as blair lost it

[fela fan]

No one CANNOT - and for god's sake talk to some medically qualified people, Fela. THEY are the bods on this.
and no, dictionaries do not.
There is more than one definition of psychosis, yes. psychosis is a different concept.
Sorry, fela, i just object to this lazy thinking. I loathe Blair - I loathe him for Iraq, for HE tuition fees, for ASBos, for the PPP fiasco, for above all what he has done to the Labour Party; but it is supremely chuckleheaded thinking to translate a violent disagreement with his policies into an assumption that he is non compos mentis

We share a similar loathing for the man mate, but i remain convinced that the likes of bush and blair, and mugabe for that matter, display insanity in their daily lives.

I fully recognise that perhaps my interpetation of insanity is not recognised in the main theatre of public opinion, but i still insist upon it!

It's another debate, but you know, i reckon that certain jobs make people go insane. I recognise that the 'looney bin' kind of madness is not the same, but i can only comprehend the things that bush and blair do by assigning insanity to them.

Unfortunately i have zero expectation in persuading anyone to agree with me, more's the pity! But i will insist upon it. He is psychologically sick, and that IS one of the definitions in my dictionary.

 

[fela fan]

Ironically that's what Blair does. Spin Mr Orwell, spin!

I think that'll have passed lock by. Ironical that he came up with it, as you say.

Good call mate. I missed the oppo earlier!

 

[In Bloom]

When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.

 

[TeeJay]

It's another debate, but you know, i reckon that certain jobs make people go insane. I recognise that the 'looney bin' kind of madness is not the same, but i can only comprehend the things that bush and blair do by assigning insanity to them.

I dislike your flippant 'looney bin' comments. There are a lot of people on u75 who have had mental health problems at some time or another - the most common is depression, but of course there are others (I had problems with manic depression/bipolar a few years back which have really fucked up my life/career/etc). Some people here have even spent time in the "looney bin" (bin = a place for rubbish, looneys = lunatics: dangerous, crazy, frothing at the mouth).

Trying to label Blair as mentally ill is both an utterly bogus argument (without any kind of evidence or explanation) and on the flipside your comments about "looney bins" etc is very disrespectful and crass towards the issue of mental health/illness/distress.

Even The Sun apologised about its "Bonkers Bruno" headlines. As someone who likes to present themselves as left learning and/or progressive you really, IMO, need to have a think about your attitudes towards this issue.

You could start by educating yourself a bit more about what "mental illness" is, and isn't. For example, this takes only a few minutes to read:

Understanding mental illness (MIND factsheet)

 

[Streathamite]

I dislike your flippant 'looney bin' comments. There are a lot of people on u75 who have had mental health problems at some time or another - the most common is depression, but of course there are others (I had problems with manic depression/bipolar a few years back which have really fucked up my life/career/etc). Some people here have even spent time in the "looney bin" (bin = a place for rubbish, looneys = lunatics: dangerous, crazy, frothing at the mouth).

Trying to label Blair as mentally ill is both an utterly bogus argument (without any kind of evidence or explanation) and on the flipside your comments about "looney bins" etc is very disrespectful and crass towards the issue of mental health/illness/distress.

and this also one of my objections - this 'blair mad' bollocks is a really nasy pop at people who've had mental health problems.

 

[TeeJay]

It isn't common to call people who are depressed "mad" - but it is a "mental illness".

You don't often hear people talking about "crips", "spazes" etc - but it seems "loonie" is an OK term to throw around.

You often hear about people having a "breakdown", "trauma" or "suffering from stress". In fact people will make up all sorts of phrases to avoid saying "suffering from mental illness".

Is it any wonder, when it is acceptable and common to label people as "loonies"?

Otherwise brilliant, talented, capable and wonderful people can be written off by ignoramus gobshites who know nothing about the subject and show their ignorance and fear by demonising and misrepresenting mental health and illness.

 

[fela fan]

Otherwise brilliant, talented, capable and wonderful people can be written off by ignoramus gobshites who know nothing about the subject and show their ignorance and fear by demonising and misrepresenting mental health and illness.

Fucking slow down man. I know the subject is personal to you, but i wasn't meaning any offence. I've lived out of the country for a long time now, so i can't always keep up with words that have now become offensive. For your info i saw about that bruno headline and thought it terrible and disgusting. Regardless of any connotations 'looney bin' has these days, i used it after recalling the cuckoo's nest film with nicholson. Sorry, okay.

I could use the words 'mad', 'madness', 'insane', 'insanity', 'mental illness' all in different contexts with different meanings. I may not be in the health profession, but i am in the language one.

I have just read that insanity is suffering from a mental illness or psychological disorder. That makes the two things different.

Now, i'd better read your link!

 

[fela fan]

and this also one of my objections - this 'blair mad' bollocks is a really nasy pop at people who've had mental health problems.

But before i do, i've not said he's mad mate. I'd never claim blair to be mad, he's in full control of his intelligence. Calling him mad would excuse his actions. No, he's not mad at all.

To me, a man can be fully intelligent, have all his marbles, AND be insane. The insanity bit comes from the overwhelming requirement to be someone other than yourself. And if you look at what makes a person, it is not sane to be doing and saying the things blair does. He talks of his revulsion, of hunting people down, he kills and maims, and so on. How can he face himself at night time? Only by self-denial, only by hiding behind insanity.

Don't forget, new words and meanings are born all the time, and have always done so. If blair hits new horizons with his filthy brand of politics, then maybe new words, or shades of meanings may be needed.

Nothing gets him out of office, maybe being considered insane might...?

 

[fela fan]

teejay, i've skimmed through your link, a good one it is too. I do actually know most of it already though!

It, and you, are talking about mental illness. To me insanity is not so much a mental illness, rather a psychological one. To me depression or anxiety for example, are nothing to do with insanity.

 

[TeeJay]

It, and you, are talking about mental illness. To me insanity is not so much a mental illness, rather a psychological one. To me depression or anxiety for example, are nothing to do with insanity.

What about manic depression?

I'm afraid I still don't get your distinction between 'mental illness' and 'psychological disorder'.

Are you saying that Blair is a contradiction within himself - that he is in an impossible position where he simply cannot reconcile some of his beliefs and how he thinks about himself (eg as a 'good, moral, caring person' etc) with his actual actions as prime minister (eg launching wars and hunting down terrorists)?

Don't all politicians, anyone who holds a political office or even more broadly anyone who works for the government or a large company for example - have to face this disjuncture between their personal self-image and beliefs and what is required in their job or by the role they play in a larger organisation and power structure?

Somehow I doubt that the kind of people who would actually have a problem with this would actually pursue these positions or this kind of career for very long.

 

[fela fan]

What about manic depression?

I'm afraid I still don't get your distinction between 'mental illness' and 'psychological disorder'.

Maybe i should define a few things and keep away from terms for the minute. Perhaps you might help me find the right terms from the current context in britain.

[maybe the answer to your question is it depends on the external stimulus that leads to one or the other]

It just so happens that i'm dealing with very similar consequences at my work place at the minute. The consequences of finding oneself in power and using it for negative purposes. The woman in charge 'lost it' the other day, and (being in thai) what i heard i could only describe as the squwarking of a demented parrot. Her voice had taken on an unusual timbre and tone and urgency. It sounded terrible, not like any human sound i've ever heard before. It was almost carnal, animal-like.

She spends most of her working days either surrounding herself with her acolytes (ex-students; remember this is a hierarchical society i'm in), or lying and destroying the program i'm teaching on (meaning destroying the teachers and the students too). She has to lie coz if she told the truth she'd have long been out of a job. Everything she does has to be calculated in order to avoid the justice that nature calls for.

I feel as if blair himself has been parachuted into my office over one weekend. It is dreadful being in her presence, i know i'd not last a minute with blair anywhere near me.

None of which probably answers your question! My point is, it is simply not natural to spend one's life scheming and conspiring and lying, it runs counter to the demands of our hearts and souls. It puts massive pressure on our internal well-being. Now if any job had done that to me, AND i'd become responsible for thousands of deaths through my actions, if i had to face up to that i'd surely just flop and lose all life-force. Hence the concept of self-denial and how people such as blair must utilise this.

However, perhaps that is utilised in order to remain sane. Alternatively it could mark one down as insane.

Either way, my description in this post seems something entirely different to mental illnesses or depression, which are treatable by medicine.

What blair and my boss have, i don't think any medicine would make any difference. Only a realignment of values, a return to doing one's best to avoid negatively impacting on others' lives, might save them from their problems.

Which i call insanity, and if this word does not allow the above into its meaning, then i'd call for a change next time the dictionaires update their tomes with the new words additions.

I'll tell you another thing mate, i hardly ever hear blair or bush, but when i do, both their voices, and what they say... i just cannot accept that these are sane people. (i only hear them once or twice a year)

 

[fela fan]

Don't all politicians, anyone who holds a political office or even more broadly anyone who works for the government or a large company for example - have to face this disjuncture between their personal self-image and beliefs and what is required in their job or by the role they play in a larger organisation and power structure?

In short, most certainly yes. (Could they not be the one in four that your link talked about?!)

Either way, i see it that when in a position of power, then you are answerable to ideas, concepts, rules, expectations, culture, society, all manner of notions. It governs your behaviour, your speech, your actions. Everything you must think about before doing. Spontaneity is gone. You become calculated. The brain takes over, it rules. The heart and soul and humanness is relegated to nothing or almost nothing.

I've taught over here for 14 years, and once had a management position (that i was virtually dragged into) which i lasted only six months in. I got caught up in this 'madness' and realised that my instinctive need to just remain a teacher was a wise one. I can be my own man, just so long as i keep my students happy.

I am under extreme institutional provocation at the minute, and this is because of one woman. It just ain't natural mate, and i would trace it all back to her insecurity and realisation she ain't up to the job. I can feel this massive negativity daily, and to me it is simply not sane behaviour.

 

[Lock&Light]

I am under extreme institutional provocation at the minute, and this is because of one woman. It just ain't natural mate, and i would trace it all back to her insecurity and realisation she ain't up to the job. I can feel this massive negativity daily, and to me it is simply not sane behaviour.

I wonder what she makes of you, fela.

 

[fela fan]

I wonder what she makes of you, fela.

Firstly she'll make nothing at all of fela fan.

Secondly, i don't give a fuck what she makes of me. All i know is that i have to have her out of my life.

But since you ask and put my mind to it, i guess i'm not subservient like a good underling should be in this country, ask no questions just do it coz i said do it. That's the way of most bosses here.

Come to think of it, ain't that pretty much blair too...

 

[Streathamite]

It, and you, are talking about mental illness. To me insanity is not so much a mental illness, rather a psychological one. .

say WHA???
fela, you just shot yer foot there. every doctor in the western world would laugh at this assertion

 

[Lock&Light]

say WHA???
fela, you just shot yer foot there. every doctor in the western world would laugh at this assertion

But thats just what I like about fela. He always provides a good laugh.

 

[fela fan]

say WHA???
fela, you just shot yer foot there. every doctor in the western world would laugh at this assertion

Red, you missed the first two words of that sentence: 'to me...'

Furthermore i've already stated on this thread i expect to be able to convince no-one about my definition of insanity.

So no mate, i haven't done any harm to my foot at all, and yes, no doubt they would laugh at me. That would not be unusual at all, i'm used to it here on urban, and don't give a fuck!

 

[fela fan]

But thats just what I like about fela. He always provides a good laugh.

Well that's good to know, since laughing is an infinitely better way to live life than crying.

But you should dig deeper sometimes lock, you may get to learn a few things... every cat can be skinned at least two ways.

[come to think of it, you probably have, but wouldn't admit it to me eh?]

 

[fela fan]

say WHA???
fela, you just shot yer foot there. every doctor in the western world would laugh at this assertion

But wait a minute, i missed it the first time: does that mean that in the non-western world they might agree with me instead of laugh at me?

 

[Streathamite]

nope - they'd wait for it to be translated into their respective national tongues, and then shake their heads in disbelief.

 

[fela fan]

nope - they'd wait for it to be translated into their respective national tongues, and then shake their heads in disbelief.

They speak english in singapore and in jamaica and they speak spanish in spain and they speak french in france...

 

[Streathamite]

back ON-topic. madness = insanity = loss of control of faculties etc. it is a MEDICAL condition, and it is HUGELy offensive to those who suffer from m,ental health problems, to bandy the word about likely, especially with reference to a politician who millions of people thought sane enough to vopte for. You and I MASSIVELY disagree with his policies. others don't. doesn't make him mad. despicable, yes. Shameful, yes. an affront to liberty.
NOT mad.
Though I'll agree that life in the Westminster timechamber does tend to distort reality

 

[TeeJay]

back ON-topic. madness = insanity = loss of control of faculties etc.

I don't know if this is entirely correct. Not all mental illness/distress involves 'loss of control of faculties', although maybe you covered that with the "etc." bit? For example, does "depression" (a mental illness/mental distress) involve 'loss of control of faculties'? Is it "insanity"?

Even more "extreme" conditions, for example skitzophrenia, don't necessarily involve loss of control - for example they might just involve hearing voices, and someone might be able to deal with this. The manic phase of manic depression doesn't necessarily mean someone completely loses touch with reality or 'loses control' - it can sometimes mean simply feeling like you are charged up on lots of caffeine and have lots of energy, confidence and ideas (maybe like being on cocaine? I haven't tried cocaine so I don't really know).

Conversely people can 'lose control' without being mentall ill: people can behave in an extreme way through anger, intoxication, "group-think", hypnotism or even a strong motivating ideology.

I don't therefore think that "madness = insanity = loss of control of faculties etc." is a fery helpful or accurate way of describing mental illness/mental distress.

I am wondering now if "personality disorders" are the same as "mental illness"? Sometimes in a criminal case the accused is said to be a sociopath (eg prone to extreme violence and have no concern or empathy with other people) but not actually be mentally ill or insane - this often effects sentencing. There are other times when I have seen people talk about "personality disorders" (hysterical, narcissistic etc) and dictionary.com says this:

"a psychopathological condition or group of conditions in which an individual's entire life pattern is considered deviant or nonadaptive although the individual shows neither neurotic symptoms nor psychotic disorganization"
​

The wikipedia entry also notes:

"The distinction made between "normal" and "disordered" personalities is also rejected by some. The "diagnostic thresholds" between normal and abnormal are either absent or weakly supported. The judgment whether a behavioural pattern is normal or disordered is also highly subjective. The DSM contains little discussion of what distinguishes personality styles (personality), from personality disorders and much is left to clinical judgment. Cultural bias is evident in certain disorders such as Schizoid personality disorder, Antisocial personality disorder, and Schizotypal personality disorder. Also, diagnosis of some disorders may be vulnerable to bias because of gender role expectations."​

Here is the MIND factsheet: Understanding personality disorders

Have a look at this bit, for example:

Histrionic personality disorder

"Being ignored is probably very uncomfortable for you, and you feel much more at ease as the ’life and soul of the party‘. But you may also feel that you have to entertain people and that you are dependent on their approval. You may flirt or behave provocatively to ensure that you remain the centre of attention, or find that other people influence you too easily. You may earn a reputation for being dramatic and overemotional. Because you love excitement and don’t tolerate boredom, you may behave recklessly or impulsively at times."​

This sounds like a lot of people in showbusiness, artists and performers. We probably all know people like this. I don't think most people would say that "drama queens" or "attention seekers" are mentally ill. It doesn't seem like there can be any clear-cut, value-free or "scientific" assessment of where "normal" attention-seeking stops and "histrionic personality disorder" starts, and it is doubtful that either one would be described as a "mental illness".

 

[Streathamite]

Ok fair enough, but do you agree that this indiscriminate bandying around of the term 'mad' is pretty damn offensive?

 

[TeeJay]

I have already said so in my second post on this thread.

 

[untethered]

Was Hitler mad?

 

[TeeJay]

Surely a topic for another thread?

 

[untethered]

Possibly. But the point is to try to determine how we'd judge someone that is/was clearly capable of running a country on the mad/bad/just happen to disagree with them scale.

Hitler is familiar enough and far enough in the past to hopefully be able to put into perspective, whereas Blair isn't.

 

[Lock&Light]

Was Hitler mad?

Is anyone completely sane?

 

[untethered]

Well I'm certainly not. Just last night I drunk 130 pints of lager and took my trousers off.

The question is whether a particular person, in this case Blair, is sufficiently "mad" for that to be the most credible explanation for his observed behaviour.