Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The stupidity of the anti-vaxx nutcases

FFS, this still going. :facepalm:

Only 2 posters reacted with 'haha', 1 with 'sad', and the rest of us with 'wow' - I remember checking just after ItWillNeverWork originally posted and I am fairly sure that was the case then, certainly the vast majority had reacted with 'wow'.

Generally speaking with anti-vaxxers dying, I'll react with 'sad', if they have persuaded family members against having the jab and one of those die as well, I'll react with 'mad'.

I am fairly sure I've only reacted with 'haha' for the extreme loons, like right-wing radio hosts & religious leaders that have gone out of their way to persuade large numbers of people against the jab, and I'll do so again if covid takes out the likes of Corbyn and/or Icke, and happily dance on their grave(s).

If anyone thinks that makes me a bad person, frankly I couldn't give a flying fuck.
 
If I were in the business of diagnosing, at the very least I would want to have spoken to that person for a considerable time. That is, not on the basis of a news story reported on a website.

Then I have a similar question as I asked existentialist above.

In the time between us having only the information provided in the story (which quite frankly seems overwhelming, not scant), is this man to be treated as a perfectly well-rounded stable individual? Or maybe as a dangerous ideologue putting other lives at risk? Or maybe we treat this individual as being most likely unwell and in need of support?
 
FFS, this still going. :facepalm:

Only 2 posters reacted with 'haha', 1 with 'sad', and the rest of us with 'wow' - I remember checking just after ItWillNeverWork originally posted and I am fairly sure that was the case then, certainly the vast majority had reacted with 'wow'.

Generally speaking with anti-vaxxers dying, I'll react with 'sad', if they have persuaded family members against having the jab and one of those die as well, I'll react with 'mad'.

I am fairly sure I've only reacted with 'haha' for the extreme loons, like right-wing radio hosts & religious leaders that have gone out of their way to persuade large numbers of people against the jab, and I'll do so again if covid takes out the likes of Corbyn and/or Icke.

If anyone thinks that makes me a bad person, frankly I couldn't give a flying fuck.
That's pretty much my calculus, too.
 
Maybe not. But surely when a person presents with certain behaviours - in this case setting them self on fire - the process of determining this person's mental state begins. And in the meantime a decision has to be made about how this person is treated. Is he treated as a perfectly well-rounded stable individual? Or maybe as a dangerous ideologue putting other lives at risk? Or maybe we treat this individual as being most likely unwell and in need of support? It has to be one of those three, and I'd find it hard to argue either of the first two are acceptible.
Well, this chap is dead, he no longer has to be treated as anything. There is no need determine his mental state because he no longer has one. If he hadn’t died then an approach would be taken with him based on talking to him, not based on a very partial case file with one act included. And you’re still drawing binaries between “perfectly well-rounded stable individual“ and “unwell and in need of support”. I don’t know anybody at all that fits into the former category and I also don’t think I know anybody that exists without support, whether or not they are categorised as “unwell”.
 
Then I have a similar question as I asked existentialist above.

In the time between us having only the information provided in the story (which quite frankly seems overwhelming, not scant), is this man to be treated as a perfectly well-rounded stable individual? Or maybe as a dangerous ideologue putting other lives at risk? Or maybe we treat this individual as being most likely unwell and in need of support?
You can be a dangerous idealogue regardless of your mental state. This notion of casually trying to work out whether someone who has done something outrageous or offensive is sane or not is just a way of "othering" certain behaviours we disapprove of. And a particularly toxic way, given what messages it sends about people who do have mental health difficulties.
 
Diagnosable by whom? Diagnosis is not some neutral act divorced from context. It reflects the diagnoser as much as the diagnosed.
Yup. And that's one big reason why people in my particular field don't apply diagnostic labels, even if we do quite often come across them.
 
Don't listen to the BS ItWillNeverWork there's not a single escuse why someone with suicidal idealation would not need psychiatric input. It just wouldn't happen.
To indulge those digging their heels suicide bombers of the god bothering type tend to have limited capacity or trauma or childhood deprevation and if none of the above they still would get it in this country at least.
 
Don't listen to the BS ItWillNeverWork there's not a single escuse why someone with suicidal idealation would not need psychiatric input. It just wouldn't happen.
To indulge those digging their heels suicide bombers of the god bothering type tend to have limited capacity or trauma or childhood deprevation and if none of the above they still would get it in this country at least.
You've completely missed the point.

Which is completely unsurprising.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
Likes can be unliked existentialist

Well, let me be a bit more categorical. And, FTR, you will note that I have on several occasions been decidedly prim about people celebrating suicides.

Categorical time: I have, from the point that the story about this man setting himself on fire was posted, refrained from contributing ANYTHING in regard to that.

You are welcome to accuse me of being a liar. Your call.
So, IC3D, you've responded to the thread a number of times since you implied that I was lying about not having LOLd at the post about the man setting fire to himself...but I notice that you have been extremely quiet in response to my challenge.

So, come on - put up or shut up: are you calling me a liar, or are you withdrawing your snide and baseless claim?
 
So, come on - put up or shut up: are you calling me a liar, or are you withdrawing your snide and baseless claim?

I think I must be on ignore as they've never responded to any of my questions or suggestions they provide evidence for some of their claims on other threads, so I wouldn't hold your breath.
 
You are steering the conversation in a different direction you mean. Go for it. Knock yourself out.
And you telling ItWillNeverWork to just ignore every response to his post wasn't "steering the conversation in a different direction"? :D :D :D

ETA: Up until now, I've reserved judgement on whether you were just a bit contrarian, or a full-on loon. I think I don't need to do that any more.
 
Don't listen to the BS ItWillNeverWork there's not a single escuse why someone with suicidal idealation would not need psychiatric input. It just wouldn't happen.
To indulge those digging their heels suicide bombers of the god bothering type tend to have limited capacity or trauma or childhood deprevation and if none of the above they still would get it in this country at least.
The vast majority of people who experience suicidal ideation never have psychiatric input.
 
That's different to whether they should have it, which is a yes in every case. Didn't realise it was a grey area that
Perhaps avail yourself a little more of knowledge about a subject you profess to pontificate knowledgeably about in future, then?

ETA: and consider this. I don't know what your own area of professional experience is, but consider how you might respond if someone starts spouting nonsense about it, while clearly ignorant of the most basic principles belonging to it.
 
Perhaps avail yourself a little more of knowledge about a subject you profess to pontificate knowledgeably about in future, then?

ETA: and consider this. I don't know what your own area of professional experience is, but consider how you might respond if someone starts spouting nonsense about it, while clearly ignorant of the most basic principles belonging to it.
I consider your responses [up thread] to be measured & proportionate, FWIW, despite what could be considered as some level of provocation.
 
I consider your responses [up thread] to be measured & proportionate, FWIW, despite what could be considered as some level of provocation.
TBH, the "provocation" came across to me much more as someone finding themselves on the back foot, and attempting to bluster they way out of the corner they found themselves in. But thanks for the acknowledgement, anyway :)
 
existentialist you unliked the post
I've been keeping a close eye on those 'Likes' (for The Files) and you're wrong. Everyone bar 2 posters did a wow or a sadface and the 2 posters who did a haha came back after some refelection and admitted the guy dying wasn't funny.

The only thing funny about it is the way IWNW has been clutching his pearls so hard over it that he must have crushed them to dust by now.
 
Perhaps avail yourself a little more of knowledge about a subject you profess to pontificate knowledgeably about in future, then?

ETA: and consider this. I don't know what your own area of professional experience is, but consider how you might respond if someone starts spouting nonsense about it, while clearly ignorant of the most basic principles belonging to it.
You don't need a GCSE to know suicidal people need psychological help you donut
 
You don't need a GCSE to know suicidal people need psychological help you donut
How do you know they intended suicide? It's entirely feasible that they didn't comprehend that their actions would result in death.
I'm reminded of the Afghani people who clung to the side of a US military jet. Was that suicide? They were desperate but they perhaps didn't consider that death was inevitable.
 
You don't need a GCSE to know suicidal people need psychological help you donut
Generally, suicidal people need real-world help rather than some kind of psychological magic spell. A psychologist can certainly be tremendously helpful in assisting them identify what they need and how to move forward to find this, but this is not “psychological help” in the classic lay interpretation of that phrase. Problems in living are not waved away by finding the right way of thinking. And none of this is “psychiatric” either. Mostly, suicidal ideation does not imply an acute clinical problem.
 
Back
Top Bottom