[Neenagirl]

I have been getting really angry lately when I hear people or the media casually throwing out the term mentally ill or using the same term to call someone who MUST be mentally ill or...

Specifically the Las Vegas shooter - he must be mentally ill to have shot all those people. Hmm, maybe or maybe not. He was definitely evil, no doubt about that, but we don't know anything about his mental health.

Does anyone else feel this way or get angry when people - whether or not they know you and your mental health, say that so and so must be crazy??

Maybe I am taking it all too personally?

[Nammu]

Yes, I get annoyed with people who do that. As for that a$$hole he was evil, he choose to do that, pure evil.

[Caelix3]

When I hear someone had done something bad on the news.

I always consider, maybe they weren't in a stable state of mind. They could of had a undiagnosed mental illness.

But that's just me.

I don't really get upset by people saying that the person may have had mental illness. They very well could of.

Certain mental illnesses make you irrational,paranoid, and have a break with reality.

Which could cause a person to do bad or evil things.

[FallDuskTrain]

I am kind of angry to how mental health probs are perceived and treated by the society at large.
As far as specific incidences such as the vegas shooter people, and the media, always say either one of these things: terrorist or mentally ill. A very cheap shot, in my opinion but that what happens.
On the other hand, as the above post suggests, mental health probs can make one commit evil acts.

[Crypts_Of_The_Mind]

I see it this way: part of the stigma of mental health issues is that one must be "crazy", to be defined as "crazy" by the layman one must then do strange or dis turning acts; thus, when a person does something the average person can make no logical sense of - the person who committed the action must be "crazy", but .. if someone wants to be "politically correct" instead of saying "This person is crazy", it will be said "This person is mentally ill".

Does that make it correct to do? No

Will it be an accurate statement? At times yes, at other times no

It is just as discriminatory (in my view) as when people make the racial slur "Mexicans are thieves." Is that an accurate statement? Sometimes yes. Sometimes no.

You cannot look at a person and make a judgement without knowing the situation - same as you cannot look at a situation and judge the person without first meeting said person.

That's just my view though. Take it or leave it.

Disclaimer: The racial slur about Mexicans was an example of discrimination, not a personal belief nor advocacy for that belief.

[leejosepho]

Originally Posted by Crypts_Of_The_Mind

...when a person does something the average person can make no logical sense of...it will be said "This person is mentally ill".

There is where I see a problem since "mentally ill" should not be the default cop-out, go-to explanation amidst ignorance or a lack of insight...and the same can also be true on the other side of the fence where troubled people have yet to even understand themselves.

[Crypts_Of_The_Mind]

Originally Posted by leejosepho

There is where I see a problem since "mentally ill" should not be the default cop-out, go-to explanation amidst ignorance or a lack of insight...and the same can also be true on the other side of the fence where troubled people have yet to even understand themselves.

Exactly - and that's why I continued on in my explanation as I did.

Yep, I too am frustrated by the cop-out.

So too, when such things happen by someone of colour or not Christian it must be terrorism yet if carried out by a white man it is deemed a 'one-off' act of mental illness.

[All Is Revealed]

I used to get angry when I heard the term mentally ill. Today, I just laugh when I hear people use words that only licensed professionals are educated enough to use.

I hear the word mentally ill, crazy, insane, and abnormal every single day. Yet most people are not licensed to use those words. Only a deep psychological evaluation can prove if someone is mentally ill.

This makes me laugh. It makes me laugh how just anyone in 2017 can walk around calling other people "nuts" when they fail to see their own flaws. Oh, the irony of it all.

[BlueCrustacean]

I'm also noticing a phenomenon where it seems every millennial with a "woke" account on Instagram or Tumblr is bringing attention to "mental illness", when mostly they're referring to depression, anxiety, self hatred and suicidal thoughts. Is it enough to say I have a "mental illness" if I get depressed, have General Anxiety Disorder and bouts of self pity or self hatred? Or is that watering down the term?

[Crypts_Of_The_Mind]

Originally Posted by BlueCrustacean

I'm also noticing a phenomenon where it seems every millennial with a "woke" account on Instagram or Tumblr is bringing attention to "mental illness", when mostly they're referring to depression, anxiety, self hatred and suicidal thoughts. Is it enough to say I have a "mental illness" if I get depressed, have General Anxiety Disorder and bouts of self pity or self hatred? Or is that watering down the term?

Mental illness as defined: a condition that affects cognition, behavior, and emotion
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2811514/
That includes things such as schizophrenia. So yes, this term would be "watered down".

"Mental health disorder" definition however is under scrutiny and undergoing change - it is more of a concept than a concrete definition. Even at it's basic concept though, a person must be having distress or disability caused specifically by the symptoms, so this - would be slightly more weighted than "most" if not all "mental illnesses".

At any rate, in order to properly diagnose any of the illnesses or disorders, one must either be or see a psychiatrist or have a degree in psychiatry and know the up to date criteria. So, in most cases, when a laymen says "mentally ill, or "has a mental disorder" they are simply speaking because they see behaviors or hearing statements they do not understand from the person in question.

[All Is Revealed]

Originally Posted by Crypts_Of_The_Mind

So, in most cases, when a laymen says "mentally ill, or "has a mental disorder" they are simply speaking because they see behaviors or hearing statements they do not understand from the person in question.

Very true. Many people like to call other people schizophrenic or delusional just because someone doesn't view the world like they do. It seems like just about anything is seen as a mental disorder, which is depressing in itself.

For example:
- If I want to be left alone for the day, then I'm suffering from an anti-social disorder.
- If I love myself too much, then I'm considered Narcissistic.
- If I want my house to be clean, then I have OCD.

With the constant mislabeling of behaviors, I wouldn't be surprised if by 2018, happiness is labeled as a mental illness.

[Crypts_Of_The_Mind]

Originally Posted by All Is Revealed

Very true. Many people like to call other people schizophrenic or delusional just because someone doesn't view the world like they do. It seems like just about anything is seen as a mental disorder, which is depressing in itself.

For example:
- If I want to be left alone for the day, then I'm suffering from an anti-social disorder.
- If I love myself too much, then I'm considered Narcissistic.
- If I want my house to be clean, then I have OCD.

With the constant mislabeling of behaviors, I wouldn't be surprised if by 2018, happiness is labeled as a mental illness.

You brightened my day a bit by allowing me to laugh with your final statement. "I wouldn't be surprised if by 2018, happiness is labeled as a mental illness."

Thank you ❤

[Crypts_Of_The_Mind]

Just as an added note to All_Is_Revealed .. I agree with your response, the final statement just made me chuckle.

[All Is Revealed]

Originally Posted by Crypts_Of_The_Mind

You brightened my day a bit by allowing me to laugh with your final statement. "I wouldn't be surprised if by 2018, happiness is labeled as a mental illness."

Thank you ❤

Awww you're welcome. I'm glad my small sense of humor brightened your day just a bit. And that it made you chuckle.

[reb569]

A major part of the issue of assuming someone who does something horrific like the Vegas Shooting or the Texas Church shooting is mentally ill, is that it paints the mentally ill as violent, when in reality, the mentally ill are more likely to be victimized then be an aggressor. It creates a fear of those who are mentally ill that is unfair and can make an already challenging life, more challenging. Generalization and scapegoating.

[Grath]

Originally Posted by Neenagirl

I have been getting really angry lately when I hear people or the media casually throwing out the term mentally ill or using the same term to call someone who MUST be mentally ill or...

Specifically the Las Vegas shooter - he must be mentally ill to have shot all those people. Hmm, maybe or maybe not. He was definitely evil, no doubt about that, but we don't know anything about his mental health.

Does anyone else feel this way or get angry when people - whether or not they know you and your mental health, say that so and so must be crazy??

Maybe I am taking it all too personally?

I disagree, I think "mentally ill" is an accurate label for someone like the Las Vegas shooter – however a very broad one. I think if someone is called mentally ill if their mental state and actions aren't on the normal, "healthy" spectrum the average person's are on, a serial killer can certainly be called mentally ill (as their thoughts and actions luckily aren't those of the average person).
However, by no means does that mean that all or even the majority of mentally ill people are dangerous. It's only a tiny fraction.

Originally Posted by FallDuskTrain

I am kind of angry to how mental health probs are perceived and treated by the society at large.
As far as specific incidences such as the vegas shooter people, and the media, always say either one of these things: terrorist or mentally ill. A very cheap shot, in my opinion but that what happens.
On the other hand, as the above post suggests, mental health probs can make one commit evil acts.

Exactly, that's the real problem. Because "mentally ill" is such a broad term, throwing everyone with a mental illness into a basket with the worst outliers really damages the image society has of people with mental problems. I think this problem is caused more by how uninformed most people are about mental illness than by the portrayal of the media though.

[Grath]

Originally Posted by All Is Revealed

Very true. Many people like to call other people schizophrenic or delusional just because someone doesn't view the world like they do. It seems like just about anything is seen as a mental disorder, which is depressing in itself.

For example:
- If I want to be left alone for the day, then I'm suffering from an anti-social disorder.
- If I love myself too much, then I'm considered Narcissistic.
- If I want my house to be clean, then I have OCD.

With the constant mislabeling of behaviors, I wouldn't be surprised if by 2018, happiness is labeled as a mental illness.

That's a problem as well. Where do you draw the line between uniqueness and mental illness? I think the less you know about mental illness, the more broadly (and therefore, inaccurately) you'll be using these terms.

[Crypts_Of_The_Mind]

Originally Posted by Grath

I disagree, I think "mentally ill" is an accurate label for someone like the Las Vegas shooter – however a very broad one. I think if someone is called mentally ill if their mental state and actions aren't on the normal, "healthy" spectrum the average person's are on, a serial killer can certainly be called mentally ill (as their thoughts and actions luckily aren't those of the average person).
However, by no means does that mean that all or even the majority of mentally ill people are dangerous. It's only a tiny fraction.


Exactly, that's the real problem. Because "mentally ill" is such a broad term, throwing everyone with a mental illness into a basket with the worst outliers really damages the image society has of people with mental problems. I think this problem is caused more by how uninformed most people are about mental illness than by the portrayal of the media though.

Do you believe all killings must be done by a mentally ill person then? Or even all killings such as the Law Vegas shooting? If so, how did you come to that conclusion?

"Mental illness" actually has a very defined definition as I stated above. The fact that people speak or assume without doing research first does not negate that, it simply makes them ignorant and unwilling to learn. Not ignorant in the derogatory form - but ignorant in the true sense of the word "lack of knowledge".

The people who (like my previous example) say "all Mexicans are thieves" truly believe their statement to be factual. Have they done research and therefore have evidence to back it up? No. They have "what they think" and "what they feel" and "what they have experienced from the majority" - but see, on that last statement it switches from "all" to "majority", yet that doesn't phase them. With mental illness though, because mentally ill people are by and large ignored by society (even family members), the only real way it becomes visible is if someone does something horrible. The problem though is - there is never any testing done before that person is labeled as mentally ill. The Las Vegas shooter never had any records of being mentally ill or criminal background. But he is portrayed as having been mentally ill.

[seesaw]

That's why I have a problem with NAMI, National ALliance on Mental Illness. Mental illness has become such a broad term, used to describe all disorders...there's really no comparing a sociopath or someone with ASPD with someone with MDD or PTSD. I am on disability for a mental health disorder, and that's the term I prefer. Because referring to me as "mentally ill" seems to infer that it's a problem with my core being, rather than being a mental health disorder that I have, just like a person HAS cancer, they aren't cancerously ill.

Does anyone understand what I'm saying?

I also hate how the media uses the term mentally ill, especially trying to blame depression for people who hurt others. LIke one of the COlumbine shooters was supposedly depressed and they blame it on that. And I'm like, no way. He may have been depressed but that's NOT why he shot up the school. Otherwise every depressed kid and adult would be shooting up their schools and offices all over the place, and there are a **** ton of depressed people in the U.S., so I'm not buying that.

Seesaw

[Crypts_Of_The_Mind]

I understand what you mean Seesaw, but there are actually 2 separate definitions for mental illness n mental disorder - the media has successfully grouped any mental health problem and "out of the ordinary action" together to form their own definition of "mental illness" - and that is what society views it as now because of that. NAMI - even though the name itself is "national alliance for the mentally ill" I believe stipulates it helps both those with mental illness and mental disorders, I may be wrong - but I believe that's how it goes. Most likely at one time it focused on illnesses only and then incorporated the disorders. But now - as they are discussing DSM-V they are not even sure how to define a mental health disorder anymore. So - its a gray area where the mental health disorders begin n end. Mental health illness though is clearly defined as a condition which affects cognition, behavior, and emotion. That comes out of the DSM and will go in the DSM-V the same way. So yes, it is a wide array of things but it does not mean it encompasses everything the media or some laymen would have a person believe.

[seesaw]

Originally Posted by Crypts_Of_The_Mind

I understand what you mean Seesaw, but there are actually 2 separate definitions for mental illness n mental disorder - the media has successfully grouped any mental health problem and "out of the ordinary action" together to form their own definition of "mental illness" - and that is what society views it as now because of that. NAMI - even though the name itself is "national alliance for the mentally ill" I believe stipulates it helps both those with mental illness and mental disorders, I may be wrong - but I believe that's how it goes. Most likely at one time it focused on illnesses only and then incorporated the disorders. But now - as they are discussing DSM-V they are not even sure how to define a mental health disorder anymore. So - its a gray area where the mental health disorders begin n end. Mental health illness though is clearly defined as a condition which affects cognition, behavior, and emotion. That comes out of the DSM and will go in the DSM-V the same way. So yes, it is a wide array of things but it does not mean it encompasses everything the media or some laymen would have a person believe.

I'm not debating the definition. I'm saying what the greater public perceives it to be. All you did was reinforce my point. And NAMI is the National Alliance on Mental Illness, FYI.

[Crypts_Of_The_Mind]

Ok Seesaw, thank you. Sorry I misstated NAMI.

[ReptileInYourHead]

This thread is similar to another posted recently.
There was also talk of he was evil” but for me, an agnostic, I struggle to define evil, and what makes people evil. What is the source of this evil, scientifically the first suspect would be the brain.
Can anyone define evil in a non religious way?

[Neenagirl]

reb569 I really like your answer, yes it does add violent to our descriptions, and like you also said, most of us are not violent. It is unfair. Thanks