being pigs at work, it sounds like you could take some sort of action on that basis alone. Police take security at public gatherings quite seriously. Same with most HR departments, they would want to know about any disruptions like that.
This is where laws differ, country to country. Here in Australia, a crim facing a heavy sentence being found insane, mentally insufficient etc. will likely serve the same sentence, only in a mental institution instead - where of course the rules for release are different.
I remember the case over in the USA where the rich kid with *affluenza* got a non-existent sentence. To me that is an example of poor laws in place that need reform. That should never be allowed to happen. It's a disgusting example of money = power. No wonder it got international headlines.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/12/12/the-affluenza-defense-judge-rules-rich-kids-rich-kid-ness-makes-him-not-liable-for-deadly-drunk-driving-accident/
What I meant, by mental illness relating to extreme racism, isn't from a legal standpoint, but rather from a perspective of how you might handle these people, but I understand what you're all talking about.
Where I work, (ED department) there are few pleasant ways you can handle these people, as most of the staff I work with are from all over the world. The majority of the doctors aren't white, and Australian born locals (like myself) occasionally get called "token" as there's so few of us with an aussie accent. We are a migrant country afterall.
So handling these vocal, extreme rasicts is problematic, as any security you're likely to send to them are almost exclusively Indian, Pakistani or Afghan, which tends to inflame the situation further on a lot of occasions.
Fair point, just so long as we're talking about intentional, mean-spirited racism.
That's a philosophical way to look at it.
How would you define mental illness?
A. A behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual
B. The consequences of which are clinically significant distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e., impairment in one or more important areas of functioning)
C. Must not be merely an expectable response to common stressors and losses (for example, the loss of a loved one) or a culturally sanctioned response to a particular event (for example, trance states in religious rituals)
D. that reflects an underlying psychobiological dysfunction
E. that is not solely a result of social deviance or conflicts with society
F. that has diagnostic validity using one or more sets of diagnostic validators (e.g., prognostic significance, psychobiological disruption, response to treatment)
G. that has clinical utility (for example, contributes to better conceptualization of diagnoses, or to better assessment and treatment)
seems a great place to start.
The short answer is "no, just because someone disagrees with you on a topic does not make them mentally ill."
No. People think and feel the way they do and you can't label that legally without ramifications. Besides, while it is a different discussion altogether, I think racism is a human instinct present in all human beings by default. Acting on it is something different though. Humans are a sentient species so regardless of what your instinct or emotion tells you you have the option to not act on it. The behaviour you describe is rude and disrespectful and thus deserves a proper response. The reason for why someone is rude and disrespectful is (usually, but at least in the case of racism) irrelevant.
If my post has no tags, then i posted from my phone.
Strong racism is a behavioral pattern that occurs in an individual.
As far as impairment of functioning, that could be considered to be applicable.
Off the top of my head, there's no common stressors and losses to which strong racism would be an expectable response. And strong racism is (generally) not culturally sanctioned.
Is it psychobiological? Probably not. There's no inherent reason why it couldn't be, but it also isn't confirmed to be so (or it would already be widely considered to be a mental illness).
Racism stems from thinking of oneself as different, in a superior manner, compared to other people.
Prognostic significance would be the only validator of those listed. Though a behavioral pattern is going to be relatively straight-forward to predict. But it fundamentally comes down to a societal aspect before this criteria. (Heck, the previous criteria is questionable.)
Uhh... Maybe. Could therapy be developed to counter racism? Well, getting someone to accept that it is a problem might not be the easiest, but it certainly could be done.
So in the end, strong racism would barely scrape through these criteria. And that is very arguable. I am inclined to say that by these criteria, it is not a mental disorder. It is just an aberrance.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Sounds awful lot like a response a generic conservative might give to gay therapy.
Or a psychologist might give towards alcoholism, or some kind of addiction, or any other mental health issue... I'm not seeing the point here, beyond a strange comparison between something horrifying and something else that is not really related.
In short, while their are evolutionary underpinnings to racism (and other forms of bias), they are relics from our uncivilized history as hunter gatherers. They are actively harmful to us in the modern world, both to society, to the targets of bias, and to the holders of bias themselves. Racism (and bias) is not a mental illness, however, because it is not an abnormal phenomenon. It is, rather, a universal human flaw to be overcome, much like our natural fear of the unknown, or how people need to learn manners or self control by being taught.
Onering's 4 simple steps that let you solve any problem with Magic's gameplay
Step 1: Identify the problem. What aspect of Magic don't you like? Step 2: Find out how others deal with the problem. How do players deal with this aspect of the game when they run into it? Step 3: Do what those players do. Step 4: No more problem. Bonus: You are now better at Magic. Enjoy those extra wins!