TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,871
This was something that always bothered me subconsciously and consciously, a pseudoscience used as a means or weapon to silence, dismiss, or otherwise gaslight dissidents. Many people in power (both in the present and throughout history) enjoy having such tools at their disposal because it just makes their job easier and what better way to do that by invoking some authority not based on objectivity, but a moral subjectivity of values, ethics, and norms set by those in power! If the roles were reversed (see Danny Thomas example video at 3:32), then these psychiatrists and mental health professionals would very quickly realize how it sucks to be put in a position of oppression. I also wrote a thread on this too in the past, but didn't focus on the appeal to authority.
Now you see why there is a problem with the weaponization of psychiatry to silence dissidents and those who don't hold the status quo or so. The weaponization of psychiatry is being used almost unchecked and the ones who abuse it rarely ever face consequences for their actions. This is because the regulatory bodies such as the APA (American Psychiatry Association) and other similar organizations seek to cover and back psychiatry up instead of an independent organization auditing them. Also, anything that goes against their views or seeks to challenge, question, or otherwise bring skepticism towards their practices are either quickly quelled, silenced, or discredited, or worst yet, pathologized into a medical disorder! They also seem to have some vested interest in maintaining the status quo and also profits over the interests of the individual.
Why is the weaponization of psychiatry considered an appeal to authority?
The weaponization of psychiatry is considered an appeal to authority because people invoke doctors and healthcare professionals word in an argument. Why is this an appeal to authority? This is an appeal to authority because the masses and non-medically trained people take the medical professionals' word at face value and almost at/without skepticism. Therefore, even if a medical professional is wrong, abusive, or just biased (life lover, fetish for life itself), there is almost nothing to disprove or challenge such advice. It is as though most masses are just taking the advice as gospel. So suppose Dr. Prolifer1 (note: I just used a fictitious name as an example) believes that life is sacred and good (and whatever you wish to infer about pro-lifers, Dr. Prolifer1 is that), and because said doctor is an authority figure, people don't question it due Prolifer1's status. Technically Prolifer1 should not allow their bias to influence medical decisions, but it happens nonetheless and there is little or no checks and balances to ensure that prolifer1's personal opinion doesn't collude with the medical decision.
Regarding the weaponization of 'depression' as an ailment to discredit dissidents:
As a bonus point, with respect to depression itself as an ailment, there are two separate kinds of depression, situational depression, and clinical depression. More often than not, people who aren't medically trained (and even some who are), oftenly conflate the two kinds together and use that as a pretext to discredit, undermine, and/or even gaslight the complainant about said complainant's predicament. They use this claim and assertion to argue that one is of unsound mind, irrational, or not mentally competent to make decisions, which again is just another way to deprive someone their negative liberty rights. They wouldn't say that or use it to discredit, gaslight, or silence other groups that have the support of society would they? Of course not! Because they know it is unpopular to do so and there are definitely people who back those groups (LGBTQ, feminists, religious people, BLM, and many more) who would be more than likely to oust and socially outcast any said group or person(s) who tried to mess with those groups! Therefore, many pro-lifers wouldn't even have the gumption to challenge, gaslight, or even mess with them!
A short story example of the use of psychiatry to dismiss/invalide another's suffering:
When I was at work, one of the coworkers talked about their significant other who had a medical emergency that rendered him severely physically crippled and required around the clock care along with poor quality of life. Said person is crippled and depressed (no surprise!) and yet his significant other talks about how he should get medication for his depression (infuriating indeed), when the actual cause was him having a medical emergency that caused him to lose physical autonomy! Said coworker talked about how she wouldn't wish to be in such a predicament (many people wouldn't from common sense and just observation), yet she still believes in holding her significant other in that state for an indefinite period of time. Basically, it is not that significant other had an mental issue (or if it did, was caused by the loss of physical autonomy rather than a defect in his mind!), but rather that the loss of independence caused him to be depressed, therefore going after his depression without addressing the loss of physical autonomy (assuming it is permanent and unlikely to make a reasonable, let alone full recovery) is akin to gaslighting and silencing his voice! If anything, ultimately he should have a say in how much effort he is going to put up with his condition and no one should be able to keep him suffering indefinitely if he wants out. It's disgusting how people would quickly dismiss his suffering and then blame his mental state (which was caused by the loss of physical bodily autonomy) for him being in said predicament! (Dan Crews example is another good example too)
Either way, I find psychiatry to be problematic especially when it is wielded as a weapon to discredit, silence, undermine, dismiss, invalidate, or otherwise gaslight someone who has a dissenting point of view. It is also insulting to people who do have valid issues to be lumped with those who simply don't share the same worldviews as many people do. So in essence, pro-lifers loving life itself and framing it as an axiom, undeniable fact, weaponized psychiatry in order to silence the people (pro-choicers and others who don't share their atavistic perverse views on life) who don't agree with them and leave no room to challenge them.
Now you see why there is a problem with the weaponization of psychiatry to silence dissidents and those who don't hold the status quo or so. The weaponization of psychiatry is being used almost unchecked and the ones who abuse it rarely ever face consequences for their actions. This is because the regulatory bodies such as the APA (American Psychiatry Association) and other similar organizations seek to cover and back psychiatry up instead of an independent organization auditing them. Also, anything that goes against their views or seeks to challenge, question, or otherwise bring skepticism towards their practices are either quickly quelled, silenced, or discredited, or worst yet, pathologized into a medical disorder! They also seem to have some vested interest in maintaining the status quo and also profits over the interests of the individual.
Why is the weaponization of psychiatry considered an appeal to authority?
The weaponization of psychiatry is considered an appeal to authority because people invoke doctors and healthcare professionals word in an argument. Why is this an appeal to authority? This is an appeal to authority because the masses and non-medically trained people take the medical professionals' word at face value and almost at/without skepticism. Therefore, even if a medical professional is wrong, abusive, or just biased (life lover, fetish for life itself), there is almost nothing to disprove or challenge such advice. It is as though most masses are just taking the advice as gospel. So suppose Dr. Prolifer1 (note: I just used a fictitious name as an example) believes that life is sacred and good (and whatever you wish to infer about pro-lifers, Dr. Prolifer1 is that), and because said doctor is an authority figure, people don't question it due Prolifer1's status. Technically Prolifer1 should not allow their bias to influence medical decisions, but it happens nonetheless and there is little or no checks and balances to ensure that prolifer1's personal opinion doesn't collude with the medical decision.
Regarding the weaponization of 'depression' as an ailment to discredit dissidents:
As a bonus point, with respect to depression itself as an ailment, there are two separate kinds of depression, situational depression, and clinical depression. More often than not, people who aren't medically trained (and even some who are), oftenly conflate the two kinds together and use that as a pretext to discredit, undermine, and/or even gaslight the complainant about said complainant's predicament. They use this claim and assertion to argue that one is of unsound mind, irrational, or not mentally competent to make decisions, which again is just another way to deprive someone their negative liberty rights. They wouldn't say that or use it to discredit, gaslight, or silence other groups that have the support of society would they? Of course not! Because they know it is unpopular to do so and there are definitely people who back those groups (LGBTQ, feminists, religious people, BLM, and many more) who would be more than likely to oust and socially outcast any said group or person(s) who tried to mess with those groups! Therefore, many pro-lifers wouldn't even have the gumption to challenge, gaslight, or even mess with them!
A short story example of the use of psychiatry to dismiss/invalide another's suffering:
When I was at work, one of the coworkers talked about their significant other who had a medical emergency that rendered him severely physically crippled and required around the clock care along with poor quality of life. Said person is crippled and depressed (no surprise!) and yet his significant other talks about how he should get medication for his depression (infuriating indeed), when the actual cause was him having a medical emergency that caused him to lose physical autonomy! Said coworker talked about how she wouldn't wish to be in such a predicament (many people wouldn't from common sense and just observation), yet she still believes in holding her significant other in that state for an indefinite period of time. Basically, it is not that significant other had an mental issue (or if it did, was caused by the loss of physical autonomy rather than a defect in his mind!), but rather that the loss of independence caused him to be depressed, therefore going after his depression without addressing the loss of physical autonomy (assuming it is permanent and unlikely to make a reasonable, let alone full recovery) is akin to gaslighting and silencing his voice! If anything, ultimately he should have a say in how much effort he is going to put up with his condition and no one should be able to keep him suffering indefinitely if he wants out. It's disgusting how people would quickly dismiss his suffering and then blame his mental state (which was caused by the loss of physical bodily autonomy) for him being in said predicament! (Dan Crews example is another good example too)
Either way, I find psychiatry to be problematic especially when it is wielded as a weapon to discredit, silence, undermine, dismiss, invalidate, or otherwise gaslight someone who has a dissenting point of view. It is also insulting to people who do have valid issues to be lumped with those who simply don't share the same worldviews as many people do. So in essence, pro-lifers loving life itself and framing it as an axiom, undeniable fact, weaponized psychiatry in order to silence the people (pro-choicers and others who don't share their atavistic perverse views on life) who don't agree with them and leave no room to challenge them.
