6 ms·

because it contributes to stereotypes and increases stigma around mental health. this leads to even more social isolation and self-doubt for people with those d

because it contributes to stereotypes and increases stigma around mental health. this leads to even more social isolation and self-doubt for people with those disorders which worsens their quality of life, something that is already much lower on average than those without https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/stigma-and-discrimination https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/stigma-and-disc... it's the same idea as not calling people the 'r' word and why that word itself is no longer used in official diagnoses. it's a boundary condition grounded in compassion. advocating for using a new word doesn't need some soapbox tantrum about the fatuousness of the modern world a la Ignatius J. Reilly

pibaker 5d ago
There is nothing more stigmatizing and dehumanizing than the idea that there is a class of human condition that is taboo to describe in words.
- paimapi 5d ago
  how is that in any way what I am saying? you are not describing the actual condition. you're ascribing what you see as anti-social or negative behaviors you heard about an individual (who has not disclosed any diagnosis) to a complicated illess that requires years of training to formally diagnose this bloviating about free speech when all anybody is asking you to do is to not be an asshole is so overwrought and childish
- kelnos 4d ago
  That's not what anyone is saying. There are many classes of human (and non-human) condition where it's best to allow a subject-matter expert to diagnose, and where armchair diagnosticians can do a lot of harm. This is one of them. The idea that you can "diagnose" someone with a mental illness based on reading their court filings and things they've written online, without ever speaking to them in person, is... well, just bonkers. It's irresponsible, at best. Someone can exhibit anti-social behaviors without having a mental illness. This is as frustrating as people I know who are constantly saying "I think so-and-so is autistic/has ADHD". Yes, sometimes it's correct, but often it's not, and the outward symptoms of those two conditions often lead to a true diagnosis of something else entirely.

pibaker 5d ago

There is nothing more stigmatizing and dehumanizing than the idea that there is a class of human condition that is taboo to describe in words.

paimapi 5d ago
how is that in any way what I am saying? you are not describing the actual condition. you're ascribing what you see as anti-social or negative behaviors you heard about an individual (who has not disclosed any diagnosis) to a complicated illess that requires years of training to formally diagnose this bloviating about free speech when all anybody is asking you to do is to not be an asshole is so overwrought and childish
kelnos 4d ago
That's not what anyone is saying. There are many classes of human (and non-human) condition where it's best to allow a subject-matter expert to diagnose, and where armchair diagnosticians can do a lot of harm. This is one of them. The idea that you can "diagnose" someone with a mental illness based on reading their court filings and things they've written online, without ever speaking to them in person, is... well, just bonkers. It's irresponsible, at best. Someone can exhibit anti-social behaviors without having a mental illness. This is as frustrating as people I know who are constantly saying "I think so-and-so is autistic/has ADHD". Yes, sometimes it's correct, but often it's not, and the outward symptoms of those two conditions often lead to a true diagnosis of something else entirely.