TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,948
Sometimes one would think that supporting one particular party means that they are going against the paternalistic, carceral, and abusive practices of psychiatry, especially the coercive and forced interventions. However, that couldn't be further from the truth because it doesn't matter which party they support and furthermore, both major parties (democrats and republicans) both support carceral and paternalistic policies by the State (the government). The only difference is the 'reason' for why they support such practices. The user, u/godjustendit from the antipsychiatry subreddit thread on Reddit (in the quoted box below) shows exactly what I mean.
In other words, the gist of this thread is that no matter which political party one is leaning towards, especially the major ones, if they support paternalistic and authoritarian practices by the government, then it shows that they are pro-suffering and anti-choice as well. The only main difference is the cause and reasons for supporting such practices. The only true safety in which critics of psychiatry and other paternalistic, authoritarian practices are ones who are vehemently opposed to such practices and those are far and few. Very few places and safes really allow open discussion and criticisms of the psychiatric field and the public are sold on the guise and ruse of benevolent paternalism, but as pro-choicers and people who have been through carceral systems knows that it is far from the truth, though I digress.
| Don't be fooled, and I'm really serious about this. Republicans are NOT safe to turn to. They will oppose psych ideas on a political and/or ableist basis, e.g. they might be antivaxx because "vaccines cause autism", or whatever. But when it comes to the mentally ill, addicts, the homelesss, exc., they absolutely endorse institutionalization and other authoritarian methods. The key thing to consider is that over what they endorse is whether or not they believe it will affect them. They oppose free market "censorship" (usually not actual censorship) because they think they may be silenced for their views. However, they don't have problems with demographics that they don't relate to being silenced. Seriously, be careful. Just because someone has some anti-psych beliefs doesn't mean they're automatically safe to turn to. People like scientologists and republicans can lapse into anti-psychiatry sentiments at times for a lot of reason, but if you look into their beliefs system, you realize their reasons for doing so are generally not good. (on the next post the user wrote…) Unfortunately, liberals/democrats are really not more likely to listen either. Especially if we're talking about American lib/democrats, which would really just be the moderate right in most other countries. They usually maintain the pretense of being aware of "mental health" but also freely support medical abuse just as much as the other party does. They're just as unsafe for anyone targeted by the system, but they just do extra lip-talk. That's it. You're really only going to find true anti-institutionalization/antipsychiatry/disability rights sentiments among the actual left. |
In other words, the gist of this thread is that no matter which political party one is leaning towards, especially the major ones, if they support paternalistic and authoritarian practices by the government, then it shows that they are pro-suffering and anti-choice as well. The only main difference is the cause and reasons for supporting such practices. The only true safety in which critics of psychiatry and other paternalistic, authoritarian practices are ones who are vehemently opposed to such practices and those are far and few. Very few places and safes really allow open discussion and criticisms of the psychiatric field and the public are sold on the guise and ruse of benevolent paternalism, but as pro-choicers and people who have been through carceral systems knows that it is far from the truth, though I digress.
