Mental illness expert: Yes, ask whether political climate was a trigger for shooter (Congress, lawyer)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"We know the manifestation of mental illness is affected by cultural factors," Dr. Swartz said. "One's cultural context does effect people's thinking and particularly their delusions. It gives some content and shape to their delusions."
That's coming from an actual doctor of psychiatry, as opposed to a self-certified ophthalmologist like Rand Paul, whose opinion is worth listening to. But beyond the case of Loughner and whether or not he proves to be so mentally ill as to render the question moot, having the conversation about whether this is the way a civilized country does politics should be a no-brainer.
So, an external factor can trigger a nut-case to fly off the deep end.
What an interesting concept. I'm certainly glad a real Doctor of Psychiatry (and I typed that with a straight face!) figured that out.
Well, you can ask the question but it's unlikely you'll get an answer. Loughner isn't talking. And even if he were what weight can we place on the rantings of a mad man?
By the way. I assume that the good doctor did not exempt leftwing vitriol as contributing to the culture. Remember former Rep. Alan Grayson?
Definitely something to think about. In response to the same comments, Greg Sargent notes:
"In other words, even if the shooter is a complete nut, we should be asking whether the tone of our political discourse might also have played a role in triggering the shooting -- and if so, whether such a thing could happen again."
Andrew Sullivan posted this today and I think he makes some very valid points. This person targeted a U.S. Congressperson, not (as Mr. Sullivan points out) his classmates, not the shelter personnel who fired him. We may never know what exactly was going on in his mind, but, the fact remains that his victims, by virtue of their professions and the activity they were participating in at the time of the attacks, were inherently political victims.
"Why not shoot up the animal shelter he was fired from? Or the classroom he was banished from? In fact, it is a kind of bizarre suppression to avoid the obviously political fact of the target Loughner selected."
Andrew Sullivan posted this today and I think he makes some very valid points. This person targeted a U.S. Congressperson, not (as Mr. Sullivan points out) his classmates, not the shelter personnel who fired him. We may never know what exactly was going on in his mind, but, the fact remains that his victims, by virtue of their professions and the activity they were participating in at the time of the attacks, were inherently political victims.
"Why not shoot up the animal shelter he was fired from? Or the classroom he was banished from? In fact, it is a kind of bizarre suppression to avoid the obviously political fact of the target Loughner selected."
Uh-oh. How do we know what will trigger the next guy? What if its being fired by an animal shelter? Better never fire anyone from animal shelters. Oops. What if it was a sideways sneer from a classmate? Better never look sideways at anyone. But, what if it was a violent T.V. Show, or Movie, or Book...Better censor all those. Because who knows what might trigger the next mentally ill/unstable person to go bezerk.
It is ridiculous to even consider censoring our speech to try and prevent these things from happening. Doesn't matter what triggered it for this guy, who was obviously from his history quite disturbed. If it isn't one thing, it will be another. We can't all live in a stimulus -free world because we are afraid something (could be different things for different people) will trigger a "bezerk" response from a mentally unstable person.
More restrictions on guns for the mentally ill - legitimate discussion.
Censoring Everyone's Speech to try and prevent a mentally ill person from possible acting out - ridiculous.
Definitely something to think about. In response to the same comments, Greg Sargent notes:
"In other words, even if the shooter is a complete nut, we should be asking whether the tone of our political discourse might also have played a role in triggering the shooting -- and if so, whether such a thing could happen again."
Andrew Sullivan posted this today and I think he makes some very valid points. This person targeted a U.S. Congressperson, not (as Mr. Sullivan points out) his classmates, not the shelter personnel who fired him. We may never know what exactly was going on in his mind, but, the fact remains that his victims, by virtue of their professions and the activity they were participating in at the time of the attacks, were inherently political victims.
"Why not shoot up the animal shelter he was fired from? Or the classroom he was banished from? In fact, it is a kind of bizarre suppression to avoid the obviously political fact of the target Loughner selected."
I read that Andrew Sullivan article earlier today--thanks for linking to it. I think he makes the most important point of this whole situation very clearly--that this WAS a political assassination. You can't pretty it up and sanitize it and make it something that it wasn't, like a random shooting. That said, the shooter is a very sick kid--delusional and probably a paranoid schizophrenic. He is incapable of organized thought, but he can gather bits and pieces of information floating around him (for example, Mein Kampf and the communist manifesto--polar opposites) and in his unique world, make some twisted sense of unifying it all. He wasn't a liberal or a conservative--he was a young man with a very on and off grip on reality. The psychiatrist mentioned above was right on the money. When most of us see candidates using pictures of the opposition for target practice, or hear talk of using force to get what we want, we know it's political theater. Really sick, delusional people don't. They don't see or get the subtleties. They soak in the atmosphere around them, and they can't tell the different between what is real and what isn't, so here we are.
This whole blame game is making me sick. You all know who's used violent rhetoric in the past and who hasn't. Both sides are guilty, to differing degrees. I find it significant that both sides--Roger Ailes from FOX, staff at MSNBC, and a host of elected leaders--are calling for the rhetoric to cool down. That's not taking advantage of a tragedy--it's dealing with the reality of it. The only people I hear calling foul are tea party operatives and some of the morons on this board. The decent, reasonable people of this world are saying ENOUGH. It needs to stop.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
