US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1735
Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
GreenHorizons
United States22727 Posts
On August 05 2019 07:43 Gorsameth wrote: ICE has no issue with locking up citizens in inhuman conditions without repercussion. No the problem is not that they are citizens, it's that they are white. You can wish it to be different, you can hope to change it but reality is what it is. Its 'fine' that people get killed by nationalist terrorism be it 1, 10 or 100 so long as the shooter is white enough. But on a more serious note, the solution is proper mental healthcare to identify and intervene before it gets this far. Yup, been saying this since before Trump. It's remarkable they manage to arrest white terrorists so frequently after they commit mass murder but struggle so hard to not shoot/kill unarmed Black people. As for mental healthcare there's about a 1 in 3 chance the mental healthcare professional is somewhat openly sympathetic to their politics/white supremacy and/or don't see white supremacy as a problem let alone an illness. Have to remember there are still a great deal of people in this country for which white supremacy isn't bad but "the good ole days". | ||
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
"We need better mental healthcare." "We need better surveillance." "So we can medicate these fuckers before they shoot people." | ||
Muliphein
49 Posts
And given that you cannot even regulate gun control, good luck solving the actual problem. | ||
Artisreal
Germany9234 Posts
On August 05 2019 14:44 Muliphein wrote: You guys are deluding yourself if you think that gun regulation is your main problem. It is not. The problem is that US is a mentally ill society. Bowling for Columbine tried to show that two decades ago. Right now, it is becoming much more of a problem. Add to this Trump first removing all restraints and then fanning the flames, and it gets even worse. Guns just increase the death count of these incidents. Their frequency is 100% politics. And given that you cannot even regulate gun control, good luck solving the actual problem. Ain't nothing wrong with treating symptoms while tackling the illness at the same time, aight? | ||
Excludos
Norway7955 Posts
On August 05 2019 14:44 Muliphein wrote: You guys are deluding yourself if you think that gun regulation is your main problem. It is not. The problem is that US is a mentally ill society. Bowling for Columbine tried to show that two decades ago. Right now, it is becoming much more of a problem. Add to this Trump first removing all restraints and then fanning the flames, and it gets even worse. Guns just increase the death count of these incidents. Their frequency is 100% politics. And given that you cannot even regulate gun control, good luck solving the actual problem. More American exeptionalism. Like other countries also doesn't have their fair share of crazies and fucked part of their population. Americans wield this like a shield when it's convenient to excuse fixing their problems. That's not to say America doesn't have a big issue in that area; rampant poverty, uninformed masses, bad health care, ingrown local cultural problems, etc. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to dampen the symptoms while simultaneously working on fixing the root problems. | ||
PoulsenB
Poland7710 Posts
| ||
Biff The Understudy
France7811 Posts
On August 05 2019 19:05 PoulsenB wrote: The more I read about the US and its healthcare, labour laws/conditions, gun violence, opioid crisis, politics etc. the more it looks like a dystopian hellscape where profit is king and lives of ordinary citizens don't matter. It's a big country though, but ye, I think also that american society is seriously, seriously ill. | ||
![]()
Liquid`Drone
Norway28559 Posts
By this I basically mean, more stressful and competitive work environment, more personal debt, somewhat longer working hours (although this differs from country to country in europe too, it seems fair to say americans work more hours than countries comprising 'western europe'. link), more disenfranchised media (I could probably say society tbh).. It's not to say that guns aren't a problem, obviously they are, but part of the reason why I am so negative towards the predatory capitalism partially pervading the american society is the negative effects I perceive it to have on the mental health of your citizens.. Relaxing is really important. And having stuff that lingers in the back of your head stressing you out, causing worry, over a long period of time, makes people unable to do so. According to this, americans are among the most stressed people on the planet. While I can't provide a link to the report (behind a wall), I saw that for Norwegians, that 55% figure was 31%, and the global average was 35%. | ||
Pangpootata
1838 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + ![]() Although mass shootings have been on the rise, they are merely a drop in the ocean compared to homicides and cannot explain the overall increasing trend. White supremacists account for a tiny percentage of gun crimes. Majority of it is black on black violence. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 1980 to 2008, 84% of white homicide victims were killed by white offenders and 93% of black homicide victims were killed by black offenders. With regards to gun violence, intraracial homicide within communities is the main problem. | ||
nojok
France15845 Posts
On August 05 2019 20:32 Pangpootata wrote: Gun-related deaths in the US by year (Source: Wikimedia, from National Safety Council) + Show Spoiler + ![]() Although mass shootings have been on the rise, they are merely a drop in the ocean compared to homicides and cannot explain the overall increasing trend. White supremacists account for a tiny percentage of gun crimes. Majority of it is black on black violence. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 1980 to 2008, 84% of white homicide victims were killed by white offenders and 93% of black homicide victims were killed by black offenders. With regards to gun violence, intraracial homicide within communities is the main problem. If only your government could have thought about this before setting ablaze the Middle East. | ||
Gahlo
United States35092 Posts
On August 05 2019 20:32 Pangpootata wrote: Gun-related deaths in the US by year (Source: Wikimedia, from National Safety Council) + Show Spoiler + ![]() Although mass shootings have been on the rise, they are merely a drop in the ocean compared to homicides and cannot explain the overall increasing trend. White supremacists account for a tiny percentage of gun crimes. Majority of it is black on black violence. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 1980 to 2008, 84% of white homicide victims were killed by white offenders and 93% of black homicide victims were killed by black offenders. With regards to gun violence, intraracial homicide within communities is the main problem. The only way black people are involved with the current discussion of white national terrorism is if they're on the bullet end of it. Shifting the blame from white national terrorism creating shooters to black on black crime is bringing up something completely extraneous to the topic. | ||
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
Shame that you only care about that argument when it is white people deliberately murdering non-whites, all the while, spreading their hateful idealogy. If it's other terrorism, thousands of people dead, and wasting billions of dollars is fine it seems. The US president encouraging white supremacist terrorism. That's a OK it seems. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States22727 Posts
On August 05 2019 20:32 Pangpootata wrote: Gun-related deaths in the US by year (Source: Wikimedia, from National Safety Council) + Show Spoiler + ![]() Although mass shootings have been on the rise, they are merely a drop in the ocean compared to homicides and cannot explain the overall increasing trend. White supremacists account for a tiny percentage of gun crimes. Majority of it is black on black violence. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 1980 to 2008, 84% of white homicide victims were killed by white offenders and 93% of black homicide victims were killed by black offenders. With regards to gun violence, intraracial homicide within communities is the main problem. White supremacy terrorists attacks account for a tiny percentage of gun crimes, but white supremacy deserves credit for a lot more than just those. Surely hundreds of years of white supremacy leading to subjugation, poverty, and criminalization for the explicit purpose of political and literal marginalization of Black people can be credited for a great deal of violence, be it Black on Black or otherwise. | ||
Ryzel
United States520 Posts
@Mental Health discussion, I agree people don’t know what they’re talking about (not saying this to be mean, just a fact). Study analyzing involuntary outpatient commitment as a means to counter mass shootings: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5298526/ Key snippet: + Show Spoiler + The Contested Relationship between Violence and Mental Illness Although proposed OPC (outpatient commitment) statutes tap into public fear about the potential for violence among persons with mental illness, serious violent acts by persons with severe mental illness are uncommon. Major psychiatric conditions like schizophrenia and mood disorders, by themselves, contribute relatively little—about 4%—to the overall risk of interpersonal violence in the population, and most perpetrators of commonplace violent acts do not have serious psychopathology. Studies indicate that although there is a slightly elevated risk of violence in persons with severe mental illness, such serious acts are still rare. The factors that contribute to violence in the mentally ill are often as varied and complex as those in the general population. In fact, it has been demonstrated that persons with mental illness are more frequently subjected to physical or sexual victimization, and these experiences compounded by other psychosocial factors may increase the risk of violence perpetration in these populations. A study of patients with mental illness found that the factors associated with violence included a history of violent victimization, homelessness, cohabitation, exposure to community violence, substance abuse, poor mental health status, and a history of psychiatric hospitalisation. None of these risk factors, alone, explained an elevated risk, and patients with one or none of these risk factors had violence risks equal to that of the general population without mental illness. Addition of a second risk factor doubled the risk of violence, and those with 3 or more risk factors were most likely to be violent, indicating that the risks for violent behaviour are multifactorial and compounded by social factors throughout the life course. However, the prospect of a violent act by a person with a severe mental illness generates grave public concern and fear, which is often compounded by media coverage of these acts. Clinicians are faced with increasing legal liability and responsibility for the actions and behaviours of their inadequately treated or noncompliant patients, adding to concerns about the risk of violence among their patients. Such concerns negatively affect the care of a disenfranchised population while stoking an existing stigma and fear surrounding mental illness. These patients are often high users of services often requiring involuntary commitment, but psychiatrists are often limited in their ability to care for these patients due to lack of sufficient intensive outpatient services. Some of the controversy over OPC involves the potential for violence by persons with severe mental illness and how inflated views of violence potential fuels stigmatizing views of mental illness. Attitude surveys in the United States reliably document the popular belief that mental illness ‘causes’ violence and the strong correlation of this belief with public endorsement of the use of legal mandates to require treatment adherence. Drawing on public opinion, political advocates of OPC in recent years have ‘sold’ OPC by capitalizing on the publicity surrounding sensational acts of violence by people with mental disorders—explicitly promoting involuntary outpatient treatment as a needed measure to ensure public safety. But even proponents of OPC express caution about OPC’s public safety promise. Indeed, the recent resource document on OPC developed by the American Psychiatric Association states, “The goal of involuntary outpatient commitment is to mobilise appropriate treatment resources, enhance their effectiveness and improve an individual’s adherence to the treatment plan. Involuntary outpatient commitment should not be considered as a primary tool to prevent acts of violence” (emphasis added by the article). Despite these cautions about assigning OPC the task of violence prevention, the recent scourge of mass shootings in the United States have led many US lawmakers, wary of the powerful gun lobby, to implicate mental illness as the chief cause of gun violence in the United States. Also keep in mind, this is for people that have already committed crimes and then are mandated treatment. Most of these shooters have committed no prior crimes, meaning the state would have to forcing treatment on people that haven’t done anything wrong. Although fun fact, the Virginia Tech shooter in 2007 was undergoing involuntary outpatient treatment at the time, but was noncompliant with the order and it was not enforced (learned that from the Harvard article below). All that being said, if there were substantially more community-based mental health outreach programs focusing on things like inclusiveness and social skills training, including in schools as early as grades K-8, we might see some real progress. But as far as trying to identify potential shooters and force them into mental health treatment...probably not so much. Further Reading Study saying involuntary outpatient commitment less restrictive than inpatient psychiatric hospital commitment, but flawed in its current implementation: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2007/MR1340.pdf MHA (Mental Health America, community-based non-profit mental health provider) condemning involuntary mental health treatment and reasons why: https://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/positions/involuntary-treatment Brief overview of involuntary outpatient commitment from Harvard Mental Health: https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/Involuntary_outpatient_commitment | ||
GreenHorizons
United States22727 Posts
On August 05 2019 21:40 Ryzel wrote: @GH, I get your point but the mental health field isn’t exactly a financially lucrative one where people are getting into it all the time for the wrong reasons (unlike medical health). Psychiatrists can make bank prescribing drugs after a bajillion years of schooling and supervision requirements, but there are many more in-home therapists and mental health counselors that make between 30-40k annually. Not to mention a pretty decent chunk of these aren’t even white. Being generous to you, I’d say that ratio is closer to 1 out of 20-30. @Mental Health discussion, I agree people don’t know what they’re talking about (not saying this to be mean, just a fact). Study analyzing involuntary outpatient commitment as a means to counter mass shootings: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5298526/ Key snippet: + Show Spoiler + The Contested Relationship between Violence and Mental Illness Although proposed OPC (outpatient commitment) statutes tap into public fear about the potential for violence among persons with mental illness, serious violent acts by persons with severe mental illness are uncommon. Major psychiatric conditions like schizophrenia and mood disorders, by themselves, contribute relatively little—about 4%—to the overall risk of interpersonal violence in the population, and most perpetrators of commonplace violent acts do not have serious psychopathology. Studies indicate that although there is a slightly elevated risk of violence in persons with severe mental illness, such serious acts are still rare. The factors that contribute to violence in the mentally ill are often as varied and complex as those in the general population. In fact, it has been demonstrated that persons with mental illness are more frequently subjected to physical or sexual victimization, and these experiences compounded by other psychosocial factors may increase the risk of violence perpetration in these populations. A study of patients with mental illness found that the factors associated with violence included a history of violent victimization, homelessness, cohabitation, exposure to community violence, substance abuse, poor mental health status, and a history of psychiatric hospitalisation. None of these risk factors, alone, explained an elevated risk, and patients with one or none of these risk factors had violence risks equal to that of the general population without mental illness. Addition of a second risk factor doubled the risk of violence, and those with 3 or more risk factors were most likely to be violent, indicating that the risks for violent behaviour are multifactorial and compounded by social factors throughout the life course. However, the prospect of a violent act by a person with a severe mental illness generates grave public concern and fear, which is often compounded by media coverage of these acts. Clinicians are faced with increasing legal liability and responsibility for the actions and behaviours of their inadequately treated or noncompliant patients, adding to concerns about the risk of violence among their patients. Such concerns negatively affect the care of a disenfranchised population while stoking an existing stigma and fear surrounding mental illness. These patients are often high users of services often requiring involuntary commitment, but psychiatrists are often limited in their ability to care for these patients due to lack of sufficient intensive outpatient services. Some of the controversy over OPC involves the potential for violence by persons with severe mental illness and how inflated views of violence potential fuels stigmatizing views of mental illness. Attitude surveys in the United States reliably document the popular belief that mental illness ‘causes’ violence and the strong correlation of this belief with public endorsement of the use of legal mandates to require treatment adherence. Drawing on public opinion, political advocates of OPC in recent years have ‘sold’ OPC by capitalizing on the publicity surrounding sensational acts of violence by people with mental disorders—explicitly promoting involuntary outpatient treatment as a needed measure to ensure public safety. But even proponents of OPC express caution about OPC’s public safety promise. Indeed, the recent resource document on OPC developed by the American Psychiatric Association states, “The goal of involuntary outpatient commitment is to mobilise appropriate treatment resources, enhance their effectiveness and improve an individual’s adherence to the treatment plan. Involuntary outpatient commitment should not be considered as a primary tool to prevent acts of violence” (emphasis added by the article). Despite these cautions about assigning OPC the task of violence prevention, the recent scourge of mass shootings in the United States have led many US lawmakers, wary of the powerful gun lobby, to implicate mental illness as the chief cause of gun violence in the United States. Also keep in mind, this is for people that have already committed crimes and then are mandated treatment. Most of these shooters have committed no prior crimes, meaning the state would have to forcing treatment on people that haven’t done anything wrong. Although fun fact, the Virginia Tech shooter in 2007 was undergoing involuntary outpatient treatment at the time, but was noncompliant with the order and it was not enforced (learned that from the Harvard article below). All that being said, if there were substantially more community-based mental health outreach programs focusing on things like inclusiveness and social skills training, including in schools as early as grades K-8, we might see some real progress. But as far as trying to identify potential shooters and force them into mental health treatment...probably not so much. Further Reading Study saying involuntary outpatient commitment less restrictive than inpatient psychiatric hospital commitment, but flawed in its current implementation: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2007/MR1340.pdf MHA (Mental Health America, community-based non-profit mental health provider) condoning involuntary mental health treatment and reasons why: https://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/positions/involuntary-treatment Brief overview of involuntary outpatient commitment from Harvard Mental Health: https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/Involuntary_outpatient_commitment There was a study a bit back that showed it's about 1/4 of psychiatrists are Republican. I agree non-doctor mental health professionals are probably less Republican/sympathetic to white supremacy. As far as being white, they don't have to be white to be sympathetic to white supremacy. | ||
Ryzel
United States520 Posts
On August 05 2019 21:58 GreenHorizons wrote: As far as being white, they don't have to be white to be sympathetic to white supremacy. This is true, but they are significantly less likely. The point I was trying to make was that your post implies that 1/3rd of the mental health field is sympathetic to white supremacy and I don’t believe that ratio is anywhere close to accurate, with the caveat that if you’re limiting the mental health field to those making 200k+ a year it becomes much closer to reality. | ||
Pangpootata
1838 Posts
On August 05 2019 21:22 GreenHorizons wrote: White supremacy terrorists attacks account for a tiny percentage of gun crimes, but white supremacy deserves credit for a lot more than just those. Surely hundreds of years of white supremacy leading to subjugation, poverty, and criminalization for the explicit purpose of political and literal marginalization of Black people can be credited for a great deal of violence, be it Black on Black or otherwise. A) Look at the violence and lack of human rights in Sub-Saharan Africa. Comparatively, blacks in the US have a much better and less violent life. Of course slavery was bad for them during that particular time period, but if you look at history as a whole, the blacks in the US are much better off than those in Africa. B) Many other ethnic groups have been subjugated by whites, e.g. Indians by the British, Vietnamese by the French, etc. I don't see them having high rates of violence against each other. It is a leap of logic to blame black violence on past treatment by whites. C) Only 1.6% of the population were slave owners at the height of slavery. The average white whose ancestors were average working class people and not rich slave owners. But genetically black have around 10%-50% of European genes, varying greatly by state. Example study: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov This is due to slave owners breeding (raping) their slaves. The fact we must face is that blacks are the descendants of both slave owners and slaves. And more so the descendants of slave owners than the average white. | ||
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
On August 05 2019 07:43 Gorsameth wrote: ICE has no issue with locking up citizens in inhuman conditions without repercussion. No the problem is not that they are citizens, it's that they are white. You can wish it to be different, you can hope to change it but reality is what it is. Its 'fine' that people get killed by nationalist terrorism be it 1, 10 or 100 so long as the shooter is white enough. But on a more serious note, the solution is proper mental healthcare to identify and intervene before it gets this far. No. Just... no. "But their mental health!" is a cop out and bullshit. If these guys are mentally ill, then I guess I was a psychopath in the army. The military fights against enemies designated by the United States Government. These guys are doing literally the same thing. They are not, by and large, crazy people so much as they are fighting against their "enemy" as designated by the United States Government (Trump and his sycophants). Please, and I mean this genuinely, give deep consideration to how these events are being primed and carried out, and by whom, before we jump on the mental illness train. | ||
GreenHorizons
United States22727 Posts
On August 05 2019 22:11 Ryzel wrote: This is true, but they are significantly less likely. The point I was trying to make was that your post implies that 1/3rd of the mental health field is sympathetic to white supremacy and I don’t believe that ratio is anywhere close to accurate, with the caveat that if you’re limiting the mental health field to those making 200k+ a year it becomes much closer to reality. Lots of poor people and POC are sympathetic to white supremacy. Internalized oppression is a lot more common than many people realize. That said, I didn't mean it as an indictment of the mental health field in general (though there's plenty I could be complaining about regarding it), just our society and that white supremacy isn't only KKK hoods and terrorist attacks. Phrenology, Physiognomy, etc... white supremacy has always been a part of the field (like everything else in the US) | ||
| ||