Should Schools screen for Mental Illness?

[tartarsauce2]

don't let schoolboards anywhere near children, why would you ever do that?

let doctors do the doctoring, teachers are there to teach
some amount of special resources are required for special requirement students
just don't let the special requirements list get out of hand and silly and keep them responsive to student needs, some sort of autocratic artificial divides system usually results from people asking about whether we should abrogate individual responsibilities of even different experts on their topics to some central planning body

the schoolboard is to remain out of the way, they're idiots half the time anyways, why would you let them near the extra-vulnerable?

for disclosure, I occasionally spent time in the retard room myself, but that's how they deal with intelligent rebels with attitude~
they actually use it as a dumping ground for people that are actually different, which is good if it can create a self-sustained colony sort of element to itself

I basically scored as generally gifted when they administered tests to figure out if I was a retard or not, above average in almost every way they measured
the place got really bad after one of those incorrigible idiots that does the "authority knows best" routine without actually knowing what they're doing or listening to the charges in the insanity ward or whatever the resource rooms' are called these days' wishes

try to find the doc from back to the future, danny devito, the joker from batman, etc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurse_Ratched

so, I googled "harry potter evil lady" and guess who came up first

and finally a word. a single word

plural apparatchiks also apparatchikiplay \-chi-kē\

1: a member of a Communist apparat

2: a blindly devoted official, follower, or member of an organization (as a corporation or political party) <a movie studio apparatchik>
From Russian аппара́тчик ‎(apparátčik, “operator, apparatchik”), from аппара́т ‎(apparát, “apparat, apparatus (of state)”)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness#Early-to-mid_20th_century

In the early-to-mid 20th century, the phrase "politically correct" was associated with the dogmatic application of Stalinist doctrine, debated between Communist Party members and American Socialists. This usage referred to the Communist party line, which provided for "correct" positions on many political matters. According to American educator Herbert Kohl, writing about debates in New York in the late 1940s and early 1950s,

The term "politically correct" was used disparagingly, to refer to someone whose loyalty to the CP line overrode compassion, and led to bad politics. It was used by Socialists against Communists, and was meant to separate out Socialists who believed in egalitarian moral ideas from dogmatic Communists who would advocate and defend party positions regardless of their moral substance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Great_Britain#Tankie

The term derives from the fact that the divisions within the communist movement first arose when the Soviet Union sent tanks into communist Hungary in 1956, to crush an attempt to establish an alternative version of communism which was not embraced by the Russians. Most communists outside the eastern bloc opposed this action and criticised the Soviet Union. The "tankies" were those who said "send the tanks in".

The epithet has stuck because tankies also supported "sending the tanks in" in cases such as Czechoslovakia 1968, Afghanistan 1979, Bosnia and Kosovo/a (in the case of the Serbian state), and so on (whereas the rest of the communist movement has gravitated towards anti-militarism).

Edited June 24, 2016 by tartarsauce2

[JaYmZeE311074]

Political Correctness - The arch enemy of Freedom of Speech. Freedom of speech is an absolute - you either have it or you do not - and we do not. At the end of the day - people should be able to say anything - you then have debates and hopefully come to compromise or resolution - this is much better than killing each other.

 

It's all crap anyway - I don't have any emperical evidence but I'd be willing to bet the most politically correct are also the most racist biggoted - they'd use PC like a mask.

 

Mental illness wouldn't be the problem it is if society and the way we are socialized was a process that humans found natural.

 

As far as I can tell mental illness is a perfectly natural reaction to a horrendous world - mental wellbeing in modern day society isn't something I'd be proud off.

[RattleAndGrind]

Political Correctness - The arch enemy of Freedom of Speech. Freedom of speech is an absolute - you either have it or you do not - and we do not. At the end of the day - people should be able to say anything - you then have debates and hopefully come to compromise or resolution - this is much better than killing each other.

 

It's all crap anyway - I don't have any emperical evidence but I'd be willing to bet the most politically correct are also the most racist biggoted - they'd use PC like a mask.

 

Mental illness wouldn't be the problem it is if society and the way we are socialized was a process that humans found natural.

 

As far as I can tell mental illness is a perfectly natural reaction to a horrendous world - mental wellbeing in modern day society isn't something I'd be proud off.

If I may be permitted another perspective on political correctness and freedom of speech.

 

I have a friend who is blatantly homophobic when he is home and behind closed doors. But his public persona is as open and inclusive as one could hope for in a public figure. He practices political correctness so that he can better serve the society he finds himself in. Yes, his PC is a lie. But his PC is also what he wishes he could be. So until he can get over his personal revulsion to something he finds horrid, he pretends to not care and practices at being what he wants to become.

 

His actions also demonstrate to his children that it is OK to accept the people who are different, so that his hatred is not passed to another generation. So maybe another way to look at PC is too consider it practice for what we should aspire to be, and what we want our children to be. Open, inclusive, non-judgement and truly caring people, free of the hatred, bigotry and ignorance which needs to be masked by Political Correctness.

 

And what is the alternative? That we let fall uncensored whatever insensitive and uncaring [expletive deleted] which crawls from the festering cesspit of phobia, bigotry and hatred which is our simple little minds? That we continue alienating each other and make dialog just that much more difficult? That we keep making everyone "the other" and treating them as intolerable subhuman? That we each isolate ourselves in bubbles so that we might marinate in our own hatred, prejudice and ignorance? The definition of insanity is repeating the same actions and expecting a different outcome. Continuing as we have been fits that definition like the proverbial glove. So maybe a little PC will change something. If nothing else, it might change the way we think about each other or maybe just make us think.

 

Finally, freedom of speech is not truly freedom of speech, nor is it absolute. Have you ever heard the phrase "provoking words and gestures"? It is a legal phrase for words or actions which provoke strong emotional responses and have the potential to incite violence. Try burning your National Ensign in front of a military barracks. That is certainly freedom of speech, but in the situation described, it is also a provoking gesture. So when you get out of hospital, you will be arrested and charged with inciting a riot. Freedom of speech is not freedom of speech and it most definitely is not absolute.

Edited July 11, 2016 by RattleAndGrind

[JaYmZeE311074]

As I said in my post - we do not have freedom of speech - of that I am well aware.

 

I personally believe that "Words offer the means to meaning and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth." From "V for Vendetta".

 

The problem you have with curtailing any expression of speech is the slippery slopes it can lead too. You may find that there are court injunctions and gagging orders raised to stop something being said - not because it is not true but because the party seeking such injunction has the means to seek such injustice.

 

There is then the issue that once the absolute freedom of speech is removed - how long before you are not allowed to criticise your leaders or speak out against corruption. The same legislation that is in place to stop people from inciting racial hatred can be twisted and amended to serve other purposes. Peoples right to protest can then be curtailed Essentially my concern is the abuse of well intentioned legislation by those with power - it's really a given.

 

I'd far prefer to believe that when someone hears hatred being spouted by whoever about whatever, that they hear it for exactly what it is - whether it be homophobic slurs, religious, sexist or racial abuse.

 

Whilst your post makes some really interesting and thoughtful points regarding the example your friend sets his kids by pretending to be what he wishes he was - hopefully leading to the more open and inclusive caring society you mention - (and I promise you I'm at the front of the queue wishing that were true) - I'd far rather your friend dealt with the issue he has with some serious introspection and exposure to the gay community to get him over himself, rather than use PC to fake it.

 

For me, political correctness is an easy way out - it can lead to mindless acceptance of complex issues and cause a lack of requirement of critical thought on the part of the individual - a lack of sef-analysis and a road block on the way to people dealing with these issues genuinely making them more open, caring and inclusive.

 

Whilst there are these self-imposed meaningless barriers placed in our society - for me all they do is stop us from evolving, resolving and actually making progress on tackling the various predjudices people hold.

 

I have a friend who constantly bombards anyone who will listen with racist jokes. He does not however go out in to the street and assault or threaten people of different ethnicities. For me, despite finding his banter distasteful, I'd take that over someone who hides behind the social construction of Political Correctness yet actually practices violence against these parties - or who was a member of some hate group.

 

I just don't see papering over the cracks with a "how to" instruction rather than actually dealing with sensitive issues will benefit society in the long term.

 

You can't know what your facing if you do not know the truth of the problem - if people are not allowed to express their believes vocally - however abhorent or misguided it may be - it becomes harder to understand the problems we face.

 

Like Piper says, I'd rather know an ugly truth than a sweet lie - or words to that effect.

 

James.

[RattleAndGrind]

As I said in my post - we do not have freedom of speech - of that I am well aware.

 

I personally believe that "Words offer the means to meaning and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth." From "V for Vendetta".

 

The problem you have with curtailing any expression of speech is the slippery slopes it can lead too. You may find that there are court injunctions and gagging orders raised to stop something being said - not because it is not true but because the party seeking such injunction has the means to seek such injustice.

 

There is then the issue that once the absolute freedom of speech is removed - how long before you are not allowed to criticise your leaders or speak out against corruption. The same legislation that is in place to stop people from inciting racial hatred can be twisted and amended to serve other purposes. Peoples right to protest can then be curtailed Essentially my concern is the abuse of well intentioned legislation by those with power - it's really a given.

 

I'd far prefer to believe that when someone hears hatred being spouted by whoever about whatever, that they hear it for exactly what it is - whether it be homophobic slurs, religious, sexist or racial abuse.

 

Whilst your post makes some really interesting and thoughtful points regarding the example your friend sets his kids by pretending to be what he wishes he was - hopefully leading to the more open and inclusive caring society you mention - (and I promise you I'm at the front of the queue wishing that were true) - I'd far rather your friend dealt with the issue he has with some serious introspection and exposure to the gay community to get him over himself, rather than use PC to fake it.

 

For me, political correctness is an easy way out - it can lead to mindless acceptance of complex issues and cause a lack of requirement of critical thought on the part of the individual - a lack of sef-analysis and a road block on the way to people dealing with these issues genuinely making them more open, caring and inclusive.

 

Whilst there are these self-imposed meaningless barriers placed in our society - for me all they do is stop us from evolving, resolving and actually making progress on tackling the various predjudices people hold.

 

I have a friend who constantly bombards anyone who will listen with racist jokes. He does not however go out in to the street and assault or threaten people of different ethnicities. For me, despite finding his banter distasteful, I'd take that over someone who hides behind the social construction of Political Correctness yet actually practices violence against these parties - or who was a member of some hate group.

 

I just don't see papering over the cracks with a "how to" instruction rather than actually dealing with sensitive issues will benefit society in the long term.

 

You can't know what your facing if you do not know the truth of the problem - if people are not allowed to express their believes vocally - however abhorent or misguided it may be - it becomes harder to understand the problems we face.

 

Like Piper says, I'd rather know an ugly truth than a sweet lie - or words to that effect.

 

James.

Lets start with this truth. Political Correctness is a derogatory term for what the Foreign Service calls Diplomatic Courtesy. You speak respectfully, regardless of your personal feelings.

 

And we are supposed to treat each other with respect. So I have absolutely no issue with those who wish to censor themselves to treat others with respect. And Diplomatic Courtesy is not imposed externally. It is an individual choice to speak and act respectfully.

 

Now, we have had a rather interesting dialog, you and I. We have exchanged opinions in a respectful and honest fashion. How well would this discourse have proceeded if I had started with something like "you stupid ignorant half brained colonial yokel"? Not well, I think. So respectful address and speech is important for allowing communication to flow. That is the whole purpose of diplomatic courtesy (aka political correctness).

Edited July 12, 2016 by RattleAndGrind

[JaYmZeE311074]

I completely agree that we've exchanged opinions in a respectful fashion - but I don't believe it's down to either of us being politically correct.

 

I've been respectful to you because I fully believe that despite some difference in opinion that there is merit in your arguments and far more importantly, you've clearly thought about this in a critical fashion - your points are clearly made and opinions reached after a significant degree of introspection I'd imagine.

 

For me, that's worthy of respect. You earned that respect and I took the time to answer you because of that.

 

I can't claim to be an expert on modern day diplomacy - or diplomacy of any period for that matter - but from what I observe in the world around us, a myriad of examples spring to mind, It's bloody hopeless :)

[RattleAndGrind]

 

 

It's bloody hopeless :smile:

 

"The most effective and constructive tool humankind has ever created is language. The most effective and destructive weapon humankind has ever created is language." - Unknown Chinese Philosopher.

 

It is an ancient struggle. Yet still; we struggle.