Jun 13, 2025 07:04 PM
Jun 13, 2025 07:04 PM
|
Jun 13, 2025 07:04 PM
The humane treatment of the mentally ill? Or the acceptance of LGBT?
Jun 13, 2025 07:54 PM
The tolerance of stigmatized people in society in general.
What changes in the prejudice and discrimination attached to mental illness have occurred in the past 2 decades? From what I can find, the tolerance of stigmatized people started earlier with gays. Do you have any info that would suggest otherwise?
Jun 13, 2025 08:18 PM
(This post was last modified: Jun 13, 2025 08:27 PM by Magical Realist.)
The whole notion of stigma and its widespread presence in the mental health field rose up in the 70's and 80's, about the same time acceptance of LGBT began to take hold. Why would reducing the stigma surrounding being LGBT invalidate it as a real social problem in general? Do you have a problem with tolerance?
"A scientific concept on the stigma of mental disorders was first developed in the middle of the 20th century, first theoretically and eventually empirically in the 1970s. The book Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity, published in 1963 by the American sociologist Erwin Goffman, laid the foundation for stigma research as a scientific discipline and described how stigmatized persons deal with the challenge. 'There is no country, society or culture where people with mental illness have the same societal value as people without a mental illness.' Several years later, an essay by Thomas Scheff triggered much discussion as he controversially described mental disorders as being merely the consequence of a labelling process. Scheff's idea was later modified by Bruce Link, who differentiated the various steps in adopting the role of a mentally ill person." https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5007563/
Jun 14, 2025 06:31 PM
Evidently Baptists have a strong penchant for going backwards. "Make America Hate Again!"
Jun 14, 2025 07:25 PM
Oh, you can't answer simple questions?
You'd rather get defensive and lash out? Got it. Socratic reasoning triggered you.
Jun 17, 2025 08:58 PM
(This post was last modified: Jun 17, 2025 09:07 PM by C C.)
(Jun 11, 2025 10:14 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: Going backwards seems to be a popular move for the Biblethumpers... Misplaced ambitions. Abortions never established human relationships (parental ones in that context) which could later be under threat, but instead interrupted them from coming about. So it's a whole different matter to [cruelly] undo what exists: Formally slash legally established domestic alliances. Officially recognized monogamy (as an alternative to porn-like lifestyles) is arguably a necessary foundation for civilization. While heterosexuals have long demonstrated that marriage can be a compromised platform for launching various sexual fetishes (serial adultery, swinging, cuckolding, open marriage, polygamy, etc)... Despite those shortcomings in terms of individual or localized instances, marriage is still a general step in the right direction for a population (contrasted with any spiraling degradation or dysfunctional ambience of the alternatives). |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|