Discussion Psychological Hot Takes

[NormallyNeurotic]

Mod note: Trigger Warning; thread contains in depth discussions of sexual trauma, paedophilia and sexuality definitions.

I want to hear you guys' hot takes on psychological topics.

It could be anything like:

• Neurodivergency (any condition/disorder that diverges ftom the socially-accepted norm of functioning, not just AuDHD)
• Psych wards
• Emotional maturity and how that plays into the right to die
• Stigmatized conditions (Personality disorders, complex dissociative disorders, OCD subtypes that involve instrusive thoughts/obsessions about taboo stuff, etc)
• The validity of psych meds
• People like Freud, Yung, etc
• Certain mental topics/conditions that are considered taboo to talk about (suicidal intent, murderous intent, paraphilias, etc)
• Anything else you guys can think of!

I will probably list my psych hot takes on this thread later, but I know a few people on here already know some of them.

---

REGARDING THE POLL:
This site has so many people, and even though sample size of "happy people" is low, we have a varied sample size of different types of people in active suffering/crisis.

Because of this, there's bound to be people with varied experiences/opinions on psychological topics, and knowing what each person categorizes themselves as being (in regards to happiness) is helpful for adding perspective/context to some more devisive opinions that may be posted to this thread.

If you are in between two poll answers, feel free to check both!​

 

[martyrdom]

Should I choose peace today and not say any of my opinions, or should I choose violence and get lynched? That is the question.

 

[NormallyNeurotic]

Should I choose peace today and not say any of my opinions, or should I choose violence and get lynched? That is the question.

Relatable lol

 

[dogteeth]

Hot take:
Sabina Spielrein's contributions to early psychology are underappreciated. The death drive / death instinct is almost always attributed to Freud, usually with no mention of her being the one to first come up with the concept.

Poll:
Not sure about being able to feel much true happiness currently, but I am able to feel pleasure in things and I try my best to do things I find fun at least once a day. It's hard though, most nice things feel more like a distraction than a truly fulfilling activity.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I'd say I'm rarely happy. Definitely not half the time anyway. Maybe rarely is too seldom a word though. Somewhere a bit above rarely maybe.

I'm not well read enough on psychiatry. I do hold some opinions though. I think the brain is far less well understood than our other organs. It shocks me that so much diagnosis is based on a person's description of their symptoms. Imagine if doctors diagnosed serious heart conditions like that? Without running ECG's and X-rays. I would have thought the brain itself would have been more closely examined and understood by now. That could well be my naivity speaking though- perhaps it is. But, I do get the sense more emphasis is placed on dusty old theories- rather than actual examination of the organ responsible.

So- it shocks me even more that they will prescribe mind altering drugs when they may not fully understand how they work and what the long- term side effects may be. I don't think patients are made aware of the risks either. Asides from the impossibly small print probably anyone really fully considers. Many members here have ended up worse off thanks to it. All in all- I'd have to be utterly desperate to put my trust in psychiatry. I don't fancy the risk of being a guinea pig for them!

Same deal really for psyche wards. Unless someone truly is being violent and endangering others, I think forcing (arguably) experiemental drugs on them isn't great. I also think there should be varying severities of wards. I've seen documentaries where extremely mild cases were housed with extremely volatile and violent patients. It's not to blame them but- how is that going to help the person with the milder symptoms to get better? To be in a potentially dangerous and emotionally distressing environment?

I think people aged 18 upwards of sound mind (as in- they can speak rationally on why they want to die) should have the right to have an assisted death. With an assessment. A six month waiting period when help and support is offered. I think their families would need to be informed. To start to ensure that the right to die is accepted in society.

I think we should be talking more as a society about the difficult subjects- suicide, paraphilia, homicidal thoughts etc. Pretending it isn't there isn't going to make it go away!

I simply can't work out whether we are in the grips of a mental illness epidemic. Or, whether we've always had these problems but, didn't always have the terms for them.

I also don't know the best way to deal with them. The tough love approach- you may find life especially hard but- you'll have to face it anyway. Or, the more gentle approach- don't do anything you find too challenging. The latter not always yielding a happy result necessarily. Not all NEETS are content. I just wonder what would have happened if my family didn't push me in certain ways. Would I have ended up better or worse?

I suppose when it comes to the sometimes villainized disorders- narcissism, psychopathy, sociopathy. Sometimes even borderline. I get why that would be upsetting for someone with it. I also get why it must be annoying for the terms to be banded about- this person's a narcissist etc.

There again- speaking as someone who I believe has been victim to such intense bullying, it caused my ideation- it helped me enormously to figure out it could well have been narcissistic abuse. It gave a kind of reason/ framework as to the utterly crazy ways they would behave.

Although I think diagnosing someone else is actually pretty unfair- it can be a useful tool for the person who either is or is potentially going be their victim. Spotting red flags can potentially make us more cautious around certain types of people. And sometimes if necessary and serious enough- it may mean we should avoid them all together. That may piss them off but, I don't see why people should just be cannon fodder for them.

That's not to say if a person declares themselves to have a disorder- you run a mile! That at least shows they have self awareness. But definitely- if I experienced stuff like gas lighting or outright lies about me being banded about again- I'd be off.

 

[Black_Knight]

Hottest take I can think of, I think they throw labels onto weird children early in life to make them, their peers, and their parents ashamed of them. And then a lot of the resulting pathology develops from the consequent alienation/trauma, rather than the initial "weirdness" that was actually benign in and of itself.

My dad was obsessed with my ADHD diagnosis because he wanted an excuse for why I didn't like him that wasn't related to his own failings. He tried and did not succeed at pathologizing me to get his way. I think a lot of shitty parents are similar. Or they use it for attention, or to simply defer the natural labor they agreed to take on by being parents to sincerely understand their child. It's disgusting. I hate how much these worthless diagnoses impact people's self-esteem.

Again, super controversial and informed by life experiences. But I have serious beef with the whole mental health complex in general. Just seems like a house of cards to me, meant to keep people ruminating instead of acting. Trapping undesirables and people with serious evolutionary potential (double controversial, I think we're a latently psionic species) in the system so they can never threaten it and wake up the people around them.

 

[U. A.]

Hot take: people seem to have a predilection for overidentifying with diagnostic labels propagated by a book designed to oppress them and facilitate the scaffolding of the insurance industry.

 

[martyrdom]

Not my hottest take, and in the normal, real world, this would not be a hot take at all, but I know it will be for this forum, so:
Pedophiles are not mentally ill, they should be shot on sight without hesitation.

 

[NormallyNeurotic]

Not my hottest take, and in the normal, real world, this would not be a hot take at all, but I know it will be for this forum, so:
Pedophiles are not mentally ill, they should be shot on sight without hesitation.

Paraphillias are absolutely a mental illness, and do not coincide with commiting acts of CSA any more than any other types of attractions.

The issue is that the DSM-5 combines pedophiles with child predators in the same diagnosis. This is due to many things, but it's important to point out the misogynistic elements involved.


The DSM has a disturbing misogynistic exerpt in that section I'm trying to screenshot for this thread


They essentially say that there are two "types" of pedophiles: Those with attraction to children (regardless of whether they ever assault children), and those who assault children (regardless of whether they even have an attraction)

Rape is primarily for power. By combining these two very different situations, the DSM plays into the myths that child predators actually feel attraction to kids. Most are opportunistic (at least one of my abusers also assaulted a vulnerable adult), it's about power.

They claim to be attracted to kids as an excuse. I myself am not too keen to society's overuse of the term "pedo" for this reason, but I guess that's one of my own hot takes.

People with real paraphilias are much less likely to actually offend. I'm semi-close with multiple paraphiles my own age and younger, all of which went through childhood sex trafficking where abusers would—often purposely—cause children to develop these odd attractions. I know these people because we run in the same CSA/torture survivor spaces.

 

[martyrdom]

Paraphillias are absolutely a mental illness, and do not coincide with commiting acts of CSA any more than any other types of attractions.

The issue is that the DSM-5 combines pedophiles with child predators in the same diagnosis. This is due to many things, but it's important to point out the misogynistic elements involved.

They essentially say that there are two "types" of pedophiles: Those with attraction to children (regardless of whether they ever assault children), and those who assault children (regardless of whether they even have an attraction)

Rape is primarily for power. By combining these two very different situations, the DSM plays into the myths that child predators actually feel attraction to kids. Most are opportunistic (at least one of my abusers also assaulted vulnerable adults, it's about power).

They claim to be attracted to kids as an excuse. I myself am not too keen to society's overuse of the term "pedo" for this reason, but I guess that's one of my own hot takes.

People with real paraphilias are much less likely to actually offend. I'm semi-close with multiple paraphiles my own age and younger, all of which went through childhood sex trafficking where abusers would—often purposely—cause children to develop these odd attractions. I know these people because we run in the same CSA/torture survivor spaces.

I've heard all that and I still don't agree and believe they should be shot on sight. I don't care at all why someone is attracted to a kid. I believe attraction to children is not a mental illness, not a product of some weird brain wiring (because I don't believe kinks are inherent, only sexual orientation is), but rather a product of patriarchal society that fetishizes childhood and eroticizes power dynamics, weakness, etc. So it is definitely about power, just as you said, and I believe all pedophiles fetishize children because they get off on the power difference. To me that is irredeemable and I don't care at all about empathising with them or treating them.

 

[NormallyNeurotic]

I've heard all that and I still don't agree and believe they should be shot on sight. I don't care at all why someone is attracted to a kid. I believe attraction to children is not a mental illness, not a product of some weird brain wiring (because I don't believe kinks are inherent, only sexual orientation is), but rather a product of patriarchal society that fetishizes childhood and eroticizes power dynamics, weakness, etc. So it is definitely about power, just as you said, and I believe all pedophiles fetishize children because they get off on the power difference. To me that is irredeemable and I don't care at all about empathising with them or treating them.

I'm going to go into detail on how paraphilias are typically developed in certain sex trafficked children, involving discussions of CSA, COCSA, CSAM, and how abuse affects adolescent development.

I will attempt to keep this as non-descript as possible, but as a victim of trafficking myself, the stuff you are saying outs some of our most vulnerable survivors at risk.

---

But before I start, something to note:

I think comparing thoughts and urges to actions is exactly the type of logic that lead us to the normalization of CSA.

If feeling an attraction to a child but never acting on it makes you a "bad person," what of people with sexually explicit intrusive thoughts and dreams due to CSA trauma. Many intrusive thoughts and dreams produce arousal response—this is a well known thing in both people with OCD and CSA survivors alike.

If neither people act on any attraction or arousal, what is the difference between getting aroused at intrusive thoughts of CSA done to others, and being a paraphile?

You are essentially saying that some people are worthy of death merely from thoughts, and that is an idea that has led to the death of many survivors in my community. I'm not attacking you, just saying that what you are saying is genuinely more harmful than just a casul "opinion." Wishing death on a group of people isn't made better by the fact that you don't believe innocent people in that group exist.

---

Now, to explain:
Forgive me if I come off as a bit self-absorbed here, but I genuinely can't understand how someone can't imagine the ways adolescent's brain could be trained to have a paraphilia lasting into adulthood?

I understand the urge to want to believe that people like that are "completely evil," but as soon as I started researching adolescent development, I could no longer even pretend to myself that paraphilias don't exist because I realized just how easily a child's mind can be twisted by an abuser.

It is a well-documented fact that traffickers often force kids to assault other kids (often those who are much younger) for CSAM purposes. I can think of multiple public cases where this was discussed as an element. Forcing them to watch inappropriate things is also a well-documented element.

A child's mind is fragile, and exposure to these types of things at a young age can do lasting damage, especially during puberty (or during percocious puberty and/or prepubertal hypersexuality—two things that can be caused by lasting CSA).

When a kid begins to explore things regarding feelings and attraction, what they are exposed to can affect how their attraction and hormonal urges manifest later on. If they are told/shown that assaulting younger kids is something that "should" elicit an arousal response, it can begin to do so—Pavlov's Dog. Our brain and body is more reliant on these types of feedback when we're very young.

That's not even beginning to discuss certain cults (no, not the fake baby-eating blood moon worshipping ones lol), typically incestuous ones, can actually do these things with the intent of forming a paraphilia.

We have an alter ourselves that developed an "urge" to watch gore and violence due to severe exposure that we had to things like that at a young age. Imagining that a kid could develop an "urge" in the same way, but regarding a different topic (pedophilia) isn't really some off-the-wall idea for us.

 

[U. A.]

The issue is that the DSM-5 combines pedophiles with child predators in the same diagnosis. This is due to many things, but it's important to point out the misogynistic elements involved.


The DSM has a disturbing misogynistic exerpt in that section I'm trying to screenshot for this thread

This one? "You're not a pedo if your victims are girls"? God, this fucking book

 

[NormallyNeurotic]

Also I found the screenshots!


The DSM-5-TR stating how they lump in people who assault kids with people who seek help due to distress they feel at their paraphilia.


The DSM-5-TR stating that if the victim of CSA is a boy, the offender is more likely to be assumed to have an "abnormal attraction." YOU HEARD THAT RIGHT. SA of girls is so normalized that someone is more likely to be considered "disordered" if they SA boys! What the fuck


This is the most recent version of the DSM, and they still have this stuff. That fact kinda plays into this thing U. A. said honestly... the DSM definitely ain't perfect.

This one? "You're not a pedo if your victims are girls"? God, this fucking book

View attachment 188428

NOT US HAVING THE SAME SCREENSHOT LOCKED AND LOADED???

 

[martyrdom]

If feeling an attraction to a child but never acting on it makes you a "bad person," what of people with sexually explicit intrusive thoughts and dreams due to CSA trauma. Many intrusive thoughts and dreams produce arousal response—this is a well known thing in both people with OCD and CSA survivors alike.

I don't consider CSA survivors (with any kind of trauma response) or people with OCD to be pedophiles, so my statement doesn't apply to them at all. I'm fully behind you on all that when it comes to actual survivors of trauma.

The DSM-5-TR stating that if the victim of CSA is a boy, the offender is more likely to be assumed to have an "abnormal attraction." YOU HEARD THAT RIGHT. SA of girls is so normalized that someone is more likely to be considered "disordered" if they SA boys! What the fuck

I hate the DSM in general, but yes this is just more and more evidence of the insane misogyny of the planet. This is also seen in actual court cases - sexual abusers of little boys get way harsher sentences than those who assault girls.

 

[NormallyNeurotic]

I don't consider CSA survivors (with any kind of trauma response) or people with OCD to be pedophiles, so my statement doesn't apply to them at all. I'm fully behind you on all that when it comes to actual survivors of trauma.

So... wait. If a child develops an abnormal attraction to prepubescent kids in adulthood due to prior CSA...

A pedo-philia if you will...

...they are not... pedophiles?

Are we just redefining the term pedophile now? If we just say "child predators" this would makes a lot more sense...

This is also seen in actual court cases - sexual abusers of little boys get way harsher sentences than those who assault girls.

I swear I remember reporting stuff at a police station once, and they were so nonchalant about the idea of nude pictures of a underage "girl" (AFAB) being in the hands of a predator. Girls as property I stg

 

[martyrdom]

So... wait. If a child develops an abnormal attraction to prepubescent kids in adulthood due to prior CSA...

This is exceedingly rare, but yes, in the case where it does happen I consider it a trauma response rather than genuine pedophilia. The vast majority of pedophiles are not attracted to children because of a trauma response, I am talking only about those.

I swear I remember reporting stuff at a police station once, and they were so nonchalant about the idea of nude pictures of a underage "girl" (AFAB) being in the hands of a predator. Girls as property I stg

May the pigs who took your case suffer painfully. Absolutely fucking disgusting.

 

[NormallyNeurotic]

This is exceedingly rare, but yes, in the case where it does happen I consider it a trauma response rather than genuine pedophilia. The vast majority of pedophiles are not attracted to children because of a trauma response, I am talking only about those.

You're stating this like a fact. Once again, I'm in multiple trafficking survivor communities and I think you'd be surprised at how common it is in trafficking/cult survivors (for details I listed in my explanation of adolescent traumatic sexual development), particularly those with dissociative issues.

Perhaps your sources don't take this demographic into account?

 

[martyrdom]

You're stating this like a fact. Once again, I'm in multiple trafficking survivor communities and I think you'd be surprised at how common it is in trafficking/cult survivors (for details I listed in my explanation of adolescent traumatic sexual development), particularly those with dissociative issues.

Perhaps your sources don't take this demographic into account?

From the trafficking survivors I've spoken to, the books I've read on the topic, and the research I've done on the topic, it's uncommon - at least in my part of the world. But even if it was extremely common, my statement doesn't apply to those people.

 

[NormallyNeurotic]

From the trafficking survivors I've spoken to, the books I've read on the topic, and the research I've done on the topic, it's uncommon - at least in my part of the world. But even if it was extremely common, my statement doesn't apply to those people.

Then again, I ask... why even call the people you want to shoot "pedophiles" to begin with? They lack the attraction required for a "philia." Calling them that is enabling the societal myths that those very high-ranking predators made.

I call them child predators, full stop. Ysing the term pedophile for them harms no one but the very victims we need to protect.

 

[martyrdom]

Then again, I ask... why even call the people you want to shoot "pedophiles" to begin with? They lack the attraction required for a "philia." Calling them that is enabling the societal myths that those very high-ranking predators made.

The people I want to shoot are people sexually attracted to children not as a result of a CSA related trauma response or OCD. So they are pedophiles, and most people generally understand who I am talking about when I say I want pedophiles dead because that is what most people refer to when they talk about pedophiles.

 

[Grog]

Some people who struggle with depression like to wallow in their victimhood, take zero accountability for their own situation, exclusively blame others for why their lives are shit, and only want to be coddled and have their delusions validated. It is extremely annoying to see and deal with, and I'm not a huge fan of these sorts of people.

 

[NormallyNeurotic]

The people I want to shoot are people sexually attracted to children not as a result of a CSA related trauma response or OCD. So they are pedophiles, and most people generally understand who I am talking about when I say I want pedophiles dead because that is what most people refer to when they talk about pedophiles.

Most people would understand if you said "child predators" too. Plus a lot of those people who agree with "killing pedos" would include survivors with paraphilias in their definition—ask them, you'd be surprised. I learned that the hard way.

Also, it feels like we're going in circles. Frankly, as someone who's past abuse hinged on the myth that all child predators are attracted to kids, I find your belief that even a decent amount of predators feel that attraction dangerous and enabling the very things you claim to want to fight against.

Rape is tied to power—it was never about attraction. Being able to "get it up" while assaulting someone does not imply attraction. Even asexual people can have libido and physical responses to sexual stimuli.

The things you describe as "attraction" aren't actually tied to that concept at all, so I'm not sure why you're hanging onto a point that contradicts itself.

You literally said this in one of your first messages.

So it is definitely about power, just as you said, and I believe all pedophiles fetishize children because they get off on the power difference

They get off on the power difference, not the child. They are not child-attracted, rather they are domination/control-attracted.

You have contradicted yourself multiple times, and it's starting to look less like you're actually wanting to discuss the topic and more like you want to defend your irrational attachment to misdefining both pedophilia and attraction? No offense.

 

[martyrdom]

You have contradicted yourself multiple times, and it's starting to look less like you're actually wanting to discuss the topic and more like you want to defend your irrational attachment to misdefining both pedophilia and attraction? No offense.

I've not contradicted myself, I've gone on to clarify after you've asked me questions. If your issue hinges on the fact that I use the term pedophile rather than child predator, that's fine (I'm not attached to using any kind of particular word, so I can change it, nor am I the arbiter of these definitions, I speak only to what I personally am referring to when I use these terms), as long as it includes people who don't offend as well. I believe you've mentioned you're autistic before (please correct me if I am wrong), so maybe the fact that I am not using extremely precise words in each sentence and relying on the idea of social nuance to get my point across might have been confusing - I apologize if that is the case. (Edit: In light of that possibility I just edited this post with what I hope is more precise wording to try and avoid more misunderstandings.)

As for attraction, I'd appreciate if you clarified why it matters so much. When I said it's about control, that doesn't mean attraction (ie. sexual arousal) isn't there. Sexual attraction to abusing children as a result of fetishizing power differences, control, and domination, is a fetish, ie. a paraphilia. It is not a sexual orientation or something inherent to the person. I don't believe pedophiles are exclusively or naturally attracted to children, most pedophiles go on to assault and rape adults as well, just as you also said, or otherwise are abusers in their relationships, because their fetish and sadistic sexual arousal comes from power and control, which includes fantasizing and sexualizing children. Is the issue that I said it's an attraction to children rather than control?

I feel our primary disagreement comes from semantics at this point. I don't want CSA survivors shot or abused in any way regardless of their trauma response, I don't believe pedophilia (child abuse fetishization? Child predation? I hope you understand what I mean) is a sexual orientation or a natural attraction to children, I believe the attraction is to power and control, and I want all child predators (including non-offenders) to be shot. I hope that clarifies things, I'm not a native English speaker and I'm not used to having to be so careful about semantics usually so feel free to ask if something isn't clear.

 

[gunmetalblue11]

As for attraction, I'd appreciate if you clarified why it matters so much. When I said it's about control, that doesn't mean attraction (ie. sexual arousal) isn't there. Sexual attraction to abusing children as a result of fetishizing power differences, control, and domination, is a fetish, ie. a paraphilia. It is not a sexual orientation or something inherent to the person.

I basically @martyrdom here means, people victime of POCD, and intrusive thoughts of something akin to pedophilc disorder. Whether it be from previous trauma, and as such theses intrusive thoughts and particular branch of OCD most commonly branch from, should not be shot.

It is not a sexual orientation or something inherent to the person. I don't believe pedophiles are exclusively or naturally attracted to children, most pedophiles go on to assault and rape adults as well, just as you also said, or otherwise are abusers in their relationships, because their fetish and sadistic sexual arousal comes from power and control, which includes fantasizing and sexualizing children. Is the issue that I said it's an attraction to children rather than control?

But that such individuals as said above and which roughly translate to:

those who assault children (regardless of whether they even have an attraction)

What @NormallyNeurotic said here. Should be capooted into hell. Or at minimum castration.

And i do agree.

I know these people because we run in the same CSA/torture survivor spaces.

I am interested in theses survivor spaces though, if you don't mind telling me more about them.
As a victime of OEA SIG and CSA.

 

[FadingSnowFake]

Poll: I said never cause I don't feel happy inside. I said it depends cause sometimes I respond with an empty laugh at work, and I may appear happy outside. And sometimes something small may happen to make my day better, and while it doesn't make me happy I can still recognize that it could've been a happy moment if I could feel happy.

On the matter above, I believe a person sexually abusing a child should not be allowed contact with humans. Because of the trauma they inflict on victims, it's like they are carriers of a contagious disease, a flaw in the human makeup, causing humans to exist without living, to want to die, or to become abusive themselves spreading the flaw. Being shot sounds logical. A world without them would be a different place.

My take and back to being happy. I can see how being stuck in survival mode may become a permanent reality for some, a constant state of fight/flight/freeze making it impossible to feel safe. In this mode, due to whatever abuse or trauma, I don't think happiness is registered as an option. Hope I'm making sense in my simple language without psychological terms.

 

[heywey]

This thread is going about how I would have expected lol. I guess my hot take is that punishing thoughtcrimes is counterproductive at best. And +1 to DSM worship being too much. I wish we had better language to discuss mental health and psychological differences that wasn't so pathologized.

Well, I guess this probably isn't that controversial, but I think fresh air, sunshine, exercise, and healthy foods are underrated for improving health, mental or otherwise. Drugs and other more focused treatments are important too of course, but I think it's kinda gross how both doctors and patients often reach for those first without first examining other factors -- treating symptoms rather than finding a root cause. I can't help but think of the infamous "Is Curing Patients a Sustainable Business Model?" report from Goldman Sachs (link)

I suppose it's easier to fit a pill into one's life than hours of outdoor time and food preparation though, if the latter is even an option at all. I wish RFK Jr. wasn't such a batshit crazy raw-milk-drinking antivaxxer because I do think big pharma has way too much sway, and that that needs to change. Like UA said, DSM-lang has taken over how we approach our differences, not to mention the more obvious things like price gouging and bribing doctors.

 

[NormallyNeurotic]

This thread is going about how I would have expected lol. I guess my hot take is that punishing thoughtcrimes is counterproductive at best. And +1 to DSM worship being too much. I wish we had better language to discuss mental health and psychological differences that wasn't so pathologized.

Well, I guess this probably isn't that controversial, but I think fresh air, sunshine, exercise, and healthy foods are underrated for improving health, mental or otherwise. Drugs and other more focused treatments are important too of course, but I think it's kinda gross how both doctors and patients often reach for those first without first examining other factors -- treating symptoms rather than finding a root cause. I can't help but think of the infamous "Is Curing Patients a Sustainable Business Model?" report from Goldman Sachs (link)

I suppose it's easier to fit a pill into one's life than hours of outdoor time and food preparation though, if the latter is even an option at all. I wish RFK Jr. wasn't such a batshit crazy raw-milk-drinking antivaxxer because I do think big pharma has way too much sway, and that that needs to change. Like UA said, DSM-lang has taken over how we approach our differences, not to mention the more obvious things like price gouging and bribing doctors.

I agree with everything—on the caveat that people need to start understanding the mental effects that chronic illness has and how it may limit someone's ability to do the "basics." Sun is fantastic, exercise is important, water (one of my main issues) is CRUCIAL. But I've also neen prescribed these when I can't achieve them, and given no pathways to find routes around my limitations. Sort of the "just lose weight!" type gaslighting that the physical health industry does to AFABs.

 

[Dot]

Nt wantng 2 eslc8 deb8 in n.e wy bt slf hve knwn ppl in persn wh/ offendd agnst childrn & wre also CSA victms thmslves bt also own persnl assaultr wh/ ws 100% abt powr - h/ startd ovr-powrng grls hs ag whn h/ ws 10 y/o & crried tht on in2 adlt-hd - bth spnt tme in prisn & slf assaultr wll thnkflly b in thre fr numers mre yrs altho h/ ws nevr cnvictd fr hs asslt agnst slf

Thn obv th/ POCD elemnt whch othr ppl hve mentnd whch = havng thghts whch r disturbng t/ persn wth 0 attrcn or sexul arousl - jst thghts whch r frightnng bcse thy r oppste of persn gnuine attractns - slf hve hd dffrnt knds of POCD -- slf wld sy wld nt wsh on slf wrst enmy bt am sre cn thnk of smll numbr of xceptns

 

[compulsoryaliveness]

1. Standard talk therapy is not about improving your life.
It's a multi tiered approach to control the population, depending on what's possible for the individual. For the most privileged, it's about keeping them in the workforce. For the next, it's about trying to get them into the workforce. For the next, it's about trying to keep them emotionally controlled. And the next, it's about trying to keep them from rebelling or responding in unpredictable ways.
It's not a big conspiracy that providers are in on, but the actual strategies they use literally result in these outcomes if they're done correctly.

2. There's more autism without intellectual disability in the current population because eugenics (not only nazi Germany, but Europe throughout that time) killed or sterilised a lot of low iq autistics.
Autism is genetic. They stopped killing and sterilising high iq autistics. They've procreated. And here we all are.

3. The way ppsychiatrists diagnose says more about them then the people they're diagnosing.
Diagnoses are mirrors to the tension and fear difference creates. A misogynistic psychiatrist will label BPD. A racist psychiatrist will label ASPD. A spiritually empty psychiatrist will label psychosis. These are extreme examples, but the essential premise is that the more fear the individual engenders in a psychiatrist, or anywhere else in society, the more severe the mental illness is considered, regardless of what the individual actually does or says.

I could keep going, but this is probably enough shit given the above pedo convo