Because you cannot, absolutely cannot, assign psychosis to anyone. It can even be difficult for psychologists sometimes to tell the difference between bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder, just as an example.
I'm not expecting my claim to hold up in court or something. It's a supposition, and one that does involve both my impression of him and my idea of mental illness (although my idea of mental illness is informed by literature on the subject).
I know because I think I've spent significantly more time studying mental illness than yourself. He actually isn't showing symptoms of schizophrenia. You could say his intensity is due to bipolar mania, but it could just as easily not.
How on earth do you know that you've spent more time studying mental illness than me? Have you witnessed every second of my life? And secondly, why should I care when you apparently don't think it's relevant that I've probably studied sociology more than you? What's the difference?
I've never even used the word schizophrenia in this thread.
Other people in this thread aren't terribly good at it either. I've actually seen people on this forum call me a narcissist, not even realizing that narcissists lack empathy, and I've been thoroughly psychoanalyzed; no traces of narcissism.
But of course
you're good at it. We have no history on you, no one vouching for you, and no credentials from you, but we should just take your word.
There's absolutely no academic basis for you calling someone mentally ill because they embrace a radically different value system than yourself. It would be like you calling Mormons, Quakers, and Hare Krishnas mentally ill.
Good luck with that. Really.
I'm not calling him mentally ill because he has a radically different value system from myself (assuming I know what you mean by value system). I'm calling him mentally ill because his grasp on facts seems to be detached from reality at almost every level, and his attitude is one of unfounded threat (which
could quite easily become real threat to other people some day). Neither of those things are really a value issue.
There is arguably some basis for calling someone mentally ill based on values, but it's controversial. Then again, what isn't in psychology?
Why don't you define mental illness, since you are apparently such an authority on it?
White nationalism isn't a cult. LOL. It's not any more of a cult than being an Objectivist or a Tea Partier or believing in Occupy Wall Street is a cult.
Please look up signs of a cult. Thanks.
I'm taking you less and less seriously by the second. Your baby ISFJ is showing.
Again, you are directing me to view information I already have. I kind of anticipated this, actually. When I first made the comparison to a cult, I noted that hardly anyone ever seems to call these supremacist circles cults, but I think they function much like one. Anyhow, in the particular case you're quoting here, it was an analogy. Maybe I should stop attempting analogies with you.
Finally, if you're going to berate me for having such an improper understanding of the psychiatric field, you really shouldn't keep returning to a pop-psychology scheme that few psychiatrists or psychologists take seriously, such as the MBTI.
I am privy to knowledge you are not. You've read about it in books and judged it by your own (apparently faulty and biased) standards, while I've actually spent a great deal of time actually conversing with these people, trying to see their point of view, and studying the resurgence of nationalism in general.
Again, you have no way of knowing this about me. You don't know everything I know, and you have at least some basis for thinking that I might know more about this topic than any random joe (if I'm to be believed) Furthermore, you can't really be judging your interactions with people by any less of a standard than by which I read a book. We all judge things by standards. And it's ridiculous and insulting if you think I've not considered trying to see someone else's point of view.
I am privy to information because I've actually talked to the people without treating them like psychotics, I've attempted to compare the sociological phenomenon to civilizations in recent history (very recent history, included, nationalism was popular until about mid-20th century) and I think just studied the subject more specifically and sympathetically than yourself.
You are pulling all of this out of your ass. You have no ability to compare this to me. And again, I never said Valiant was psychotic, I in fact said I thought he wasn't.
I've had to deal with people like you before.
This is already my signal that you're about to say something horribly inaccurate.
One INTP I know has a PhD in Philosophy, specialization in Kant, and he's very uber-brainwashed extremist liberal, he has very intense Fe ethics that mirror the most extremist forms of multi-cultural liberalism, and I also don't take his opinion on the matter very seriously; just because you've gone to graduate school doesn't mean you're equipped to deal with every subject, especially a subject that clearly causes you to have a deep and irrational emotional response.
Well, I don't major in philosophy, dislike Kant, wouldn't call myself an extremist liberal or possibly a liberal at all, and have never been that gung-ho about the whole pluralism identity politics thing, so I'm not exactly sure which part of this is supposed to sound like me. But here's my response to what you seem to be saying about me.
You're right that no level of formal education, no matter how high, automatically means someone understands something, and certainly not that they must be right. But it should suggest to you that I've already come across and studied most of the facts and concepts you keep telling me about as if I've never heard of them before. And while something like formal education may not be everything, it's
something, and you have nothing. You're making an appeal to ethos, but there is nothing to tell me why your ethos is worth anything. You're really making the same kind of claim as "I'm right because I have a PhD", you just don't even have a credential to back it up. You just have knowledge somehow and we're supposed to believe it, and then take that to mean you must be right. It's almost as bad as the last thing you said.
You, of all people, are in no position to lecture other people about doing analysis without being emotionally compromised. I'd put you somewhere near the bottom of the list of people who actively post on this forum. You couldn't control your hysterics if we were discussing whether or not twinkies or ding dongs are better. Even if you were a cool headed, unbiased person, your comment doesn't actually carry much weight. You could have just called me a big fat head and it would have been about the same.
That's nice. Not that many people are "mentally ill." Don't over assign mental illness to people. It leads to a huge misunderstanding of basic human motives.
I don't think I'm over-assigning mental illness. I actually think it is over-assigned in this country. But singling out the people who are dedicated to these forums is a drop in the bucket compared to all the people that get some kind of clinical diagnosis.
Hitler was mentally ill. But the entire country of Germany was anti-Semitic at the time. They weren't all mentally ill. Stop generalizing so much, it's really silly.
I recall one of Hitler's chief propagandists saying that Germany was anti-semitic, but no more or even less than other European countries. It was up to them to make Germany the most anti-semitic after Hitler took control.
Anyhow, on the point of generalization, I was saying that your standards seem to apply to Hitler, who is clearly mentally ill, therefore they do not do a sufficient job of
refuting that such thinking is a form of mental illness. See the difference there? I didn't say "everyone who shares X trait with Hitler is insane", I said "since Hitler is mentally ill, and has Y traits, Y traits must not refute mental illness" where Y traits were the ones you used as reasons for Valiant not being mentally ill. In fact, the popularity of antisemitism at the time just fits into my point that Hitler's conditions were the same as the ones you attributed to Valiant.
And I'm saying you aren't at all qualified to diagnose it. You don't seem to have an especially adept understanding of the human mind, though I admit you're quite good with political systems.
I have no reason to consider your opinion on this authoritative. That's the thing we keep coming back to. This debate should have centered on the soundness of our arguments, but you've instead decided that it should be about your claim to having more knowledge than me. You've largely avoided making any arguments relevant to the central dispute (I'll get to that later). It's a bad angle to take, because I neither know that you know more than me, nor do I believe more factual knowledge would automatically make your right anyhow.
If he had a psychotic break with reality, his behavior wouldn't follow rationally consistent patterns with his personality.
I didn't call him psychotic, in fact I said I didn't think he was. How many times do you want me to say that?
Have a day, Professor Killjoy.
And then of course you come back and make another post about this.
Before I respond to that second post, I wanted to get back to the central dispute, as promised. The dispute is why the traits you've attributed to Valiant's Euro-supremacism must refute his mental illness. I do not deny that most of the qualities you attributed to these groups are accurately attributable, I deny that they clear someone of mental illness. You have never explained to me why they clear someone of mental illness, or in other words how they are incompatible with the definition of mental illness.
