I think in the modern world, evil people target regular people to commit acts of horror. And I think this is done through manipulation both in physical and digitally. Kind of like “gangstalking.” In this way a group can make changes to society without becoming a target themselves. Like decentralized war. I think we live in a time when most people are too naive to know or admit this is actually happening because it means in reality there really isn’t any safety or security. In essence there’s a war going on and people don’t even know they are being used for it.
…I kind of think Americas current admin is controlled by this.
If you think that some group of people is superior to another group of people, and its justifiable to use violence against everyone in the inferior group, you have a mental illness.
Are all “terrorists” by definition mentally ill, doubtful.
Without even getting into the subjectiveness of the term “terrorist”, lets take your example.
There are plenty of situations where you can end up with that point of view and not have a legitimate “mental illness”, because that term means something relatively specific and isn’t a good enough fit with which to broadly paint all members of a group.
Another example of why it doesn’t fit is that there are plenty of people who are evil/bad/morally bankrupt (for whatever frame of reference you are using to determine such things) that shouldn’t get to use mental illness as an excuse for doing shitty things.
Mental illness is never an excuse for doing shitty things.
It does require us to give them treatment to avoid harming others.
It is dangerous to not broadly paint society as mentally I’ll. Look south of you. At least 30% of the US population is mentally ill, and they should all be given free treatment for this illness.
Mental illness is never an excuse for doing shitty things.
It can be, someone having a psychotic episode ( that couldn’t reasonably be prevented or mitigated ) that hurts the people around them has a legitimate excuse for the outcome.
Part of the actual definition of mental illness could broadly be interpreted as impairment or outright loss of reasoning and cognition.
It does require us to give them treatment to avoid harming others.
Agreed.
Though i’d say, provide the framework and access to treatment, but i think we mean the same thing.
It is dangerous to not broadly paint society as mentally I’ll.
That’s a very subjective take, with very vague language and almost no value as a talking point without more specificity.
To be clear, i’m not expecting an essay or anything, i just can’t really respond without more information about what you mean.
Look south of you. At least 30% of the US population is mentally ill, and they should all be given free treatment for this illness.
An interesting perspective, if somewhat US centric, i mostly agree.
None of which addresses my original criticism that the definition of mental illness isn’t something that should be ascribed to " all ‘terrorists’ ", it means something relatively specific and terrorism isn’t a good synonym.
There is no indication at this point that this is a terrorist attack
This is kind of out there… But…
I think in the modern world, evil people target regular people to commit acts of horror. And I think this is done through manipulation both in physical and digitally. Kind of like “gangstalking.” In this way a group can make changes to society without becoming a target themselves. Like decentralized war. I think we live in a time when most people are too naive to know or admit this is actually happening because it means in reality there really isn’t any safety or security. In essence there’s a war going on and people don’t even know they are being used for it.
…I kind of think Americas current admin is controlled by this.
I live here and I just find it hard to believe someone would do this on purpose. This doesn’t happen here
Just because you cannot believe it does not mean it is not factually true.
People do these things on purpose daily all over the globe. Your little piece of heaven is just as likely to be attacked as any other.
The only way it could not be a terrorist attack is if it was an accident, right?
Was there a political purpose? Sounds more like a mental health problem.
All terrorists, by definition, have mental health problems
Why would you put “by definition” in there, that changes it from a “this is my opinion” to “It are a fact, i know because of my learnings”.
It’s possible there is a definition somewhere that specifically references mental health i suppose , i’d be interested to see it if you have a link ?
If you think that some group of people is superior to another group of people, and its justifiable to use violence against everyone in the inferior group, you have a mental illness.
Because that is what is a mental illness.
Again, not what the definition of “mental illness” generally means.
Look up an actual definition or this
Can “terrorists” have mental illnesses?, sure.
Are all “terrorists” by definition mentally ill, doubtful.
Without even getting into the subjectiveness of the term “terrorist”, lets take your example.
There are plenty of situations where you can end up with that point of view and not have a legitimate “mental illness”, because that term means something relatively specific and isn’t a good enough fit with which to broadly paint all members of a group.
Another example of why it doesn’t fit is that there are plenty of people who are evil/bad/morally bankrupt (for whatever frame of reference you are using to determine such things) that shouldn’t get to use mental illness as an excuse for doing shitty things.
Mental illness is never an excuse for doing shitty things.
It does require us to give them treatment to avoid harming others.
It is dangerous to not broadly paint society as mentally I’ll. Look south of you. At least 30% of the US population is mentally ill, and they should all be given free treatment for this illness.
It can be, someone having a psychotic episode ( that couldn’t reasonably be prevented or mitigated ) that hurts the people around them has a legitimate excuse for the outcome.
Part of the actual definition of mental illness could broadly be interpreted as impairment or outright loss of reasoning and cognition.
Agreed.
Though i’d say, provide the framework and access to treatment, but i think we mean the same thing.
That’s a very subjective take, with very vague language and almost no value as a talking point without more specificity.
To be clear, i’m not expecting an essay or anything, i just can’t really respond without more information about what you mean.
An interesting perspective, if somewhat US centric, i mostly agree.
None of which addresses my original criticism that the definition of mental illness isn’t something that should be ascribed to " all ‘terrorists’ ", it means something relatively specific and terrorism isn’t a good synonym.