Sauced Tiger

[Lennys Tap]

You miss the point entirely.  The point is that mental illness in this country is viewed with immense stigma, to the point that most that suffer from mental illnesses refuse to get help, and even refuse to realize they have a problem. 

A person that leaves his wife and business and drives off the DC to live in his car with no plan, no aims, is not mentally stable.  A person who commits mass shootings is not mentally stable. 

A person who calls for violence against his opponents is not mentally stable.  We have problems in this nation, and one of the biggest ones is not recognizing and taking care of mental illnesses.

Oh yeah, and Forgetful is fine...I've never been big on using titles and let anyone call me by my first name...otherwise I might forget it.

I'm actually on the Board of a not for profit whose mission is to reduce stigma towards and promote healing for people who suffer from mental illness - so to say I'm sympathetic to the problem is an understatement.

However, I'm not a psychiatrist and even if I was one I wouldn't be comfortable making a diagnosis from an anecdote or a Facebook post. One thing we do know, though. Mentally ill or not, he had managed to function for 64 years with only minor incidents. Aren't you even a little concerned about the possibility that the viciousness of our present political discourse might have set this guy on a course towards attempted mass assassination?

[tower912]

Aren't you even a little concerned about the possibility that the viciousness of our present political discourse might have set this guy on a course towards attempted mass assassination?

I've been concerned about the viciousness of political discourse for 24 years.    It has steadily worsened.   

[forgetful]

I'm actually on the Board of a not for profit whose mission is to reduce stigma towards and promote healing for people who suffer from mental illness - so to say I'm sympathetic to the problem is an understatement.

However, I'm not a psychiatrist and even if I was one I wouldn't be comfortable making a diagnosis from an anecdote or a Facebook post. One thing we do know, though. Mentally ill or not, he had managed to function for 64 years with only minor incidents. Aren't you even a little concerned about the possibility that the viciousness of our present political discourse might have set this guy on a course towards attempted mass assassination?

Of course I'm concerned, because in order to make progress people need to work together.  But, as Tower mentioned that has been a problem forever.  We are not going to fix that overnight.

But, all acts of violence have some sort of trigger, we will never be able to remedy every trigger, but we can work on the underlying factors that allow it to get to that point to begin with.  One of the largest underlying and continuing factors is mental health. People don't commit acts like this if they are stable and mentally healthy.

[Lennys Tap]

I've been concerned about the viciousness of political discourse for 24 years.    It has steadily worsened.

I've been worried longer than that. At least 37 years, maybe longer. But I've never seen anything even close to this, and before it's over I fear these hateful morons (on both sides) will have lots and lots of blood on their hands.

[Jay Bee]

I'm actually on the Board of a not for profit whose mission is to reduce stigma towards and promote healing for people who suffer from mental illness - so to say I'm sympathetic to the problem is an understatement.

However, I'm not a psychiatrist and even if I was one I wouldn't be comfortable making a diagnosis from an anecdote or a Facebook post. One thing we do know, though. Mentally ill or not, he had managed to function for 64 years with only minor incidents. Aren't you even a little concerned about the possibility that the viciousness of our present political discourse might have set this guy on a course towards attempted mass assassination?

Lennys, your thought process and analysis on this subject is completely reasonable and fair.

[Jockey]

I've been worried longer than that. At least 37 years, maybe longer. But I've never seen anything even close to this, and before it's over I fear these hateful morons (on both sides) will have lots and lots of blood on their hands.

If I may, I would like like to ask why you chose 37 years. What happened then that made you pick that amount of time?

[rocket surgeon]

Of course I'm concerned, because in order to make progress people need to work together.  But, as Tower mentioned that has been a problem forever.  We are not going to fix that overnight.

But, all acts of violence have some sort of trigger, we will never be able to remedy every trigger, but we can work on the underlying factors that allow it to get to that point to begin with.  One of the largest underlying and continuing factors is mental health. People don't commit acts like this if they are stable and mentally healthy

                " No doubt he suffered from mental illness, "

  in my opinion, and i'm not a psychiatrist or anything, mental "stability" and mental illness are 2 different things.  one can be mentally "unstable" and still function within the parameters society has set short of inflicting mass murder on those you disagree with.  mental instability can be demonstrated in many benign forms all the way to whatever you see as "weird" and/or cause you to not want to associate with said person.  the degree of "mental-ness" really comes down to the point if they realize their actions were right or wrong. 

 i believe our media and those in charge of making and enforcing our laws need to be a little more responsible for what they are saying in public.  these are the people we put in charge or hold a position from which they carry a "big megaphone" and thereby, hold a lot of power.  when they continue to "spew" out "irresponsible", "hate-filled" statements, they are potentially putting many people in harms way. 

[Benny B]

I've been concerned about the viciousness of political discourse for 24 years.    It has steadily worsened.

What should anyone expect?  The voting public in this country is perfectly content with voting "against the other person" rather than a candidate who actually represents who they are. 

When elections are less about your own ideals, and more about how bad the other person's are, you're going to breed hatred, resentment, anger and vitriol amongst the masses.

[warriorchick]

What should anyone expect?  The voting public in this country is perfectly content with voting "against the other person" rather than a candidate who actually represents who they are. 

When elections are less about your own ideals, and more about how bad the other person's are, you're going to breed hatred, resentment, anger and vitriol amongst the masses.

What really disappoints me as that the hatred is now seeping into every subject of discussion.

Want to talk about the Cosby trial?  "Well, even if he gets convicted, that Cheetoh-faced pu$$Y-grabber Trump will probably pardon him!"

Compliment someone on their new winter coat?  "Well, if you listen to the Libtards, I won't need it for much longer because of global warming!"

[MU82]

What should anyone expect?  The voting public in this country is perfectly content with voting "against the other person" rather than a candidate who actually represents who they are. 

When elections are less about your own ideals, and more about how bad the other person's are, you're going to breed hatred, resentment, anger and vitriol amongst the masses.

Sadly, Benny, far too many people who voted for the Orange Menace did so because they believe he represents who they are. While plenty voted against the other candidate, yes, Making America White Again was exactly what most of his supporters wanted IMHO.

Newt couldn't wait to blame the extreme left for the rancor taking place now, which is hilarious given that his chosen candidate promoted violence against peaceful protesters at his rallies.

There's been much fuss about Kathy Griffin and the NY Caesar play portraying violence perpetrated on Trump lookalikes. And probably correctly so; while I like giving "artists" a lot of leeway, it's over the top to promote such gruesome images. But I don't remember similar right-wing outrage when Ted Nugent threatened to put a gun in Obama's mouth and pull the trigger. Indeed, Mike Huckabee not only didn't criticize Nugent; he had Nugent on his Fox News show and the two played "Cat Scratch Fever" together. If not so sad, that would have been hilarious - an effen preacher playing the guitar while his guest sang about primal sex. And the current so-called president has had Nugent to the WH - that's far less surprising, as the two have P-grabbing in common.

[Lennys Tap]

What should anyone expect?  The voting public in this country is perfectly content with voting "against the other person" rather than a candidate who actually represents who they are. 

When elections are less about your own ideals, and more about how bad the other person's are, you're going to breed hatred, resentment, anger and vitriol amongst the masses.

National elections are (by necessity) about "coalition building". And both parties have, within their coalition, elements that make those who traditionally identify with those parties uncomfortable. So people swallow hard, and vote against the other guy because he's even worse than their guy. Maybe if we had more parties who then formed coalitions AFTER elections it would be better, but I fear our divisions are so great we may be past the point of no return.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

National elections are (by necessity) about "coalition building". And both parties have, within their coalition, elements that make those who traditionally identify with those parties uncomfortable. So people swallow hard, and vote against the other guy because he's even worse than their guy. Maybe if we had more parties who then formed coalitions AFTER elections it would be better, but I fear our divisions are so great we may be past the point of no return.

No, that doesn't work either. Just look at what's happening in the UK after the last general election. May gambled and lost big time now she is forced to try to form a coalition with the Alt Right DUP, who only have 10 seats out of over 600 possible.

Not only has she pissed off the opposition, but her own party hates her for trying to form a coalition. The Scottish Conservatives have already said they wont support her, depending on the deal they make with the DUP leaving the government in a complete cluster f**k.

In 2010, the Liberal Democrats formed a coalition with the Torries and proceeded to almost become an extinct party in 2015 because it backfired on them so much.

I understand what you're saying but that doesn't work in modern politics. One option that has worked really well (so far) is Macron in France starting up his own political party from scratch. He is pretty well liked around France, but im sure that will change as well. Merkel as well, shes already been in charge since 2005 now.

[Lennys Tap]

If I may, I would like like to ask why you chose 37 years. What happened then that made you pick that amount of time?

Ronald Reagan, to the chagrin of the elites in the Washington establishment (including the Washington/New York elite media) was elected president.

[Lennys Tap]

Sadly, Benny, far too many people who voted for the Orange Menace did so because they believe he represents who they are. While plenty voted against the other candidate, yes, Making America White Again was exactly what most of his supporters wanted IMHO.

Newt couldn't wait to blame the extreme left for the rancor taking place now, which is hilarious given that his chosen candidate promoted violence against peaceful protesters at his rallies.

There's been much fuss about Kathy Griffin and the NY Caesar play portraying violence perpetrated on Trump lookalikes. And probably correctly so; while I like giving "artists" a lot of leeway, it's over the top to promote such gruesome images. But I don't remember similar right-wing outrage when Ted Nugent threatened to put a gun in Obama's mouth and pull the trigger. Indeed, Mike Huckabee not only didn't criticize Nugent; he had Nugent on his Fox News show and the two played "Cat Scratch Fever" together. If not so sad, that would have been hilarious - an effen preacher playing the guitar while his guest sang about primal sex. And the current so-called president has had Nugent to the WH - that's far less surprising, as the two have P-grabbing in common.

I hate to say it, Mike, but this post, with some truths, some half truths, some lies and an overall tone of confrontation and hatred is a perfect example of what's wrong with our country. And for every reason you can come up with to despise, belittle and mock your fellow citizens who don't see all things your way, they'll come back at you with a laundry list "proving" how awful you and your minions are. How do you think it's working out so far?

[MU82]

I hate to say it, Mike, but this post, with some truths, some half truths, some lies and an overall tone of confrontation and hatred is a perfect example of what's wrong with our country. And for every reason you can come up with to despise, belittle and mock your fellow citizens who don't see all things your way, they'll come back at you with a laundry list "proving" how awful you and your minions are. How do you think it's working out so far?

Not working out well at all, I admit that.

Obviously, this has gotten far too political and I had promised to try to avoid that. So here in this thread, I'll let you have the last word.

However, I would welcome a PM in which you offer conclusive proof as to anything I said in my previous post that was a "lie." I do not like to lie, and I don't think I did there. I would view it as constructive criticism. And we could have a dialogue that isn't on this thread. I promise to not be confrontational.

Having said that, I understand if you'd rather not. Discussing this stuff, even non-confrontationally, is often unpleasant.

[Lennys Tap]

Not working out well at all, I admit that.

Obviously, this has gotten far too political and I had promised to try to avoid that. So here in this thread, I'll let you have the last word.

However, I would welcome a PM in which you offer conclusive proof as to anything I said in my previous post that was a "lie." I do not like to lie, and I don't think I did there. I would view it as constructive criticism. And we could have a dialogue that isn't on this thread. I promise to not be confrontational.

Having said that, I understand if you'd rather not. Discussing this stuff, even non-confrontationally, is often unpleasant.

Mike - I would love to have a dialogue with you "off campus". Hopefully this weekend I'll send you a PM.

[Lennys Tap]

Lennys, your thought process and analysis on this subject is completely reasonable and fair.

Thanks, Jay Bee.

[Golden Avalanche]

Ronald Reagan, to the chagrin of the elites in the Washington establishment (including the Washington/New York elite media) was elected president.

Do you think the viciousness of this era was simply down to the election of Reagan or down to some distasteful events that occurred under his two terms in office?

Viciousness is a pathology. I don't find single events to be the cause but rather it's a degradation in the fairness equilibrium within influential people that creates a sense of ever-growing and acceptable forms of viciousness.

In essence, each person is responsible for their adherence to what they perceive as an allowed form of discourse but when the information environment is segmented as deeply as it has become in 2017 (with multiple decades worth of foundation being laid) there's a perverse incentive to ratchet up viciousness.

[Benny B]

Sadly, Benny, far too many people who voted for the Orange Menace did so because they believe he represents who they are. While plenty voted against the other candidate, yes, Making America White Again was exactly what most of his supporters wanted IMHO.

Conceptually, there's nothing sad about voting for someone who you believe represents who you are.  Yet for every person who voted for Trump believing that he was representative of them, there was probably 2 or 3 more people who were simply voting against HRC.  The ratio was probably even higher for people who voted "against" Trump rather than "for" HRC.

Listen... I have no problem with someone who uses their vote as a protest against another, but what I do have a problem is how the opinion-shapers who disguise protest in hatred... that's not good for anyone, regardless of what your political belief is.

We either hang together or we all hang separately.  Doesn't mean we have to hold the same beliefs.  But the hate-mongering needs to stop because it's leading to exactly what we witnessed in DC this week.  What's most disgusting about the whole thing is not just how both sides are using the incident to advance their own agenda, it's how polarized Americans have become to the point where we simply allow our politicians to act this way because we'd rather have power than unity.

[MerrittsMustache]

Conceptually, there's nothing sad about voting for someone who you believe represents who you are.  Yet for every person who voted for Trump believing that he was representative of them, there was probably 2 or 3 more people who were simply voting against HRC.  The ratio was probably even higher for people who voted "against" Trump rather than "for" HRC.

Listen... I have no problem with someone who uses their vote as a protest against another, but what I do have a problem is how the opinion-shapers who disguise protest in hatred... that's not good for anyone, regardless of what your political belief is.

We either hang together or we all hang separately.  Doesn't mean we have to hold the same beliefs.  But the hate-mongering needs to stop because it's leading to exactly what we witnessed in DC this week.  What's most disgusting about the whole thing is not just how both sides are using the incident to advance their own agenda, it's how polarized Americans have become to the point where we simply allow our politicians to act this way because we'd rather have power than unity.

Just to tie this thread all together...Any informed voter who was a strong supporter of either Trump or Hillary likely suffers from some sort of mental illness.

[Jockey]

Ronald Reagan, to the chagrin of the elites in the Washington establishment (including the Washington/New York elite media) was elected president.

I would contend that the major item leading to this public viciousness occurred 4 years later when "Oxy" Limbaugh went on the air.

[forgetful]

I'm actually on the Board of a not for profit whose mission is to reduce stigma towards and promote healing for people who suffer from mental illness - so to say I'm sympathetic to the problem is an understatement.

However, I'm not a psychiatrist and even if I was one I wouldn't be comfortable making a diagnosis from an anecdote or a Facebook post. One thing we do know, though. Mentally ill or not, he had managed to function for 64 years with only minor incidents. Aren't you even a little concerned about the possibility that the viciousness of our present political discourse might have set this guy on a course towards attempted mass assassination?

I already address the last point, but wanted to revisit this for two reasons. 

First, thank you for your work in addressing the problem of mental health. 

Second, your statements in the next paragraph contribute to the overall problem and stigma associated with mental illness, and peoples reluctance to get help.  You state that "mentally ill or not, he managed to function for 64 years with only minor incidents."

It suggests that those suffering from mental illness could not "manage to function."  That couldn't be further from the truth, many with mental illness function just fine without treatment but are still suffering internally.  That is why so often when tragedy strikes (suicide,...violence), we so often hear, I can't believe it, "they seemed so normal and fine."  These ideas stop people from seeking help, as "they function fine."  We need to be vocal that mental illness of all types all degrees exist and it is not a weakness. 

Now as for "minor incidents."  That also isn't true, and again ignores signs that someone may need to seek help.  For over a decade he has had several incidences of frightening violence and domestic abuse, including beating a man and firing a shotgun at him.  During court hearings he was known to violently scream at people during the trial.  He has a lengthy history of violence.

One of his foster daughters, doused herself with gasoline and set herself on fire.  That would be traumatic for anyone.

During all of that he was never advised, or sought treatment...likely because he "functioned fine." In his mind, and as his friends say, "everyone gets in fights."

[Jockey]

I already address the last point, but wanted to revisit this for two reasons. 

First, thank you for your work in addressing the problem of mental health. 

Second, your statements in the next paragraph contribute to the overall problem and stigma associated with mental illness, and peoples reluctance to get help.  You state that "mentally ill or not, he managed to function for 64 years with only minor incidents."

It suggests that those suffering from mental illness could not "manage to function."  That couldn't be further from the truth, many with mental illness function just fine without treatment but are still suffering internally.  That is why so often when tragedy strikes (suicide,...violence), we so often hear, I can't believe it, "they seemed so normal and fine."  These ideas stop people from seeking help, as "they function fine."  We need to be vocal that mental illness of all types all degrees exist and it is not a weakness. 

Now as for "minor incidents."  That also isn't true, and again ignores signs that someone may need to seek help.  For over a decade he has had several incidences of frightening violence and domestic abuse, including beating a man and firing a shotgun at him.  During court hearings he was known to violently scream at people during the trial.  He has a lengthy history of violence.

One of his foster daughters, doused herself with gasoline and set herself on fire.  That would be traumatic for anyone.

During all of that he was never advised, or sought treatment...likely because he "functioned fine." In his mind, and as his friends say, "everyone gets in fights."

Well said.

I would like to add one more point, also.

There are myriads of mental illnesses, just as there are physical illnesses. We can't make the mistake of bundling all mental illnesses as being the same. With many, the symptoms come and go depending on lifestyle, medication, etc. Some are always there - even if under the surface. Others are triggered by events.

When someone has cancer, we don't say they have a physical illness; we say they have cancer. But for mental illness, we put everyone under the same umbrella.

[GGGG]

Do you think the viciousness of this era was simply down to the election of Reagan or down to some distasteful events that occurred under his two terms in office?

Viciousness is a pathology. I don't find single events to be the cause but rather it's a degradation in the fairness equilibrium within influential people that creates a sense of ever-growing and acceptable forms of viciousness.

In essence, each person is responsible for their adherence to what they perceive as an allowed form of discourse but when the information environment is segmented as deeply as it has become in 2017 (with multiple decades worth of foundation being laid) there's a perverse incentive to ratchet up viciousness.

Coupled with the fact that there is no electoral incentive for any particular member of Congress to work with the other side to get legislation passed.  It is a sign of weakness for you to do so.    Gerrymandering is a problem.

[Jockey]

Gerrymandering is a problem.

It is the biggest problem in many, many states.