How come liberals don't want to talk about mental health in relation to school shootings?

a reply to: amazing


I reckon they may not consider themselves as such, but certainly nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade

They'd rather see law abiding Citizens taken advantage of by their buddies, the criminals ... since the one thing we know for certain is that criminals break the law by virtue of being a criminal.

a reply to: amazing

I would guess there are rather more than we suspect.

a reply to: amazing

Liberals are okay with some mental illness. For example Transgenderism. The wont talk about mental illness because they give the okay to some and then they would look like hypocrites if they did take a side.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: amazing

Answer is simple. "Liberals" (cultural marxists) see the mental health issue/SSRI stuff as a red herring designed only to detract from what they truly believe is the real problem, i.e., guns in the hands of white males.

I don't know if that's a correct stereotype though. Most people that think of themselves as liberals don't consider themselves cultural marxists. Some do for sure but not as many as you might think?

And to TonyS...

Cultural Marxist is an oxymoron. Marxism is an economic paradigm. Only when it turns to Communism do cultural imperatives (as driven by Marxist economics not by empiric developmental psychology - as an aside one of the best developmental psychologist did come from the Soviet Communist system - Vigotsky) become part of the system.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: amazing

Answer is simple. "Liberals" (cultural marxists) see the mental health issue/SSRI stuff as a red herring designed only to detract from what they truly believe is the real problem, i.e., guns in the hands of white males.

However you define "Liberals" I don't see this as the case. They may, and I would, call the conspiracy theory about SSRIs being a 'vector' for mind control as a red herring. However they would, and do not, exclude the mental health aspects of the problem in any manner. In fact they see mental health as a primary cause however they are pragmatic about the possibilities of addressing those fundamental issues of our society and rather look to short term solutions in legalities.

It's a valid and proportional response to gun violence of all kinds. If guns are readily to hand, they will be used more often in stressful situations by those with degraded (for whatever reason) mental functioning.

a reply to: FyreByrdI don’t know if I want to live in a country where lone wolf and random terror attacks are impossible ‘cause that country would look more like North Korea than America.
America is way too quick to trade freedom for the illusion of security.

One way in which our fears can be manipulated by the government is to lead us to fear the lesser danger,the big bad "Gun".......on the fact that the possible perpetrators are frightening individuals who are not like us.

Fear is a primal human state. From childhood on, we fear the monsters of our imaginations,that leads us to form the social contract and surrender at least part of our freedom for the “illusion of security”

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

You're not wrong. It's easier to blame an external tool, than it is a problem that is internal.

a reply to: knoxie

Really?

Sensitive, I'll grant you that. But a no-no? According to who?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Yes, it is definitely a wedge issue. There is little middle ground to be had as concerns this topic. I know I find it rather an uncomfortable topic--especially since many, if not most, of us have little education in the topic. Not that that would, or should, stop the conversation.

a reply to: knoxie

That second question is appropriate isn't it? Who exactly decides upon who is unable to, as regards mental health issues, to purchase a hand gun?

Legislators who've no clue about mental health issues, other than what they're told by interest groups trying to buy their vote? Or folks who actually live out in the real world, with real world experience in the field.

No, it's a very valid question, imho.

That's not trying to shut down the conversation, that's trying to have one.

a reply to: FyreByrd
www.urbandictionary.com...