loadingreadyrun.com

True.

With what has happened with the last few escalations, which I see myself as doing no wrong (as I would from my point of view), I haven't been as frank as honest in regards to rebuttals because attacking a personal character is kind of cheap when it is the argument you are supposed to go for.

You would have to wonder if you have good intentions to help someone who doesn't realise they have a problem if they would be receptive to help.

See, I think that's part of it... A person who doesn't understand they have a problem will never be receptive to help. That's a realization they must come to on their own. You may still have good intentions, but it'll never work, and it'll only end up alienating you from that person if you continue to persist.

Well, that's already happened through no fault of my own.

Thought I'd pass on here that MrBlue is alive in case any of you care at all. He's under doctor's care and we don't know what state he'll be in when he returns home. His mother confirmed my observation that he needs to feel needed and the shelter being attacked did not help matters whatsoever. I know we can't be responsible for other people's mental health care but we all can avoid causing overwhelming distress by not harassing people by persisting to tell them how they should or should not self-care after we've been told our input is not welcome in that space. Anyone bringing up censorship vs freedom of speech would be wrong because that does not apply in a curated space where things are organized to be safe. "Inclusive" does not mean all opinions are welcome at all times to be persistently pushed upon others. Once you've put your opinion out there and it gets shot down by majority it's time to respectfully agree to disagree which does not include complaining about people supposedly not listening. We heard you, we just don't entirely agree with everything you say and that's okay. You don't have to participate and you're fully welcome to start your own thing somewhere else which suits your own "tough love" needs.

Good that he's got his care.

You can't have a discussion if it is one way and one or more sides are kept out.

Perhaps some places aren't looking for a discussion. That's the point.

While I understand and agree with that, I also think that conversation, by its very nature, leads to discussion. This is mainly due to the fact that any topic that is brought up and isn't universally agreed-upon will breed discussion. I believe it is difficult, but not impossible, to have conversation without discussion.

Arclight_Dynamo wrote:Perhaps some places aren't looking for a discussion. That's the point.

This pretty much sums it up. It can feel like a doctor going around doling out prescriptions to people that aren't their patients before having even examining any of them (which would also require consent and a degree and even then people could quit coming for advise for some reason...perhaps a bunch of different reasons...likely won't return to ask for it again if the doctor was pushy about things).

Exposure therapy is a very effective treatment for a number of afflictions, using "systematic and controlled therapeutic exposure to traumatic stimuli."
"Tough love" is not that. Armchair psychiatrists (or maybe keyboard psychiatrists? I imagine most psychiatrists actually do sit in armchairs...) are likely doing more harm than good.

I'm glad MrBlue is being cared for.

Everything else I have to say would be bitterly sarcastic, so I'll limit myself to this meta sarcasm instead.

korvys:

Yes. Exactly. 100%. I am undergoing exposure therapy as part of my CBT. It is administered by my psychiatrist - a professional - and the most important thing about the exposure is that I'm always totally and completely in control of the entire process.

That isn't the case with "tough love" and forcing people out of safe spaces. It isn't exposure therapy at all. It's just exposure to harmful things, without the consent and control of the person being exposed. It is the opposite of helping.

I mean, shit, I had exposure therapy done by a psychologist before I found my current psychiatrist. He did it wrong and it fucked me up. And that's someone who I went to get help from, and who is ostensibly a professional. He messed up and did it wrong, despite his years of schooling and training.

What chance does some rando on the internet with zero qualifications have of doing better when they force it on people who aren't asking them for help, and who aren't in control of the process?

Arclight_Dynamo wrote:What chance does some rando on the internet with zero qualifications have of doing better when they force it on people who aren't asking them for help, and who aren't in control of the process?

Because we know better than these eggheads and we'll do it right, you hear me?!

korvys wrote:Exposure therapy is a very effective treatment for a number of afflictions, using "systematic and controlled therapeutic exposure to traumatic stimuli."
"Tough love" is not that. Armchair psychiatrists (or maybe keyboard psychiatrists? I imagine most psychiatrists actually do sit in armchairs...) are likely doing more harm than good.

I saw a post once that really helped clarify this for me... it was a long time ago and I believe it was on Twitter, which means it's basically impossible to find it again. But the main thrust was an analogy of this with allergies (the person who wrote the post having a very sensitive perfume allergy).

So, one of the treatments for allergies is, basically, exposure... you take the patient and expose them to small amounts of the allergen and desensitise them to it... with the eventual end-goal that it no longer triggers their immune system so badly. But this has to be done in a controlled environment, with small doses... with care and monitoring to make sure that you don't ramp up the doses too quickly... you want to take it gradually, and train the immune system that this substance is safe, and not something it needs to overreact to.

On the other hand, getting randomly and unexpectedly exposed to the allergen in the wild is actively harmful... not just in the immediate term as you try to avoid being killed by the allergy response, but also over the following weeks as once triggered the allergy response gets even more sensitive. The post I read gave the anecdote as something like... normally, if someone wearing perfume walks past their office with the door open, they'll start to react, but if the door's closed they'll be OK... but a few days after a major allergy trigger, even someone walking past a closed door was enough to cause a significant re-trigger, as the allergy was even more hyper-sensitive than usual.

The anti-safe-space crowd is then the equivalent of someone who, while eating a peanut butter sandwich and informed that their coworker has a peanut allergy and would you please not, responds with "that's their problem, not mine" and keeps eating. And the "tough love" crowd is the equivalent of someone in that situation who then actively tries to expose their coworker to more peanuts, either out of a misguided idea that they're helping, or out of the lulz of causing suffering that they then claim (to others or themselves) is helping. It is, of course, not helping, and is probably making it worse, but if you try to point that out they just respond "if you just keep them away from all peanuts forever, how are they going to get cured of their allergy?"... as though the only two options are to have peanut dust poured on your desk by a malicious coworker without warning, or never get any treatment under any circumstances whatsoever.

Of course, all of this is just an analogy, not everything about allergies is going to map 1-to-1 to mental health, but it's a way to think about it.

That's actually a fantastic analogy. As someone whose mental health treatment currently involves exposure therapy, I can tell you that it maps very, very closely to it.

With regards to the other half of that analogy, I used to have seasonal allergies so bad that during the pollen season I would wake up unable to see some days because my eyes were so swollen - fun times. All throughout high school I went weekly (and then twice-weekly) to an allergist to get what basically amounted to an immunization - a cocktail of allergens that my doctor somehow turned into something safe to enter my bloodstream. I was not allowed to leave the office for half an hour after each shot, in case I had a delayed reaction. I still take generic allergy medication and probably will for the rest of my life (a mental health analogy?? shocking), but the point is that that is the level of care exposure therapy requires. Not, as phlip said, throwing pollen in my face and saying 'deal with it.'

I'm glad to hear that MrBlue is safe and getting help, thank you for the update Danielle.

(Also, to continue the analogy, something something content warnings something something "may contain traces of nuts")

Hands off my nuts. Help, Philip is trying to President me.

phlip wrote:(Also, to continue the analogy, something something content warnings something something "may contain traces of nuts")

And "Something something safe spaces, something something 'This school cafeteria is a nut-free zone.'"

Did you just eunuch me?

The allergy analogy may not be so good or may be perfect, based on your stance on the subject: it has come out recently that the reason peanut allergies (and many of them deadly) have become more and more common in the US is because the "nut-free zones" prevent people from devoloping an immunity early on, and therefore they become allergic. That means either the analogy breaks apart, or it's a perfect match to people being sheltered and therefore never learning to deal with life (you pick. Not making a statement one way or the other here, I just though since everybody was talking about allergies, it may be a good idea to point out this fact).

Mind you, that doesn't mean that people who are already allergic aren't sometimes helped by the nut-free zone, just that they may not be allergic in the first place (and therefore not need the nut-free zone) if it wasn't for the zone in the first place.

Well, I mean, I wasn't born with an anxiety disorder. I was born with the tendency to develop one, and certain things in my childhood and teen years caused me to develop one. It's a combination of nature and nurture, probably like allergies.

Now, proper treatment and "safe spaces" aren't what caused it to develop, so that's where the analogy with allergies breaks down, but it's close enough to be useful.

Analogies are almost never perfect but people do tend to get hung up on where they break down.

That's just it. The "close enough to be useful" is the important part.

I don't think this argument has ever been about the causes of mental health issues as much as it has been about the treatment of them, in any case.

I still consider Fayili a friend, went to see if she's doing okay after what she said a couple weeks back with taking time off from the forum. I do find it funny that I have been blocked by Fayili now, when I haven't said anything really mean to her, just disagreed with her. It doesn't really do much since I stopped following her a few months ago when I was cutting down on who I was following. Also, if I cared to see what is being posted I can just sign out or use another browser. Nothing has been gained from it.

The point of blocking someone is not to prevent them from seeing what you've said, but to prevent them from contacting you. That person will no longer appear in your feeds, will no longer appear in your notifications if they mention you, can no longer send you a DM. What is gained is silence.

I haven't said anything really mean to her, just disagreed with her.

I could not possibly speak for Fayili, but I think if someone I considered a friend blocked me, that would be a very good indication that I have incorrectly judged the nature of our previous interactions.

Or maybe not. I'm not privy to other conversations - I don't even read most of the threads here (too much to keep up with), and certainly can't see DMs or PMs. It would certainly give me pause, though.