No you don't. Nobody is advocating for that. Nobody is saying we should follow the same broken standards that led to locking up people for protesting, or that we should allow abuse and rape.
Do you not think there is any middle ground between raping protestors and letting people with violent schizophrenia live in a tent on the street?
Not too long ago, BDSM was considered a mental illness. We'not talking the 1960s either.. this was 2010 when the DSM-4 had BDSM and similar removed.
Prior to 1980, homosexuality was also in the DSM-4.
The trend is obvious and troublesome: this is mainly a list of consensual actions that were listed as "mental health problems" and therefore could be treated against the will of the person. And it's easier to dismiss a 'sick' person since they're obviously out of their mind.
So yes, this is something you definitely will have if the asylum system is recreated and/or reformed. Person making different lifestyle choices others don't like? Committed, with no real say or due process.
There are real people getting assaulted and murdered by the mentally ill right now. Not to mention the mentally ill themselves who are subject to violence on the streets and living in squalor. These are actual problems that are really happening and you're saying we shouldn't do anything to address them because of hypothetical problems you that you think might happen and that we could easily be aware of and prevent?
Just look at what's happening right now with them violating hippa to attack women trying to survive miscarriages...
Still, we have to do something about the homeless problem. These handful of people ruin millions of peoples lives.
Trump and DeSantis are individuals and their political views can't be reduced to a single scale running from "good" to "bad". They have different approaches to politics and they have different areas that they care about and they approach their political goals using different strategies.
They're both bad candidates, but they're bad in sometimes different ways. And there are many, many issues where DeSantis is better than Trump (although that's not saying much, and it's not saying that DeSantis is good on those issues). LGBTQ+ discrimination in specific though is an area where DeSantis is worse.
Are you asking whether rights people enjoyed for decades can be rolled back? You can't think of a single instance of that happening?
What’s the point here? We should never do anything if even one person can come up with some possible hypothetical scenario where it turns out badly?
Instead, how about we don't force that choice on people? How about we offer the option "don't lock up gay people" and also, "don't let mentally ill people murder anyone"? Call me a crazy idealist if you must, but I really think we just might be able to do both things.
Yes. But there is no easy solution. History shows that anything that involves locking up people because they might commit a crime will result in innocent people being locked up and abused.
The only safe choice is to oppose every proposal and offer nothing as an alternative.
I'm pointing out that you must absolutely contend with the fact that marginalized people have historically been labeled mentally ill when they fight for equality, and that asylums have historically been used as a tool for this purpose. If your concern is to address homeless insane people, one of the major causes of insanity is being homeless for more than a few months, and yet our homeless shelters are still under-resourced and we are still creating more homeless people by seeing housing as an investment that must always grow, pricing out more and more people.
If anything, I am pointing out we must address the "false positive" issue, where the population of people who are under threat of being institutionalized as insane even though they are just a marginalized person reasonably reacting to their own oppression might be greater than the insane homeless we want to address. And that "we just won't do that because regulation" is a straight up delusional belief, with zero basis in actual reality, and is more or less saying you hate homeless people more than you care about marginalized people losing their rights.
And I am pointing out that all people, marginalized or not, are currently subject to violence and harassment by the untreated mentally ill, right now. Not historically, currently.
If one party starts telling voters that they care more about hypothetical inconveniences for marginalized people than they do about people getting murdered right now, that party is not going to be in any kind of power for long and they will have no opportunity to protect anyone's rights.
The only reason why the rape of women in asylums is historical is because we no longer have asylums. If you want to bring back asylums, justify how you're not going to also be bringing back raping women in them.
Yes. A young woman was recently locked up for 90 days for terminating a pregnancy because she did not have access to legal abortion. There are people who basically want 'white sharia'.
I'm sick of the civic rainbow-religion. Get those flags and the moral authoritarianism out of my face. But let us not forget there really are people who think two guys shouldn't be able to hold hands in public or fool around in private.
What we had is possible, it did happen. Why? What was the system of alignments and incentives that led to that being the case, and how are we different now?
I do think that if you want to bring back asylums, a place to lock away people who are too expensive or are otherwise uneconomical to treat, you must have an answer.
Talking about taxation in America is a political death sentence. Privatization of public services is still extremely rampant. How are you going to get well run asylums if you can't tax or you have a for-profit model?
If you want nice things, we have to be getting less corrupt as a country, not more corrupt, and we are most definitely getting more corrupt. I absolutely do not want asylums as long as we are inching towards literal oligarchy, and we definitely are inching closer to it than farther away. Our supreme court justices openly take bribes, and our representatives think it's ethically okay to trade stocks. Our politicians are choosing to carve up districts to keep themselves in power, and some want to absolve the idea of voting altogether and just choose federal candidates from state legislatures.
Asylums are running when we can't even walk. The post office was in the process of being dismantled to create pretext to steal an election and you think we can run an asylum?
Do you really want an asylum in the context of Ron DeSantis's Florida and GOP rhetoric against trans people? That seems like a bad mix.
Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Asylums are where people are treated, as opposed to the streets where they're a threat to themselves and everyone around them.
I think we all do see such a middle ground, but think that it's really difficult to hit from a due process point of view. This is a parallel track, from the criminal justice system, to take away peoples' autonomy and rights to choose what happens to their bodies.
E.g. maybe we should be focusing on putting real treatment in jails (which tends to be pretty barbaric and ineffective at this point) and using the normal criminal justice system.
Yeah, how about full-service gas stations and Doowop hits too?
Even if the doctors themselves are moral, what prevents politicians from putting their thumb on the scale? We are already seeing them override physicians on gender affirming care.
What prevents politicians of finding a small number of immoral doctors who are willing to rubber stamp whatever they want?
Also it’s not uncommon to discourage procedures for minors until they are able to lawfully consent. So your example is muddy.