When I told my aunt about it, she said "Everyone knows something is going to happen when you're around. They're always tensed up waiting for it, and when it does, they explode." So, why not just accept the fact that something is going to happen and live with it? It makes the world so much easier.
The Racial Discrimination Thread
(404 posts) (11 voices)-
The joke was that she said, "Point", so he did. But he poked her when he pointed, which was probably necessary to underscore the fact that he was pointing.
John, maybe you should try to figure out how to change your image such that your family expects that if you're around something good is likely to happen.
--M. J. Young
Fri Jan 15 2010 10:21 pm # -
JohnA1nut
MemberJohn, maybe you should try to figure out how to change your image such that your family expects that if you're around something good is likely to happen.
Because, everyone always insists that I control my psychosis. If I were retarded, they wouldn't insist that I control my retarded-ness. I'm reminded of the movie Rain Man. The scene in the diner, when Raymond is asking where the maple syrup is. Tom Cruise says "Raymond, don't make a scene. Stop acting like a f-ing retard." Raymond can't help acting the way he does. It wasn't Raymond that needed to straighten up, it was Tom Cruise, and you see that, by the end of the movie, he has accepted Raymond. It only took him a week. My family has had 32 years. Why can't they accept me? I can't make the psychosis go away any more than Raymond could make the autism go away.
Fri Jan 15 2010 11:07 pm # -
JohnA1nut
MemberTwo Posts
For those who haven't seen the movie, Dustin Hoffman plays an autistic savant, and Tom Cruise is his long-lost brother. In the scene, Raymond (Hoffman) is asking why the maple syrup isn't on the table before the pancakes. "The maple syrup has to be on the table before the pancakes, otherwise it will definitely be too late." In his mind, that was the way it HAD to be. Tom Cruise grabs Raymond by the back of the neck, jerks him over, and says the above line. This is equivalent to how my sister reacted.
How I would have reacted in Tom's case, is flag down the nearest waitress and ask her if she could go get me a bottle of maple syrup. If Raymond says it HAS to be there first, he's right. Such a small thing to do to completely diffuse the situation. And Raymond is the one with a mental illness, ya know?
(Doing Therapy)
Sat Jan 16 2010 4:25 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberThree
I just noticed gender discrimination. I automatically said "Waitress, female, instead of waiter or server. Just like you would probably automatically refer to a nurse as "She" even though I have a good friend (Male) who is a registered nurse.
(Doing Therapy)
Sat Jan 16 2010 4:31 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberFour (hey, they're short, and I'm on a roll)
My neighbors, save for the gay neighbor, never really gave me any trouble about my psychotic episodes. At that time, I would be screaming obscenities for hours on end. One of my neighbors had a 5 year old son (I am so sorry the son had to hear that) Ben, the father, not only accepted me completely, he actually asked me to babysit his 5 year old son. I wasn't able to, but just being asked is an honor.
Another neighbor, quite literally half my size. I outweighed him and his girlfriend combined. He heard psychotic episodes which lasted for hours. He probably heard the worst of them. He also gave me some of the ideas which became my therapy. I woke him up on more than one occasion with the psychotic screaming. He didn't complain about it too much. Nothing other than "You had one of your fits, huh?" Once I got the therapy begun, he congratulated me on it. He never once showed the slightest fear or concern for his safety around me.
These two men heard the worst of my psychosis, even more than any member of my family has ever heard. They accepted me, and they were both very good friends. Funny that complete strangers can show you more love than the people who are "supposed" to love you.
(Doing Therapy)
Sat Jan 16 2010 6:07 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberHey Nikolaj, I hope you still read this. I just realized, you showed me just the tiniest amount of prejudice on this very thread. You said that my gay neighbor would have trouble trusting people, "Especially someone he knows has "violent" fits." You assumed automatically that hitting the door was an act of violence, when it was in fact a shock treatment. You Pre-Judged me. Don't get me wrong, I don't hold that against you at all. I, and most people, would probably have made the same assumption. The gay neighbor took the assumption of violence to the extreme. The point is though that, 20 minutes ago, you probably felt you harbored absolutely no prejudice at all. (Just so you know, this isn't meant to sound at all insulting, I just can't think of a better way to say what I'm trying to say) We all have prejudice in some form or another, and, as Nikolaj proved, might not even realize it.
(Doing Therapy)
Tue Jan 19 2010 2:59 am # -
You assumed automatically that hitting the door was an act of violence, when it was in fact a shock treatment.
Sorry, John, hitting almost anything constitutes an "act of violence", no matter what its purpose or function might be. It might be a violent therapy, but that does not change the fact that it was violent.
What is less certain is whether it was properly called a "fit". That would suggest that the condition caused you to perform the violent action rather than that it was a rationally chosen action (from a menu of alternative actions you were equally likely to perform). If there is any sense in which you could not have not hit the door or some other object violently in an effort to control or treat yourself, then he was right. If you could have chosen to sit and watch television or make yourself a cup of tea or do something equally non-violent, then it was not a violent fit but a chosen violent act. (Running screaming through the neighborhood would probably also have been violent, and thus would not count as a non-violent alternative.)
You can't attribute prejudice to people simply because you don't like their choice of words--particularly when they are working in an unfamiliar language.
That said, yes, everyone is prejudiced. It is an essential social psychological function that makes it possible for us to survive: we make observations about persons, places, objects, events, and draw conclusions about them based on our previous experiences. Those conclusions are not always accurate, and in that sense they are prejudiced. What makes them valuable is that they are accurate enough often enough that they save us time and sometimes protect us--that I am more worried about the vicious tendencies of a dog than I am about a cat is not just because of their size; it is because in my experience dogs are more likely to deal more serious injuries with less provocation than cats. A cat will warn before biting or scratching; for a dog, the bite is the warning. That's a prejudice, because many dogs are docile and many cats are viscious; but it is a prejudice which protects me from dog bites (which I have experienced), and thus one I will retain.
--M. J. Young
Tue Jan 19 2010 3:47 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberI hadn't thought of it like that MJ. I was thinking that "Act of violence" constituted intent to harm. No, a "Violent act" is intent to cause harm. I hit that door dozens of times like that, and it never once complained about it. I assumed the door didn't mind, and thus realized it was not intended as an "Act of violence". I saw two firemen take a battering ram to one of those doors once. Believe me, my fist didn't hurt it at all.
At that time, it was not the only alternative, but it was the most convenient and bar none the fastest way to stop the episode. I had just walked into the apartment, thus, I was right next to the door. I only hit the door, you see. The door was made out of steel. That's not going to bend, dent, or have holes in it when you're finished. I wouldn't hit a wall like that.
You can't attribute prejudice to people simply because you don't like their choice of words--particularly when they are working in an unfamiliar language.
You say that like I did it on purpose. I was thinking that Nikolaj meant it was an act of violence, not a violent act. The difference being the aforementioned intent to cause harm present in the act of violence. The violent act is hitting a door to calm down. Maybe I'm the one who needs English lessons...
(Doing Therapy)
Tue Jan 19 2010 5:01 am # -
Well, if it were a wooden door the poor dryad might be shouting, Enough already I heard you the first time (Knock on wood--that's why), but since it was a steel door I don't think the spirits of the rocks are that sensitive.
That is a joke, and I apologize if I have offended any animists on our forum.
--M. J. Young
Tue Jan 19 2010 9:50 pm # -
JohnA1nut
MemberHere's one for gender discrimination. Men are allowed to go outside topless, but women aren't. Yeah, of course I know the reason, but it's still gender discrimination nonetheless. And besides, I don't know about the rest of you, but I wouldn't mind a bit if this rule was lifted. :D
Sun Jan 31 2010 7:32 pm # -
So we'll restore the old rule, in which men were not allowed to expose their torsos either.
You need to be certain you know what you're asking before you ask, John. It was barely a century ago that bathing suits for all swimmers ("bathers" in the vernacular of the time) covered from angle to neck, extending to the wrists, because it would be indecent and titillating to expose any of that skin of either gender. The rules have been slackening unevenly because there have been uneven concerns. In those places where women can be topless, men were topless first; in those places where men can be naked bottoms on men were required after they were abandoned for women. But is the rule that women must have their breasts covered, or is the rule that men are excepted? The latter seems to be the historic development.
--M. J. Young
Sun Jan 31 2010 10:06 pm # -
Did you mean against men, or did you really mean that it discriminates in their favor?
I could read it either way.
--M. J. Young
Mon Feb 1 2010 11:18 pm # -
Discriminates in favor of men: they are offered a nice view of the women and don't have to reciprocate by--what was it David Niven said? "taking off his clothes and showing us his shortcomings".
--M. J. Young
Tue Feb 2 2010 1:30 am # -
Duck season.
Tue Feb 2 2010 6:37 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberRabbit season!!
Point made Scott. Oh ya know what Scott? It wasn't that I couldn't be convinced, it was that YOU couldn't convince me. I had to convince myself. If you know what I'm talking about, take it as an explanation and apology, and if you don't, then I guess none was needed. (It's probably just paranoia on my part anyway. Realizing this is a good thing.)
(Doing Therapy)
Tue Feb 2 2010 6:52 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberYa know, I keep thinking about my gay neighbor, and another neighbor I had. His name was Ben, and he had a 5 year old son. If any neighbor had reason to be concerned about my sanity, it would have been him. They heard a lot of my psychotic fits. They never showed even the slightest bit of concern about it. Ben was one of the best friends I've ever had in my life. He solved a major problem I'd been having for years. That helped the psychosis considerably. He also asked me to babysit his son. I am so sorry that the 5 year old son had to hear that. I'm sure Ben told him to pray for me. I'd love to talk to them again.
(Doing Therapy)
Fri Feb 26 2010 4:43 pm # -
JohnA1nut
MemberJohn Wrote:
We were talking, she said "Point?" so I poked her in the forehead. She did tell me to point, after all. When I did that, she hit me 3 or 4 times.
MJ Replied:
So either you insulted her by pretending you did not understand what she meant, or she credited you with being smarter than you are. You did not, I am confident, really think she was telling you to point when she said that. She was asking you to tell her what point you thought you were making by whatever you had just said. I don't think you're that stupid. I think you were being rude and ignorant, intentionally removing any vestige of rational discussion from the situation by turning her statement into a joke. I would not have hit you, but I am not the least surprised that she did.
Here's the problem that I have with your argument MJ. My sister has known me all of her life (Literally, I was there the day she was born) Why can't she accept that her older brother is psychotic and is going to do something stupid? Why can't she say "John is goofy, I know that. He has mental problems. He will probably do something stupid (like poke me in the forehead) and I, being the mature, responsible adult who loves my crazy older brother WILL NOT lash out and hit him when he does it." Would that have been too much to ask of her? She expects me to control my mental illness, but is not willing to show even the slightest bit of self-control in return. At least I admit I have mental problems. Technically speaking, that makes my sister the one who is insane.
Would she slug her son if he pokes her in the forehead? I used to be worried that her son would be like me. Now I hope he is. Maybe then she will understand.
(Doing Therapy)
Thu May 13 2010 9:04 am # -
Here's the problem I have with your argument, John. You are suggesting that because you are abnormal everyone else ought to adjust to you. Is it not better that your sister says, "I will not accept that my brother is anything less than a normal human being, whatever problems he has?"
People who allow you to be socially inappropriate do not care for you. She communicated in a way you still remember that your action was socially inappropriate, and hopefully she taught you not to do it again, to her or to anyone else.
--M. J. Young
Thu May 13 2010 8:04 pm # -
JohnA1nut
MemberYou are suggesting that because you are abnormal everyone else ought to adjust to you
Yeah, that's why we have handicapped parking. That's why the blind are allowed to bring dogs into restaurants when no one else is allowed to. That's why we have special schools for retarded people. That's why we have disability assistance for people like me. The world SHOULD adjust to those that are abnormal. At least within reason. I'd say not hitting a mentally ill person who just poked you in the forehead is certainly within reason. If I were retarded instead of psychotic, and the same event unfolded, my sister would have very little, if any, support for her position. What's the difference?
"I will not accept that my brother is anything less than a normal human being, whatever problems he has?"
What you're suggesting, essentially, is that we should do away with anything which caters strictly to people who are abnormal. Yeah, let's just pretend that everyone is normal and treat them all the same. The rest of the world shouldn't adjust to anyone for being unusual. The guy who is paralyzed can park out in the middle of nowhere just like everyone else. Why should we accept that he's abnormal? He should adjust to the world, not the other way around. That's what you're saying.
Fri May 14 2010 12:45 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberTwo
And what does this have to do with discrimination, you ask? Is it not discriminatory towards a person with a documented mental illness to expect them to behave like a "normal" person? Yeah, I poked my sister in the forehead. It was all in fun. I wasn't trying to hurt her, and if it did hurt, it was, at most, for a moment. I should know. I've been poking myself in the forehead ever since, trying to figure out what the big deal was. Only thing hurt was her pride. What she did to me left mental scars. It's like she was saying that she doesn't accept me enough to take a poke in the forehead. She wouldn't hit a retarded person that poked her in the forehead, and if she did, no one would support it. The rest of the world expects me to behave like I don't have a mental problem. Is that not discriminatory? The mentally ill are one of the few remaining groups of people who are still accepted targets of open discrimination. And you are, essentially, saying that you agree with it.
(Doing Therapy)
Fri May 14 2010 4:31 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberThree
You are suggesting that because you are abnormal everyone else ought to adjust to you
That's also why people with asthma are exempt from the draft. Under a different set of circumstances, that might have kept you out of Vietnam. Aren't you glad that the world should adjust to the abnormal?
(Sorry if you're offended. I was trying to think of one which would apply to you personally. I hope that wasn't hitting below the belt.)
(Doing Therapy)
Fri May 14 2010 6:00 am # -
Is it not discriminatory towards a person with a documented mental illness to expect them to behave like a "normal" person?
Actually, that's exactly what being non-discriminatory means: treating everyone the same regardless of individual differences. Handicapped preferences are inherently discriminatory: they discriminate in favor of those who are handicapped, and thus against everyone who is not.
And many people approve of discrimination when they benefit from it; but not all handicapped people want to be treated as handicapped--they become very offended, to be singled out as "different". Yes, we discriminate in favor of people who are handicapped in ways that prevent them from living normal lives. But handicapped people who want to live normal lives prefer that we not do so more than absolutely necessary, because the benefits of such discrimination are inherently preferential and thus inherently abnormal.
--M. J. Young
Sun May 16 2010 5:26 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberActually, that's exactly what being non-discriminatory means: treating everyone the same regardless of individual differences.
We need discrimination. Can you imagine if a doctor treated everyone the same?
Patient one: "Doc, I've got a headache"
Doctor: "Here's some aspirin"
Patient two: "Doc, I just cut my hand off with a chainsaw"
Doctor: "Here's some aspirin"
Patient two: "Aspirin??? ARE YOU CRAZY????"
Doctor: "No, I'm just treating everyone equally"I think I'm the only person in the world that my sister would have hit for poking her in the forehead. Anyone else, she would have laughed. Twenty years ago, when she was 11 and I was 12, that would have been acceptable. I also would have put her on her ass for it. Her at age 31 and me at 32, that's no longer acceptable. I also didn't put her on her ass. Please note, the psychotic was the one showing maturity, not the "sane" person.
Sun May 16 2010 6:58 am # -
Max
MemberI think I'm the only person in the world that my sister would have hit for poking her in the forehead.
How would you know?
Why did you think she would only hit you and not others?
If she have another brother that do the same thing to her then do you think she will hit him?
What if she hits you because she feels betrayed which means that deep in her heart that she really trusted/loved you before?Twenty years ago, when she was 11 and I was 12, that would have been acceptable.
Her at age 31 and me at 32, that's no longer acceptable.That was no longer acceptable because?
What you resist, will persist.
If you accept the situation as it is, you could move forward.
Sun May 16 2010 12:24 pm # -
JohnA1nut
MemberHow would you know?
Why did you think she would only hit you and not others?That's personal. It's just something I think. I might put it to the test. Have our other brother poke her in the forehead and see what she does. Twenty bucks says she doesn't hit him.
That was no longer acceptable because?
For the same reason that an 11 year old doesn't get into as much trouble for shoplifting as a 31 year old would. Because they're young and don't know better.
Sun May 16 2010 3:18 pm # -
JohnA1nut
MemberYa know the thing that bugs me? When I applied for medical disability, they told me that only 1 in 100 people get accepted for a mental illness disability claim on their first attempt. One in one hundred. Guess what? I was accepted for it on my first attempt. That means that there was no doubt in the minds of anyone involved in that decision that I was disabled. And my family STILL thinks that I have complete control over the psychosis. I really want some of my family members to show me their degrees in psychiatry, ya know?
Mon May 17 2010 12:58 am # -
Brock
Member"What you're suggesting, essentially, is that we should do away with anything which caters strictly to people who are abnormal. Yeah, let's just pretend that everyone is normal and treat them all the same. The rest of the world shouldn't adjust to anyone for being unusual. The guy who is paralyzed can park out in the middle of nowhere just like everyone else. Why should we accept that he's abnormal? He should adjust to the world, not the other way around. That's what you're saying. "
@JohnA1nut: Some things are unacceptable, no matter who you are or how you look at it. I don't know that STRIKING you was an appropriate reaction, but making sure you don't do it again is. Some people just use force to get their point across for some reason. No finesse at all.
What you seem to not understand is that the world doesn't HAVE to adjust to everyone's differences. in fact, the expedient course is usually to NOT do so. People CHOOSE to adjust to people with problems, to make small concessions from their personal comforts and lifestyle, in order to allow these abnormal people a greater chance of living a successful and happy life. Some choose not to make these concessions, some choose to take it too far, and set them apart further. In the end, it is still not NECESSARY.
The world is NOT OBLIGATED to pay you a stipend so you can live; we are NOT OBLIGATED to put up with your differences, to try and understand and accept you for who you are. We try to anyway, and allow you to stay, indeed to join the fold, despite your glaring differences.
I must say, however, I find your demands for preferential treatment tiresome and childish.
Incidentally, though it should be obvious, I'm back everyone :P
Thu May 27 2010 3:29 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberTwo
Brock, I got a question for you. Can you talk and type at the same time? You're into multitasking, so I thought I'd ask you. I can't talk and type at the same time. If I try to do that, I always end up typing what I'm saying. I oftentimes have to speak out loud whilst typing to make sure I remember what to type. I'm just curious. This thread seems to have your attention.
(Doing Therapy)
Thu May 27 2010 3:58 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberThree
Brock, I'm not sure you realize though. Multiple posts and such is, to me, an improvement. Five years ago, I wouldn't have been doing that. Reason being, I wouldn't have been in any condition to speak coherently, let alone type. You're getting annoyed because I'm improving.
No more, unless someone replies. And they're short.
(Doing Therapy)
Thu May 27 2010 4:31 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberSomething else is that I'm not complaining about my problems so much as I am explaining my behavior. What am I supposed to say when I get asked "Why are you running this into the ground?"
You didn't answer me about whether you could type and talk at the same time. I do have a reason for asking.
Regarding getting hit by my sister. I tell a joke:
Q "Why do Jehovah's Witnesses have red dots on their foreheads?"
A "From people going 'Get the hell off my porch'" (and you poke them in the forehead repeatedly.)Ya know how many times I've gotten slugged for telling that joke? ZERO!!!! Exactly the same circumstances, except I'm telling total strangers. My sister hit me, total strangers don't.
Thu May 27 2010 4:25 pm # -
Yeah, let's just pretend that everyone is normal and treat them all the same. The rest of the world shouldn't adjust to anyone for being unusual.
Actually, the rest of the world does not have to adjust for those who are unusual; we choose to do so out of kindness. When those who are the beneficiaries of that kindness treat it as if it were our obligation, the natural response is to realize that we are not so obliged and that our kindnesses are not appreciated, and so to terminate them. Despite the legal sense of the word, there is no "entitlement", no inherent moral obligation of the haves to the have nots, the healthy to the sick, the whole to the handicapped, the strong to the weak. If children are obliged to care for their aging parents, it is because the parents once cared for the children and are being repaid; if parents are obliged to care for their children, it is because the parents caused the circumstance of the child's helplessness. The rest of the world is not obligated to do anything on behalf of the children or the parents. The grasshopper is wrong, the world does not owe anyone a living. We choose to help others from kindness or goodness, possibly at times from pragmatism, but the only way anyone can assume a moral obligation in such a situation is to make the a priori assumption that we are expected to display self-sacrificial love for each other.
I agree with that as a religious position; but I also note the reciprocality of it: it is inherently a self-motivated conception, and no one who adheres to it can use it to assert a right to the kindness of others, but only to recognize a personal obligation on his own part toward others. That is, the basis for a morality that says everyone ought to display self-sacrificing care for everyone else begins with "I ought to display self-sacrificing concern for everyone else without regard for how they treat me," and never reaches the point where it can say "everyone else ought to make sacrifices for me." The position that "everyone else ought to make sacrifices for me" cannot be reached save from a starting point of "I am the most important creature in the universe," and it is unlikely that anyone else will accept that statement about you. (That's the generic "you", but it does not exclude the specific "you".)
Mike--it wasn't. They were having a sort of argument at the time, and she said "Point?" as an aggravated shortcut for "Do you have a point and if so what is it?", and he poked her as if he was "pointing" at her, and she slugged him.
I have every sympathy for her.
And I can also talk and type at the same time--not so well as I once did (and I once also watched television, but I've cut that out). I found that when multitasking I do not do as well at any single task. Studies more recently have supported that conclusion, that people who multitask do not do as well at any of the tasks in which they are engaged and are not as good at completing tasks quickly as those who focus on tasks individually.
--M. J. Young
Thu May 27 2010 9:31 pm # -
JohnA1nut
MemberYes. I can type, hold a conversation IRL, make plans for tomorrow, and watch a television show at the same time. I'm always very busy.
That's supposedly a test for a certain mental condition. If you can type and talk at the same time, you don't have the mental condition. If you type what you're saying, you do have the certain mental condition. I type what I'm saying. And no, the mental condition is not psychosis. It's something else.
What's IRL?
The phrase exactly the same circumstances actually means a replication of the circumstances. When your sister hit you had you just told her this joke? If not then it's not exactly the same circumstances.
The phrase "Same Circumstances" applies to poking someone in the forehead for a joke. Which was what it was when I poked my sister.
Thu May 27 2010 11:56 pm # -
JohnA1nut
MemberTwo, 14 hours later.
MJ, as I'm sure you know, the law provides conditions for intent to cause harm, as opposed to not. If you're driving your car down the street, a child runs out into the middle of the road, and you hit him and kill him, that was done with no intent to cause harm. You might get a traffic ticket. However, if you drive your car onto a school playground and run the kid over on purpose, that is intent to cause harm. You might get the gas chamber. The kid would be just as dead, but because you didn't have intent to cause harm, you're not in as much trouble in the first case as in the second.
I poked my sister without intent to cause harm. I was the driver who ran the kid down in the middle of the road. You're talking like I did it to hurt her. You're saying that I deserve the gas chamber for hitting a kid who ran out in front of my car. It's not quite a great metaphor, but I hope it conveys my meaning.
This was my first thought on waking up. Quite the improvement.
Fri May 28 2010 2:48 pm # -
Actually, you're likely to get involuntary vehicular manslaughter and face a wrongful death civil suit. It might be unrealistic, but it is generally assumed that if a vehicle hits a pedestrian, the driver is at fault and responsible, and thus negligent. If the pedestrian dies, it might have to be demonstrated that the pedestrian had acted in a manner which caused the incident (throwing himself in front of the vehicle intentionally, attempting to cross a major highway on which pedestrians are prohibited) or that there was a third party involvement (the victim was pushed into traffic by another pedestrian or thrown from another vehicle).If you're driving your car down the street, a child runs out into the middle of the road, and you hit him and kill him, that was done with no intent to cause harm.
So it's a bad example.
Also, under the law, "Battery" is defined as "impermissible touching". If you rested your hand on her shoulder without her permission, that's a battery offense. Your intent to do harm is irrelevant; the only point at which it is relevant is in actual damages in a civil suit, which has no relevance to criminal culpability. In other words, don't touch anyone without their consent, and don't think that you are legally allowed to touch them simply because you don't intend to hurt them. It is not true; you are not legally permitted to touch anyone without consent.
--M. J. Young
Sat May 29 2010 2:10 am #
Reply »
You must log in to post.