American Politics

[M3J]

So you're neither acknowledging nor trying to understand what I've actually said, but making me a surrogate for what you think a pro-gun conservative would say? Again, I talked about mental illness, not your country's unfortunate obsession with exalting gun "rights" over basic human rights. If you're going to reply to me then reply to what I said. Of course it's blatantly obvious easy access to guns is a problem (as the data kkck posted, and a decade of Australian gun ban results demonstrate). But that's ONE dimension of a multidimensional issue. It doesn't erase the fact that happy and mentally healthy people don't just "snap" and go on killing sprees. My saying that does NOT automatically mean I'm saying guns are great and mental illness predicts violence, for goodness' sake. I actually spend a lot more time telling people I know in person NOT to assume diagnosed mental illness in a person means they're somehow morally or intellectually compromised.

Given that the topic is gun rights though... and I was tying your post to gun rights although I know you said you weren't broaching that subject. My main issue with mental health amongst politicians is that I rarely see any of them discuss it unless a mass shooting happens. It's sad that mental illness gets skirted around until it becomes a convenient excuse.

I have been thinking that the build-up likely leads to snapping. Two kids who opened fire admitted they did it because they were tired of being rejected by women and being virgins, so build-up makes more sense here.

Spoiler: rant on the marginalization of ppl struggling with mental illness

It sickens me all the disgusting automatic negative associations people have with mental illness. I've spent a lot of time talking to suicidal people, depressed people, bipolar people, and more. They live among you and you see them every day as your acquaintances, friends, and relatives, yet you never notice it because they know they have to "hide" their illness at all times due to BS stigma. Most people don't have the slightest clue how exceedingly painful it is for them to fool you into thinking everything's fine all the time on top of whatever illness they are already suffering. It always saddens me how many of them talk about how they end up hating people for it and resenting that they have to keep their pain bottled up. Most people never know this however, because they also have no clue how incredibly deep these people's resilience and restraint is. Pretty much everyone with mental illness is being failed by their society on some level, but among those who are failed over and over and over again on many levels, you're going to start to find some who have begun fantasizing about revenge. If more stress (unemployment, a history of relationship problems, unresolved trauma, etc.) piles up than a person can handle, in most cases it won't lead any further than a suicide attempt, but that minority of people I just mentioned-- especially if they already have an existing history of violence-- will (continue to) externalize their pain in a violent way. This is why crime goes up when economies are bad-- it's not just people stealing food to survive (though that does happen), but a statistical inevitability of pushing people who are already suffering even harder. Unsurprisingly, greater income inequality also equals greater crime and greater overall unhappiness in a society.

Same. I wish politicians addressed mental illness and how to help people instead of locking them up somewhere or something. I don't think any candidate covered this issue yet? I could be woefully wrong though. Mental illness sadly gets brought up only when there's mass shooting or violence done by white people, but otherwise I don't see it covered as much.

Even the authorities fail people with mental illness, apparently. A cop months ago shot a black guy who was mentally ill... even though he was naked and unarmed.

In this context the issue is not proving people can't snap overnight but rather the opposite, proving they can. I don't think there is any documented case or even evidence that people can snap overnight and just decide to shot at strangers. Mental illness probably is not a factor in all cases however among the cases that aren't attributable to mental illness there won't be a single one that "snapped" with no background or context into doing the deed.

Psychological build-up makes more sense than snapping overnight, in most cases.

 

[kannazuki]

I'm pretty sure I've heard of a good two or three separate police shootings of people (of colour) with either a mental illness or autism, but I can't remember the details now. Instead, here's this. The comments section of that article has a good discussion of the importance of Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) training for officers of the law so that they don't just shoot people in crisis who happen to be holding a knife. (And this one is not an issue confined to the US either.) Can you imagine being a parent calling the police for help because your son is acting erratic and he ends up dead?

 

[M3J]

Whatever happened to when police actually helped people instead of shooting them at any sign of nonlethal danger? I'd have to do research, but I'm not sure if the main victims in the US are mentally ill people of color or mentally ill people in general. Another issue for presidential candidates to tackle, but sadly most candidates don't even care about mental illness. Politicians will bring it up only to defend guns by blaming the shootings on mentally ill... if the shooter is white.

Deepika Padukone actually made headlines because she made public her own depression (I think?) and said that no one has to be alone. Marketing or PR ploy or not, she at least brought up a taboo subject in India, which hopefully gets the powers that be to do something and help those who are mentally ill.

 

[kkck]

Whatever happened to when police actually helped people instead of shooting them at any sign of nonlethal danger? I'd have to do research, but I'm not sure if the main victims in the US are mentally ill people of color or mentally ill people in general. Another issue for presidential candidates to tackle, but sadly most candidates don't even care about mental illness. Politicians will bring it up only to defend guns by blaming the shootings on mentally ill... if the shooter is white.

Deepika Padukone actually made headlines because she made public her own depression (I think?) and said that no one has to be alone. Marketing or PR ploy or not, she at least brought up a taboo subject in India, which hopefully gets the powers that be to do something and help those who are mentally ill.

If you go for statistics then what you will find is that mentally ill folk are far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators. Now, that does not necessarily mean the folk who cause mass shootings are not mentally ill (overall quite a few seem to be at least genuinely disturbed) however mass shootings and mass shooting deaths amount statistically to zero, they barely have an effect on overall statisticsr regarding mental illness violence or gun violence. The issue here would be mass shootings and the media creating the false perception that mentally ill folk are generally dangerous when the reality is the opposite.

 

[M3J]

If you go for statistics then what you will find is that mentally ill folk are far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators. Now, that does not necessarily mean the folk who cause mass shootings are not mentally ill (overall quite a few seem to be at least genuinely disturbed) however mass shootings and mass shooting deaths amount statistically to zero, they barely have an effect on overall statisticsr regarding mental illness violence or gun violence. The issue here would be mass shootings and the media creating the false perception that mentally ill folk are generally dangerous when the reality is the opposite.

I think the reason for that is because that's the to-go excuse to defend gun rights, and because people think mentally ill people are usually prone to committing violence. Now if it was a minority committing these mass shootings, they wouldn't be called crazy, just thugs, terrorists, or whatever and the entire race be blamed and called problematic.

 

[kannazuki]

It may be an "excuse" for some people but I think it's better to be informed and ready to talk about the damage ignoring those with mental illness does to society than it is to pretend the two issues are completely unrelated. To me the logical process in solving a social problem like shootings is to look at why they happen. When you understand the cause with some level of clarity, then you can talk about prevention. Once you have collected all prevention-oriented options on the table, you weed out the bad ones (e.g. the NRA's "lots of guns for everybody!" approach) based on scientific analysis of real world data (preferably from around the world). So when somebody comes at you with "but it's the crazy people's fault," you can ask them if they realize just how incredibly ineffective and damaging targeting mentally ill people as if they're criminals is, but how there would likely be a number of benefits to society if they received the care and support they need.

 

[M3J]

Problem is, the ones in power don't talk about mental illness until they're busy defending shooters. The media also don't bring up mental illnesses unless it's to talk about a murderer either. The first step is to actually talk about mental illnesses without ignorance or hesitation. How often do we see mental illnesses be addressed in a good way, rather than "omg that shooter was mentally fucked up!!" or "this white shooter was not a terrorist even though he had political reasons to shoot people, he's just a crazy whacko"? We need to make sure that the issue can be talked about without bias or stupidity before attempting to address the problem.

Mentally ill people are unfortunately dehumanized because of poor understanding and lack of effort to even try.

 

[kannazuki]

That is the same for all disadvantaged groups. Yes, the stigma can and should be fought but it's not like you have to wait to do anything else. When someone brings up an issue in a negative light, I believe in challenging them on it. To me, there is literally no better way to address it than to say "Oh so you have a coherent, evidence-based plan that can compassionately and equitably kill two birds with one stone? Lay it out, tell me why it works, and tell me what proof you have." Then see if they can do it. If they can't do it (and most won't be able to), you'll have exposed them for using mental illness as a distraction and a side show (whether intentionally or unintentionally). If they do have a good proposal, then great, that's something you can adopt it and advocate for it. That's how informed, enlightened democratic discourse is supposed to work in a society, and not like the media circus we're all constantly subjected to of vapid talking points and shouting matches in which nobody is listening to anyone.

 

[SharkBait]

This week is the democratic candidates debating?

 

[kannazuki]

Yup. CNN's Democratic party debate is tomorrow.

 

[kkck]

A big part of the mass shooting debate should be on how bad the problem actually is.I have seen a few numbers around and it is true the frequency of shootings has increased and the US has more of them than other countries but if you adjust them to the population the US is not actually first on the list. I guess the question would be what exactly is the way to measure this.... Though in any scenario the US has seen an increase in them.....

 

[M3J]

That is the same for all disadvantaged groups. Yes, the stigma can and should be fought but it's not like you have to wait to do anything else. When someone brings up an issue in a negative light, I believe in challenging them on it. To me, there is literally no better way to address it than to say "Oh so you have a coherent, evidence-based plan that can compassionately and equitably kill two birds with one stone? Lay it out, tell me why it works, and tell me what proof you have." Then see if they can do it. If they can't do it (and most won't be able to), you'll have exposed them for using mental illness as a distraction and a side show (whether intentionally or unintentionally). If they do have a good proposal, then great, that's something you can adopt it and advocate for it. That's how informed, enlightened democratic discourse is supposed to work in a society, and not like the media circus we're all constantly subjected to of vapid talking points and shouting matches in which nobody is listening to anyone.

Unless you're a celebrity or politician, it's hard to fight back unless it's in a big group.

A big part of the mass shooting debate should be on how bad the problem actually is.I have seen a few numbers around and it is true the frequency of shootings has increased and the US has more of them than other countries but if you adjust them to the population the US is not actually first on the list. I guess the question would be what exactly is the way to measure this.... Though in any scenario the US has seen an increase in them.....

Mass shootings are still no no, and gun defenders somehow seem to not understand this.

 

[SharkBait]

Saw the lineup for the debate may not watch since its not my politcal party, but who in the world is Lincoln Chafee. I know one of the candidates because he was from my state (Jim Webb, senator)

 

[M3J]

Looks like the democrats had better debates that weren't jokes. Here's hoping this opens people's eyes to how ridiculous the current republicans are. Although, did they ever address mental health issues, LGBT rights, or equality in general?

 

[SharkBait]

Democrats performance was odd, only candidate on stage that seemed to bring up agreeable points was Mr. Jim Webb. Hopefully he can actually rise as Mr. Sanders seems to dwell in a world where money is no object and that t he entire burden of America being run and all be put on the shoulders of the 536 American Billionaires. Additionally Mr Sanders seems to want to make America really weak an a target against other weaker nations and seems anti military. I dont think a leader who has no military experience ought to be one we choose or who has limited foreign policy experience.

Ms Clinton is still untrustworthy.

 

[kannazuki]

I had to leave partway through (and will probably catch the rest later), but I recall one brief discussion by Sanders of mental health issues in relation to gun control. After clarifying he's in favour of bans or reductions on military-grade/style weapons (or whatever it's called), he also spoke about ensuring those struggling with mental health issues have access to appropriate health care in time to avert tragedy. Really wanted to hear more from the principled one-issue candidate Lawrence Lessig (about ending gov't corruption). Regardless of political leanings, everyone that agrees money is not "speech" and corporations are not "people" should hear Lawrence Lessig's one-issue political bid out imo. His take is that if he runs on one issue only, and gets elected on that one issue, there is no way that congress can oppose that one issue he ran on, as they would openly be opposing the will of the people.

 

[M3J]

I see nothing wrong with increasing tax on the wealthy. They can afford to pay the taxes. Bill Gates has donated tons of money and supports paying more taxes, but is he still not one of the wealthiest person? If the wealthy wasn't so greedy and selfish, tons of people would benefit. I am also not sure if Sanders really wants to make the country weak, but republicans argue that Obama has made the country a joke when I've seen far more people not from US praise Obama while insulting the citizens, especially their love for guns.

Either way, we spend too much on military and making the wealthy richer while we should be focused more on domestic issues and allowing the middle class and lower to be able to make ends meet without needing to work three jobs just to have shelter and 3 meals a day.

 

[SharkBait]

I see nothing wrong with increasing tax on the wealthy. They can afford to pay the taxes. Bill Gates has donated tons of money and supports paying more taxes, but is he still not one of the wealthiest person? If the wealthy wasn't so greedy and selfish, tons of people would benefit. I am also not sure if Sanders really wants to make the country weak, but republicans argue that Obama has made the country a joke when I've seen far more people not from US praise Obama while insulting the citizens, especially their love for guns.

Either way, we spend too much on military and making the wealthy richer while we should be focused more on domestic issues and allowing the middle class and lower to be able to make ends meet without needing to work three jobs just to have shelter and 3 meals a day.

I just dont think increasing tax on the wealthy will pay for ALL of these things

1. Increasing the minimum wage to $15 nationwide (which I assume they are going to have to give tax credits to small businesses and many multinational corporations that are struggling to break even or have been shrinking in recent years).
2. Increasing Social Security benefits to everyone
3. Increasing Health Coverage
4. Making going to college and university free for all (again credits will have to be given to universities to support infrastructure (several universities have been facing issues with breaking even, maintaining and improving aging facilities, and paying faculty and staff adequate wages, an issue with libearl arts universities)
5. Increasing the amount the government is footing the bill for pharmaceuticals so that pharmaceutical companies dont have to spend billions for research on drugs that may or may not work (drug trials arent cheap), many of these companies are only big due to a few major drugs)
6. Going to a 100% electric energy grid (electric cars arent cheap, theres a big cost to put up front for development of key facilities and environmental studies on putting wind farms in mountains, new nuclear power, and solar farms and wind farms in the Atlantic)
7. Enhancing the public school system (currently many counties in the united states have teachers on sub 30K salaries, and also many school systems are in the red), more money would need to be given to actually inspire more teachers to come to some areas due to competitive wages elsewhere, also the inequality divide between urban ethic areas having lower quality and lower amount of funds, versus highly educated affluent suburban neighborhoods having rich school systems)

 

[M3J]

I just dont think increasing tax on the wealthy will pay for ALL of these things
Increasing the minimum wage to $15 nationwide (which I assume they are going to have to give tax credits to small businesses and many multinational corporations that are struggling to break even or have been shrinking in recent years).

Apparently CEOs get paid shitloads, as well as those high up in the ladder. Do they really need to be paid so much? Does income tax even have any effect on minimum wage? I don't think it would help companies pay salary....

Increasing Social Security benefits to everyone
Increasing Health Coverage

Tax money can go to Social Security benefits. That's one thing that would benefit from increasing taxes on the wealthy, who can afford to pay taxes twice a year without a problem, even.

Making going to college and university free for all (again credits will have to be given to universities to support infrastructure (several universities have been facing issues with breaking even, maintaining and improving aging facilities, and paying faculty and staff adequate wages, an issue with libearl arts universities)

Reduce spending on military and defense and put it towards education. Hell, reduce the amount of tuition colleges and universities can charge, given many charge so much.

Enhancing the public school system (currently many counties in the united states have teachers on sub 30K salaries, and also many school systems are in the red), more money would need to be given to actually inspire more teachers to come to some areas due to competitive wages elsewhere, also the inequality divide between urban ethic areas having lower quality and lower amount of funds, versus highly educated affluent suburban neighborhoods having rich school systems)

Reduce spending in some other categories like defense and increase tax on the wealthy.

 

[kkck]

The thing about taxes is that it is not just black and white as either democrats or republicans present it. The wealthy class are in the end the ones who own the largest business and have resources and whatnot. Now, just raising taxes won't immediately make businesses go down. It's in an entrepreneur and businessman' nature to adapt to changes. But just arbitrarily increasing taxes can become a constraint to the economy. On the other hand a system where the wealthy pay proportionally less than those below is inherently wrong and backwards. The us needs to simplify its tax code and make sure that people at the top don't pay proportionally less than those below. It needs things to be clear and transparent to everyone.