(no subject)

Maybe if I post about it I can get this out of my head and stop wanting to hit things.

On my friend's list, I read the following:

"- I think there's an easy answer actually, as to why is this whole thing is systemic. It's that when you build a system exactly like this, abuses are not just possible, they're inevitable. Of which I think the classic illustration of that is of course Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment. And I think that's a wonderful illustration of how this is systemic; this is not an isolated instance. You're going to find this kind of phenomenon happening everywhere where you create something of this structure. While I may feel in many ways like an alien compared to the people who've not had this experience, I am in no way shape or form unique, because I certainly don't feel like an alien when I talk to people who've had this experience."


My response was:

I read the interview. I have had positive experiences with private care, with parity that allows me to see my doctor and allows me meds that help my quality of life. I have had positive experiences with hospitals. So I must suffer from Stockholm Syndrome, or be too fucking stupid to understand what's happening to me. After all, the psychiatric profession gave us the prison experiment which happened thirty years ago, has been roundly denounced, and led to significant changes in research protocol, and which had absolutely nothing fucking to do with patient care.

I take great exception to anyone who says to me "Your experience differs from mine, so it is invalid."

I need to add here:

Is the psychiatric profession perfect? No. Are there bad institutions, and bad doctors out there? No doubt -- there are in any field of human endeavor, and steps should be taken to fix those where they exist. But the profession does help a lot of people: I include myself in that number, and I include my son. Those who dismiss the good that many psychiatrists and psychologists do not only do them a disservice, but do a disservice to those whom they help, by insisting that that patients with successful outcomes don't count, that only the people who have had bad experiences count.

(no subject)

geekchick, my kids have been going around singing "it's just a kick in the ass," and the teen has been asking "does it come with a hot chick and a puppy?"

I hold you responsible : )

Rant

:steps on soapbox: :deep breath:

I really hate when people check their critical thinking skills at the door.

Remember that story about the boy that was arrested for writing zombie stories? The way it played out in the press and on the Internet, this poor kid was being persecuted for being imaginative by people paranoid of anything that smacked of being different. The fact that it happened in Kentucky only made people jump on it more.

Turns out that the story is not what it seemed. A media savvy kid was able to rally people to his defense based on nothing more than his own description of what was in the writings, and people's willingness to assume that people in law enforcement (particularly in a Southern state like Kentucky) are overzealous idiots.

Are there a lot of overreactions out there from police and school officials nervous of another Columbine? Probably. But should we automatically assume that every kid like this is somehow just misunderstood by people too hidebound to recognize creativity?

Klebold and Harris wrote about their plans for Columbine a great deal before they ever killed anyone. (BTW, anyone who still holds on to the mythology that the Columbine killers were simply misunderstood loners who snapped should consider the fact that they started planning it a year in advance.) There are reasons authorities now take it seriously when a kid writes about shooting up a school. And in the case in Kentucky, there is at least some evidence that it went beyond mere writing.

So what's the answer? Is the kid a misunderstood genius or a budding psychopath? I don't know, but I do recognize the issue to be far more complex and difficult to answer than many people seem to think. Not many things in this world are black and white -- this is no exception.

And I know something else.

A while back, there was a big stink about a teacher in my area allegedly being reprimanded for teaching his elementary school kids about the Declaration of Independence. No, what the guy did was distribute a packet of teachings that included writings from religious figures of the era making the case that the US was a Christian country. Yes, the writings had historical value, and teaching them in context to a *high school* history class would have been appropriate, but that wasn't what happened. Yet the right wing trumpeted this as an example of political correctness gone amok. Many people on the left (and I include myself in this case) derided what they saw as a lack of rational thought on the part of conservatives.

Could someone explain to me how the Kentucky case is any different, save that it's guys on the left who are screaming?

::steps down from soapbox::

Thank you for your indulgence.

Okay, this is flipping weird...

Someone has changed my LJ's style. I *didn't* do it.


[Edit: Never mind, I just saw the item in the LJ support area about it.]