TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,641
Throughout my life growing up, and having interacted with the mental health system (no, I have never been involuntarily hospitalized nor went to a temporary psych hold before fortunately. Otherwise I would be in a much worse situation than I currently am!), I often hear the phrase of "Are you going to be safe?", "Are you going to harm yourself (or others)?" or any similar interrogatory, inquisitive questions. As I've gotten older, I've come to learn it was all about a threat/risk assessment intended to cover themselves from legal liability and such.
Even outside of formal contexts, in common everyday interaction, many normies and mainstream public often use that line of questioning to scope out and/or profile people they think might do "something" (mainly CTB or any action). Not only is that invasive and interrogatory towards the target person, it is offensive too because it is insinuating that said person cannot trust the target person and treats them like a criminal, a threat, or someone to regulate or reign over.
Anyways, so why is this considered a euphemism? It is a euphemism for scoping and profiling people that society deems dangerous (even if only to themselves) in order to bypass, ignore, and deprive said target person's civil liberties under the guise of help, health, and safety. It is really tyrannical and paternalistic that they do such a thing. People who are naive or uninformed may easily fall into the trap (fortunately, I personally have never did, but I could have easily fallen into the trap if it weren't for my critical thinking and cynical hunch!). They fall into this trap because of the wording and language appears innocuous and benign, when in fact it's implication and intention is to assess the target person (treat like a criminal or some opposition) for danger and then intervene against target person against their will.
So as a result of this, for people who have been harmed, well they either end up worse (either really CTB, do harm to others, or both) and not trusting people, or just simply never trust the system again. Of course, survivors of abuse and harm are often ridiculed, lectured, dismissed, and/or swept under the rug, but that's another thread altogether so I won't get off on that tangent. On the other hand, people who aren't harmed (yet or ever), end up seeing the euphemism for what it is and some even go out to expose the lies and deception that professionals and mainstream public like to use to entrap unsuspecting people. It's obvious these people who saw through the trap will NEVER be honest because it's like self-incrimination (not limited to the legal sense but even in day to day circumstances!).
In conclusion, I wrote this article to highlight and expose the phrases and questions that mental health professionals as well as mainstream public (non-MHPs) like to use in order to not only invade another's privacy, but also potentially rob someone of their civil liberties all under the guise of benevolent paternalism. Therefore, for as long as these kinds of underhanded and deceptive tactics exist, any pro-choicer willing to keep their civil liberties intact will of course NEVER be truly honest about their intentions! It doesn't benefit the pro-choicer at all (while having all the risk to lose their civil liberties just for the wrong thoughts or being suspected of being a danger to themselves!) I consider the summary (without due process) deprivation of one's civil liberties, especially one who possess no risk to others (except for oneself even) is one of the most, if not the ultimate transgressions and infringement of one's civil liberties and of the utmost tyranny. I still of course, standby C.S. Lewis's quote:
While there is more to the quote, this is the gist of it and I have quoted (and still stand by) his quote as it accurately describes the cruel reality of our pro-life, anti-choice society. I hope this article helps expose and bring to light one of many of the insidious and sinister tactics that pro-lifers and anti-choicers like to use.
Even outside of formal contexts, in common everyday interaction, many normies and mainstream public often use that line of questioning to scope out and/or profile people they think might do "something" (mainly CTB or any action). Not only is that invasive and interrogatory towards the target person, it is offensive too because it is insinuating that said person cannot trust the target person and treats them like a criminal, a threat, or someone to regulate or reign over.
Anyways, so why is this considered a euphemism? It is a euphemism for scoping and profiling people that society deems dangerous (even if only to themselves) in order to bypass, ignore, and deprive said target person's civil liberties under the guise of help, health, and safety. It is really tyrannical and paternalistic that they do such a thing. People who are naive or uninformed may easily fall into the trap (fortunately, I personally have never did, but I could have easily fallen into the trap if it weren't for my critical thinking and cynical hunch!). They fall into this trap because of the wording and language appears innocuous and benign, when in fact it's implication and intention is to assess the target person (treat like a criminal or some opposition) for danger and then intervene against target person against their will.
So as a result of this, for people who have been harmed, well they either end up worse (either really CTB, do harm to others, or both) and not trusting people, or just simply never trust the system again. Of course, survivors of abuse and harm are often ridiculed, lectured, dismissed, and/or swept under the rug, but that's another thread altogether so I won't get off on that tangent. On the other hand, people who aren't harmed (yet or ever), end up seeing the euphemism for what it is and some even go out to expose the lies and deception that professionals and mainstream public like to use to entrap unsuspecting people. It's obvious these people who saw through the trap will NEVER be honest because it's like self-incrimination (not limited to the legal sense but even in day to day circumstances!).
In conclusion, I wrote this article to highlight and expose the phrases and questions that mental health professionals as well as mainstream public (non-MHPs) like to use in order to not only invade another's privacy, but also potentially rob someone of their civil liberties all under the guise of benevolent paternalism. Therefore, for as long as these kinds of underhanded and deceptive tactics exist, any pro-choicer willing to keep their civil liberties intact will of course NEVER be truly honest about their intentions! It doesn't benefit the pro-choicer at all (while having all the risk to lose their civil liberties just for the wrong thoughts or being suspected of being a danger to themselves!) I consider the summary (without due process) deprivation of one's civil liberties, especially one who possess no risk to others (except for oneself even) is one of the most, if not the ultimate transgressions and infringement of one's civil liberties and of the utmost tyranny. I still of course, standby C.S. Lewis's quote:
While there is more to the quote, this is the gist of it and I have quoted (and still stand by) his quote as it accurately describes the cruel reality of our pro-life, anti-choice society. I hope this article helps expose and bring to light one of many of the insidious and sinister tactics that pro-lifers and anti-choicers like to use.
