stop the stigma

You are reading http://livinginthehood.blogspot.com

Share |

The discussion was on Ms. Coulter's most recent, outrageous claims:
Ann Coulter tells O’Reilly: Radiation is ‘good for you’ | Raw Replay
I wonder if anybody will refute her citations of evidence SCIENTIFICALLY, not rhetorically. I'd really like to hear a concise, layperson-friendly analysis of her claims. Do I think she is a troll? Yes. Do I think she is dangerous? Absolutely. Do I think she is making this up? I'm not so sure. 

[Someone called Ann Coulter "insane." sigh.]

David, I sincerely hope you are not so reactionary as to be calling me "insane" for suggesting we apply critical thinking and scientific reasoning to Ms. Coulter's claims, as, if they are false, they ought to be exposed. And the word, "insane" is an epithet against people with disabilities. Can you not articulate your position clearly, without putting your boot on the necks of innocent disabled people whose lives are hard enough, not only due to their particular challenges, but more severely, because of the stigma, harassment and abuse they receive because of such prejudice and ignorance?

[clarification: he's calling Coulter "insane"]

David, thanks for clarification. As a person with behavioral health challenges, I strongly urge you to find more precise language than words like 'insane' or 'crazy" and the like.I think another adjective that might apply could be "irration...al' or just 'bogus." That way, it helps remove the scorn and stigma from those of us with disabilities who are treated very badly. What I'm asking is no different than asking someone to find a better word than "blind or deaf," to describe someone who's too stubborn to see or listen. People with disabilites are not necessarily stubborn, irrational, etc. any more than the general population. And people with behavioral health disabilities, by the way, are no more prone to acts of violence or, in this case, phenomenal arrogance, as the gen pop. thanks.

[he asks what i have in common with Coulter] Would you say "she talks N!gger?" of course not, unless you were ignorant enough to actually believe African Americans behave in irrational, arrogant and unreasonable behaviors, as a population norm. HOWEVER, people ARE that ignorant about disabilities, particularly behavioral health disabilities, and use slurs, stereotypes and epithets about us constantly. What I "have in common" with Ms. Coulter is that people use slurs and epithets. In Ms. Coulter's case, i don't know if she has any behavioral health disabilities, so calling her "insane" does not stigmatize her, it stigmatizes me: Nothing I say has validity or importance and can be sloughed off as delusional. Therefore, I am immediately silenced, scrutinized, suspect and stripped of my civil rights. That won't happen to Ms. Coulter. In my case, it is why i am destitute, homeless, in total isolation, rejected and in danger. You can learn more about the rights of people with behavioral health challenges by typing "anti-stigma +mental health" into your search engine. Here is a very interesting analysis of stigmatizing people, and how it is used to dehumanize them, in order to justify controlling, abusing and dismissing them as not human.

[at which point, he begins "diagnosing" Ms. Coulter]
David, I also resent armchair psychiatry, branding, labeling. It is further stigmatization and is not your place. Thank you for making it clear you have an irrational prejudice against people with behavioral health challenges, that you demand your right to keep you boot on my neck, and that you are too arrogant to learn something that would contribute to civil rights. I now know what YOU and Ms. Coulter have in common. This is a civil rights issue. It is vital to the quality of life, in fact, the very LIVEs of people with disabilities, that you raise your consciousness, and those of your fellows, on this issue you so arrogantly dismiss. I am not wrong to ask people to treat us with dignity and respect, any more than was Dr. King. Very sad, your demanding I stay in my ghetto.