While internet interactions may seem the most benign, they can also be the most public. When an online community has a policy against discrimination, yet gives ableism a pass, I think that policy is either flawed, or the moderation is. Especially when the person stating that they are the object of discrimination is the one that is disciplined for “persistence”. That is, the continued defense against fallacious, discriminatory assertions of instead of accepting the futility of changing a bigot’s mind.
The group in question is called Jedi church (the original) the thread in question has already been altered, though by the participants or the moderators I do not know.
In my introduction in this blog I relate the story of two decades past about an individual who said that they wish they were bipolar so that they “would not have to work.” An interaction in this group was eerily similar. A man by the name of Dave Jenson said the following:
As long as people can have an excuse for their behavior, as long as people can make a living by simply being mentally ill, as long as a living can be made helping the mentally ill. And as I had noticed that when mental illness drop in numbers, new illnesses are invented and old illnesses take longer than before to gain a handle on. As long as this persists their will always be mental illness, real or imagined.
Thinking that I might be perhaps misreading the situation, I asked that if the three points I was inferring from this statement was true, the three points being:
- People wrongly use mental illness as an excuse for what Dave Jenson considers bad behavior.
- People use claims of mental illness in order to receive income.
- The Mental Health Profession is takes advantage of the first two points to justify a wage for those that work in the profession.
Instead of clarifying or correcting, Dave Jenson used further fallacious arguments and untrue statements of fact to support these initial claims, about how much money that Disability insurance is paid fraudulently so that fakers can “earn a living” and I used congressional testimony that his claimed number was over 51% or DI payments, which in turn makes it seem to me that Dave Jenson was inferring that if someone receives DI one is more likely than not to be a fraud.
Other assertions in this thread alone were:
From Talon Trevor MacDonald:
Emotion is natural, and necessary for most. Some get lost in Emotion, and cannot contain or control it. This is generally due to Mental Illness, but also in a few cases, It is on purpose.
This infers to me an assertion that lack of emotional control is generally only represented by 4.1 percent of the population in the United States (the percentage of Adults in the USA with Serious Mental Illness according to NIMH)
and Bae Ryder, a moderator had this gem:
There are only two reasons why a professional will use the DSM: 1- insurance purposes and 2: for personal information. The DSM is defective in more ways than one. I would not use that creditable source because no professional would. Just a suggestion.
You know, instead of using a diagnostic manual to CORRECTLY DIAGNOSE AN ILLNESS.
What makes it rich was from a post immediately following the above again from Bae Ryder:
With a topic like Mental Health, unless you are a professional sitting inside your office, don’t try to give someone advice on Facebook about it. It is dangerous and unethical not to mention, it can kill. Do everyone a favor and just don’t go there. The government is not a good source of information and neither is someone that does not have at least a masters in mental health or websites that have agendas.
This seems to imply that a person LIVING with mental illness is unqualified to speak on the matter due to a lack of formal schooling. Which is rich coming from a person that just said that the DSM which is written by such is not fit to be used by the same professionals to diagnose.
The silencing of those that advocate against the stigmatization of the mentally ill, including those that self-advocate like myself, is itself a further stigmatization. In the above groups it was explained to me by two moderators (one of which I consider a friend) (again after I made no move to or expressed an interest in rejoining) in extended conversations about my banning, that the owner of the group “Paladin Carl” values harmony, and it was me voicing my objection to discrimination in a manner he finds unbecoming more onerous than the discrimination itself. My friend Alethea Jolene Thompson, also a moderator there, explained to me that it was my tenacity of trying to “win” that was unwelcome.
Rather than explain in detail my objections to these views, I recommend the following reading http://www.derailingfordummies.com/
Those named in this post are more than welcome to make their case in the comments, I give you my word, that I will not censor or silence, as I have been in the named facebook post.