Ionathus's Random Banter #249 -- Directionless Rambling Is Now Mandatory

[Lord Raziere]

This is all very good but I feel like Zenos is a Lunar- or thinks he is or was a Lunar- after he's met the WoL.

Nothing says a Dusk Caste can't have an obsessive fixation on a Lunar mate....or just someone who they think is their Lunar Mate. his entire dark armor, dark powers and "I don't particularly care if existence dies even if I'm doing nothing in particular to help it die" vibe and mindset is VERY Abyssal, because even apathy contributes to the Neverborn's goal, which is basically the same as the Endsinger's goal.

I guess he could be a really evil Full Moon but I'd be terrified to think what Luna would see in him to Exalt him. while the Neverborn, I could totally see him taking the Abyssal deal no problem and it would fit with how he is in Endwalker. Fandaniel would of course be Midnight Caste in my mind, if he lived in Exalted he'd totally be a priest of the Neverborn unironically following either the Bishop or the Lover's religions.

[Bartmanhomer]

I didn't drink any caffeine from yesterday and today because I'm very calm.

[Rynjin]

If you like Akagi at all please watch its parent show Kaiji: Ultimate Survivor. You will not be disappointed.

Well. You'll be disappointed in Kaiji the guy, but not like... the show. Zawa zawaaaa.

*Child show, Akagi came first.

But Kaiji is ****ing great. Greatest praise I can give it is that season 2 can be described as "man sits in a chair and occasionally pushes a button for 15 episodes" and it is still one of the most entertaining shows I've ever watched.

...Too bad we'll never get a season 3, in part because that would be the mahjong arc and, well, Akagi already exists.

[LaZodiac]

*Child show, Akagi came first.

But Kaiji is ****ing great. Greatest praise I can give it is that season 2 can be described as "man sits in a chair and occasionally pushes a button for 15 episodes" and it is still one of the most entertaining shows I've ever watched.

...Too bad we'll never get a season 3, in part because that would be the mahjong arc and, well, Akagi already exists.

.......... I'll be honest, the way it was explained to me, I genuinely thought Akagi came after Kaiji, since I know Akagi shows UP in Kaiji and stuff.

[Rynjin]

.......... I'll be honest, the way it was explained to me, I genuinely thought Akagi came after Kaiji, since I know Akagi shows UP in Kaiji and stuff.

Characters show up in other series from the same author all the time! I like when people have fun with it that way.

[Peelee]

Incidentally I think you'd enjoy Blue Lock. It's a soccer series that takes the general concept most team sport series have; that no player is god and it's all about friendship and unity, and says "okay but what if we were fffffffreeeeaks instead" and instead makes a soccer player factory where the goal is to make a team of nothing but awful, ruthless ace players who don't need a team, all on a single team, and win at the ol' footie with the overwhelming power of being a ****ing psychopath of sports.

Soccer is not a sport of teamwork and friendship. Soccer is a score of hitting the ball into the net and doing literally anything in your power to do so. Sometimes this involves devolving into some kind of sport-animal personality wise. It kind of rules.

I looked it up when you first mentioned it and didn't really think much (its hard for me to get into most animes), but I'll give it a shot!

[TaiLiu]

Stranger in a Strange Land. Just... that entire book. Although annoyingly the polyamorous martian philosophy sex cult is strictly heterosexual. Booooooooooo!

Oh, boo! That is boring.

I hate Father's Day so much. To put it in a nutshell: Long story short my dad was a drug dealer, a total slob, he fought my family a lot. Even though he never has any issues with me, I just don't care for him that much. Plus he was deported back to Guatemala.

Sorry about your dad. I'm glad you don't have to deal with him anymore. I hope he's become a better person now.

A few weeks ago I learned a new word called Neurodivergent.

Neurodivergent is a scientific word for mental disabilities.

To clarify: Neurodivergent means that your neurology diverges from that of a typical human. Your wiring isn't set to standard. You're literally built differently.

While there can be a number of comorbidities that come with neurodivergent conditions, for the most part they are learning or social disorders, not mental disorders. There's no cognitive issue here, no delusions, you just process information differently.

This isn't 100% true, while it doesn't happen for most of the others dyspraxia can very much partially manifest as a physical disability. It doesn't matter how much society changes, we just flat out have less physical coordination.

It is however not a term for mental disabilities.

Politely: You're both wrong and Bartmanhomer is righter. I'm honestly unsure why some people feel uncomfortable with Bartmanhomer's post.

"Neurodivergent" and its sister word, "neurotypical," do not refer to brain states or to people with certain brain states.

Neurodivergency can absolutely refer to disabilities and disorders. Someone with major depressive disorder is neurodivergent. Someone with schizophrenia is neurodivergent.

The division between learning, social, and mental disabilities doesn't really make much sense. Surely the former two are subsets of the latter. And obviously someone who has a cognitive disability or delusions also processes information differently than people without them.

[LaZodiac]

Characters show up in other series from the same author all the time! I like when people have fun with it that way.

I'm well aware of that. I was just always told Akagi was a spinoff from Kaiji, when it clearly isn't the case.

I looked it up when you first mentioned it and didn't really think much (its hard for me to get into most animes), but I'll give it a shot!

Entirely fair. Pretend I didn't recommend it so you're more likely to enjoy it.

[Keltest]

Oh, boo! That is boring.


Sorry about your dad. I'm glad you don't have to deal with him anymore. I hope he's become a better person now.




Politely: You're both wrong and Bartmanhomer is righter. I'm honestly unsure why some people feel uncomfortable with Bartmanhomer's post.

"Neurodivergent" and its sister word, "neurotypical," do not refer to brain states or to people with certain brain states.

Neurodivergency can absolutely refer to disabilities and disorders. Someone with major depressive disorder is neurodivergent. Someone with schizophrenia is neurodivergent.

The division between learning, social, and mental disabilities doesn't really make much sense. Surely the former two are subsets of the latter. And obviously someone who has a cognitive disability or delusions also processes information differently than people without them.

One can be neurodivergent without being disabled. Painting the whole category with the brush of a subset is, well, wrong.

[Rater202]

Politely: You're both wrong and Bartmanhomer is righter. I'm honestly unsure why some people feel uncomfortable with Bartmanhomer's post.

Politely: As a neurodivergent individual I have a vested interest in having my facts straight in regard to this matter. I have done the work to make sure they are straight in this matter, and the idea that neurodivergent inherently means that there is something wrong with you, something that needs to be fixed, is not only false but is both born from nd hs caused in turn a great deal of discrimination and suffering on the part of the divergent.

Please, do not go there.

[TaiLiu]

One can be neurodivergent without being disabled. Painting the whole category with the brush of a subset is, well, wrong.

Sure. That's why I used the word "righter."

As a first approximation, "A neurodivergent person is a person with a mental disorder" isn't bad. Afterwards, we can make corrections to it, like: "Some people who are neurodivergent aren't disabled."

Politely: As a neurodivergent individual I have a vested interest in having my facts straight in regard to this matter. I have done the work to make sure they are straight in this matter, and the idea that neurodivergent inherently means that there is something wrong with you, something that needs to be fixed, is not only false but is both born from nd hs caused in turn a great deal of discrimination and suffering on the part of the divergent.

Please, do not go there.

I haven't said anything about neurodivergent people having something wrong with them. I addressed what you and Mx. Wizard wrote, because I think some of what was written is mistaken. Perhaps I'm the one who's wrong, but I certainly didn't write anything about fixing people. So I'm at least not wrong about that, and I'm unsure why you're bringing it up in this response.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. I think it's a metaphor about you not wanting to have a certain conversation with me. I'm happy to oblige, but I need to know what topics I should avoid.

[Rynjin]

I'm well aware of that. I was just always told Akagi was a spinoff from Kaiji, when it clearly isn't the case.

Yeah, it might be more accurate to say they're in the same universe, maybe. The timelines are a bit weird since IIRC Akagi takes place in the 60's, while Kaiji takes place in the 90's or so.

[Lord Raziere]

Politely: You're both wrong and Bartmanhomer is righter. I'm honestly unsure why some people feel uncomfortable with Bartmanhomer's post.

"Neurodivergent" and its sister word, "neurotypical," do not refer to brain states or to people with certain brain states.

Neurodivergency can absolutely refer to disabilities and disorders. Someone with major depressive disorder is neurodivergent. Someone with schizophrenia is neurodivergent.

The division between learning, social, and mental disabilities doesn't really make much sense. Surely the former two are subsets of the latter. And obviously someone who has a cognitive disability or delusions also processes information differently than people without them.

......Excuse me, care to clarify or rephrase that?

Do I need to restate my position on the matter? I am not disabled! I am not a machine that is broken, and anyone who thinks I am, anyone who wants to convince me that I am, even if its "for my own good" is quite frankly an ******* and they can shove it forever.

I refuse to be "fixed" like I'm malfunctioning when I am a human being that can improve on my own merits and strengths, do not equate me to people who need such things, because it sounds like you are!

I refuse to be thought of as lesser to anyone, be less capable of determining the course of my life just because I think a little differently!

DO YOU HEAR ME!? I REFUSE THIS! I am an individual and I will not be made any less than that. You will treat me as a person first, and disability never.

Are. We. Clear? I am not in the mood, and never will be in the mood to entertain nonsense if you insist on making this one of giant in the playground's little academic debates, discussed in the usual way without compassion or care. I am tired of such things, and only speak because this is a subject near and dear to my heart whereas I can simply.....not care about other things, but not about this.

[Rynjin]

Are you...under the impression that people with disabilities are not people?

[TaiLiu]

......Excuse me, care to clarify or rephrase that?

Do I need to restate my position on the matter? I am not disabled! I am not a machine that is broken, and anyone who thinks I am, anyone who wants to convince me that I am, even if its "for my own good" is quite frankly an ******* and they can shove it forever.

I refuse to be "fixed" like I'm malfunctioning when I am a human being that can improve on my own merits and strengths, do not equate me to people who need such things, because it sounds like you are!

I refuse to be thought of as lesser to anyone, be less capable of determining the course of my life just because I think a little differently!

DO YOU HEAR ME!? I REFUSE THIS! I am an individual and I will not be made any less than that. You will treat me as a person first, and disability never.

Are. We. Clear? I am not in the mood, and never will be in the mood to entertain nonsense if you insist on making this one of giant in the playground's little academic debates, discussed in the usual way without compassion or care. I am tired of such things, and only speak because this is a subject near and dear to my heart whereas I can simply.....not care about other things, but not about this.

Yes, I'll rephrase. Not all neurodivergent individuals are disabled, but some neurodivergent individuals are disabled on the basis of their neurodivergency. If someone with schizophrenia considers themselves disabled and neurodivergent on the basis of their sz, they are disabled and neurodivergent.

I didn't say you were disabled. I didn't say you are malfunctioning. Or lesser or less capable or not an individual. Please don't project onto me. If others have said these things about you in the past, they're wrong. I'll refer to you however you wish, because I respect you and because you are the authority on your life, not me.

Please don't assume I'm playing academic. Or discussing neurodivergency without compassion or care. That's not fair.

As an aside, a disabled individual is not a broken individual. Any disability advocate will tell you that. But that's another conversation.

[Keltest]

Sure. That's why I used the word "righter."

As a first approximation, "A neurodivergent person is a person with a mental disorder" isn't bad. Afterwards, we can make corrections to it, like: "Some people who are neurodivergent aren't disabled."

Just to use a completely unrelated analogy free from judgement, imagine if he had instead said "I learned what flowers are today! Theyre plants with purple petals!" And now you can probably see why he is wrong.

[Lord Raziere]

Are you...under the impression that people with disabilities are not people?

That is the worst way you could've interpreted that and I'm disappointed and enraged that is what you got from it, OF COURSE THEY ARE PEOPLE! I WOULD NEVER THINK OTHERWISE! but that doesn't stop other people taking advantage of things like this to screw people over! I am making a point that real people are affected by this language, the reason I'm so adamant about this, is because its so easy for others to get this interpretation out of defining people this way, of treating them badly! Do you think I want to be treated that way? NO! and I doubt anyone else does either!

but according to others, I can only speak for myself, so that is what I'm doing. I personally, do not want to be labeled "disabled" I do not want people saying I'm less capable. I do not want that language someday being used to control me for something I was born with or used to justify "curing" me so that I conform to some jerk's idea of normalcy. Because those things DO happen, regardless of your efforts to ignore it or your ignorance of it. I acknowledge there is much of my personal issues in this and that I am not representative of others, but I will fight for being treated with respect, with equality and emphasize those things above all, because I myself am not content with being limited by that label. I grow, I improve, I constantly move to be more, and I refuse "disabled" to be anything that I am, because neurodivergent is not all that I am.

[Rater202]

Are you...under the impression that people with disabilities are not people?

Rynjin, let me ask you a question.

Do you know what "mentally disabled means?"

Typically, it means "possessing of cognitive disorders that permanently and severely impact their ability to learn and process information in a negative way." For example, someone who as an adult would only have the intellectual capacity of a child.

While such people are not inherently lesser and deserve basic human dignity like the rest of us, calling someone who is not one such individual as such is to say that they are lesser than they are, which is offensive.

By saying "neurodivergent means mentally disabled" is you might as well be saying "neurodivergent means the R-slur" because the literal meaning of the words is the same.

Saying "some neurodivergent people aren't disabled" doesn't make it better, because the phrasing implies that non-disabled neurodivergent people are the minority when the thing is, we're not.

In most cases, the so-called stability has less to do with the neurodivergent individual and more with the one-size-fits-all all-way that our society handles people. The way we expect people to act socially, or the way we expect people to learn. These aren't considered disabilities because there is something inherently wrong with someone who has them. These are considered disabilities because it's literally the only way we can get people to take the conditions seriously. The government considers me to be disabled because my autism and the symptoms there of would prevent me from being able to reliably maintain gainful employment in our current society but there's nothing physically wrong with me, I'm just a weirdo.

In cases where the individual actually is disabled, in a medical sense, it's usually due to co-morbidities, that is to say, a condition separate from the primary condition. My disabled cousin isn't considered mentally disabled because he has autism, he's mentally disabled because of permanent infantile brain damage due to oxygen deprivation resulting from compilations during pregnancy and labor.

In cases, like Mx. Wizard, where their neurodivergence does result in actual disability by itself... It's still not a mental disability. As Friend Wizard has stated, their issues are physical which is a different matter entirely.

Now consider the social history, of people acting like being neurodivergent is inherently a bad thing. Think of people refusing to give their children life-saving vaccinations due to (totally unfounded)fear that the vaccines will give the child autism. Of how schools strongly push medication for ADHD in all cases. Of the talk of "curing" Autism which, you know, if it could be done would require you to completely alter every part of someone's brain. You would effectively be destroying that person so someone else who is suitable for your preferences to take their place.

The neurodivergent community has been pushing back against that bull**** for decades, my dude, and to say that the default scenario is that the neurodivergent are mentally disabled is something that people have done to undermine that struggle. They use it to say that you aren't able to make choices for yourself, or if you're undeniably a functional they'll say "oh you're not really neurodivergent" or "I'm not saying for everyone just on the really bad cases, you can't speak for them now can you" completely ignoring the fact that if cures for autism and ADHD and the like actually did exist that there's no way in hell they wouldn't be forced on anyone.

[Lord Raziere]

What Rater said! You think I'm angry for no reason??? This stuff has happened before! If we're not careful it could happen again! got to remain alert and make sure people know what pain they're causing.

[Rynjin]

Rynjin, let me ask you a question.

Do you know what "mentally disabled means?"

Typically, it means "possessing of cognitive disorders that permanently and severely impact their ability to learn and process information in a negative way." For example, someone who as an adult would only have the intellectual capacity of a child.

That's one definition, sure. But it's not the only mental disability out there.

Quick example, I have family members with extremely severe bipolar disorder. I would consider them mentally disabled, as they are unable to function without accommodations.

That doesn't mean they are "lesser than", but it does mean they require extra help to do things that come easily to neurotypical people.

Now, I am fine with someone saying that they do not want to be called disabled. I'm not going to call Raziere such, because she has expressed a preference not to. But the rhetoric of "referring to someone as disabled unpersons and/or belittles them inherently" is...concerning. Because it is a valid term, and has its place, and saying it is an inherently negative term IMO reveals some internal biases.

Someone who cannot work normally because they spend a significant amount of time alternating between crippling depression and manic episodes resulting in poor decision-making (mitigated, but not entirely by medication...and bipolar people IME are one of the most likely neurodivergent groups to refuse to take their meds) is no less disabled in a lot of the ways that matter than someone with only 1 arm is.

[Rater202]

It was only a few decades ago that someone like me could be institutionalized, sterilized, lobotomized, and euthanized because my doctor felt like it. On a historical scale that's no time at all.

Now, there are some conditions that are sometimes considered to be forms of or related to neurodivergence that are in and of themselves also disabilities, such as schizophrenia... But someone with schizophrenia isn't mentally disabled.they're not cognitively impaired... They're just, you know. Wires got crossed so they're hearing or seeing things that aren't there. Tha'ts somethng differant entirely.

[Keltest]

It was only a few decades ago that someone like me could be institutionalized, sterilized, lobotomized, and euthanized because my doctor felt like it. On a historical scale that's no time at all.

Now, there are some conditions that are sometimes considered to be forms of or related to neurodivergence that are in and of themselves also disabilities, such as schizophrenia... But someone with schizophrenia isn't mentally disabled.they're not cognitively impaired... They're just, you know. Wires got crossed so they're hearing or seeing things that aren't there. Tha'ts somethng differant entirely.

While I certainly don't advocate for the lobotomization, etc... I really have to question the idea that somebody who is regularly and consistently receiving false sensory input is not impaired. Unless youre going to try and split hairs about whether sensory ability counts as "mental" or not, people get impaired plenty well by real sensory distraction and overload, let alone ones generated by their own brain that they can't put down or turn off.

[Lord Raziere]

That's one definition, sure. But it's not the only mental disability out there.

Quick example, I have family members with extremely severe bipolar disorder. I would consider them mentally disabled, as they are unable to function without accommodations.

That doesn't mean they are "lesser than", but it does mean they require extra help to do things that come easily to neurotypical people.

Now, I am fine with someone saying that they do not want to be called disabled. I'm not going to call Raziere such, because she has expressed a preference not to. But the rhetoric of "referring to someone as disabled unpersons and/or belittles them inherently" is...concerning. Because it is a valid term, and has its place, and saying it is an inherently negative term IMO reveals some internal biases.

Someone who cannot work normally because they spend a significant amount of time alternating between crippling depression and manic episodes resulting in poor decision-making (mitigated, but not entirely by medication...and bipolar people IME are one of the most likely neurodivergent groups to refuse to take their meds) is no less disabled in a lot of the ways that matter than someone with only 1 arm is.

*shrug*

If they need the help, they need the help. It is not my place to judge others situations, and I can only speak for my own. I fully admit that I'd probably a bad caretaker of others given my personality and am not good asking for social help for myself even if I need it and am working on doing so despite how much it hurts my pride to not be able to accomplish things myself, it might never NOT hurt my pride a little to do so. I admit that I am bad at being vulnerable and hate the idea of being weak, even if I know from countless media what that mindset leads to. I know its a personal issue- I know many neurodivergent people who are very different than me, who do not have my issues. I know that others need more help than other people.

But if I had choose....I do not like being someone who has to be helped. It may be irrational, but it is what I feel. I apologize for any negative implications I may have made about disabled people.

[Bartmanhomer]

I feel like I also need to make a sincere apology. I'm sorry if I offend everyone. It was not my intention to do so and I will choose my words wisely in the future.

[Rater202]

That's one definition, sure. But it's not the only mental disability out there.

Quick example, I have family members with extremely severe bipolar disorder. I would consider them mentally disabled, as they are unable to function without accommodations.

That doesn't mean they are "lesser than", but it does mean they require extra help to do things that come easily to neurotypical people.

Now, I am fine with someone saying that they do not want to be called disabled. I'm not going to call Raziere such, because she has expressed a preference not to. But the rhetoric of "referring to someone as disabled unpersons and/or belittles them inherently" is...concerning. Because it is a valid term, and has its place, and saying it is an inherently negative term IMO reveals some internal biases.

Someone who cannot work normally because they spend a significant amount of time alternating between crippling depression and manic episodes resulting in poor decision-making (mitigated, but not entirely by medication...and bipolar people IME are one of the most likely neurodivergent groups to refuse to take their meds) is no less disabled in a lot of the ways that matter than someone with only 1 arm is.

While I certainly don't advocate for the lobotomization, etc... I really have to question the idea that somebody who is regularly and consistently receiving false sensory input is not impaired. Unless youre going to try and split hairs about whether sensory ability counts as "mental" or not, people get impaired plenty well by real sensory distraction and overload, let alone ones generated by their own brain that they can't put down or turn off.

This might be a case where I don't have the words to express the idea I am trying to convey.

"Mental disorder" is not the same as "mental disability."

Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and mental disorders, but they're not mental disabilities, they're psychoses.

That's a different kind of disability.

Someone who is schizophrenic or bipolar has the capacity to take care of themself. It's their hallucinations or tendency to swing between emotional extremes that prevent them from doing so, not any cognitive problem preventing them from being able to gain the ability tin the first place.

Mental disability, meanwhile, refers to a cognitive disorder that robs someone of the capacity to fuction in certain vital ways.

My dsbale ed cousin? His brain damage has left him unable to... Well, he doesn't have the capacity to understand that running out into traffic is dangerous.

In comparison, a schizophrenic knows full well that running into traffic is dangerous but has hallucinated that an angel is telling him to do it and that he'll be safe from being hit by cars if his faith is strong enough.

From the outside, it looks like the same problem but the actual cause is completely different.

[Keltest]

This might be a case where I don't have the words to express the idea I am trying to convey.

"Mental disorder" is not the same as "mental disability."

Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and mental disorders, but they're not mental disabilities, they're psychoses.

That's a different kind of disability.

Someone who is schizophrenic or bipolar has the capacity to take care of themself. It's their hallucinations or tendency to swing between emotional extremes that prevent them from doing so, not any cognitive problem preventing them from being able to gain the ability tin the first place.

Mental disability, meanwhile, refers to a cognitive disorder that robs someone of the capacity to fuction in certain vital ways.

My dsbale ed cousin? His brain damage has left him unable to... Well, he doesn't have the capacity to understand that running out into traffic is dangerous.

In comparison, a schizophrenic knows full well that running into traffic is dangerous but has hallucinated that an angel is telling him to do it and that he'll be safe from being hit by cars if his faith is strong enough.

From the outside, it looks like the same problem but the actual cause is completely different.

That was the "splitting hairs" thing I was talking about. I'm sure it matters at a medical level, but that isn't necessarily a helpful context here. Like, I think you can agree that your brain generating "noise" that results in visual or auditory hallucinations that you can't distinguish from reality is a problem, right? Like you even highlighted how they end up being threatening to the health and well being of the person in the same way.

I do see the distinction youre talking about, I just disagree that theres a practical difference in this context.

[Lord Raziere]

Furthermore I apologize to Tai Liu for assuming unfair things about them. Just to make sure I didn't miss them.

[Rater202]

That was the "splitting hairs" thing I was talking about. I'm sure it matters at a medical level, but that isn't necessarily a helpful context here. Like, I think you can agree that your brain generating "noise" that results in visual or auditory hallucinations that you can't distinguish from reality is a problem, right? Like you even highlighted how they end up being threatening to the health and well being of the person in the same way.

I do see the distinction youre talking about, I just disagree that theres a practical difference in this context.

I'm gonna be honest, you're basically asking a soldier abot he war while they're still in the trenches. I'll ry one more time but I'm gonna be honest I am rapidly running out of spoons.

The practical difference ties back to what I said earlier about how equating neurodivergence to mental disability is commonly used to try nd undermine the arguments we make in favor of our personhood and right to self-determination and autonomy.

Like, a schizophrenic or bipolar person, when lucid, is perfectly capable of holding a rational discussion and advocating for themselves. They might need medication to experience lucidity, but when lucid they are, if not fully functional, at least possess the capacity to become so.

Someone like my cousin... There is no drug in the world that is going to make him able to have a conversation more complex than asking where something is or telling his caretakers that he's hungry. He does not have the capacity to take care of himself due to the brain damage he experienced at birth.

when people say "neurodivergent is mentally disabled" they are pointing to people like my cousin, a neurodivergent person who also happens to be severely mentally disabled, not to people like our hypothetical schizophrenic. They are saying that we, collectively, or at least the majority of us, are unable to care for ourselves, unable to advocate for ourselves, unable to even know what is best for ourselves, that we do not function the way someone is supposed to function in order to justify making decisions for us whether we like it or not.

And when enough people do that, even an innocent conflation of the terms becomes offensive.

And that's why it's important to keep the specific terms specific.

[TaiLiu]

Just to use a completely unrelated analogy free from judgement, imagine if he had instead said "I learned what flowers are today! Theyre plants with purple petals!" And now you can probably see why he is wrong.

Oh, absolutely. But if someone else claimed a flower is a Venus flytrap, Mx. Purple Petals would be righter.

I feel like I also need to make a sincere apology. I'm sorry if I offend everyone. It was not my intention to do so and I will choose my words wisely in the future.

I won't speak for anyone else, but I wasn't offended. In fact, I love chattering about psychology, so this conversation is great for me.

Do you know what "mentally disabled means?"

Typically, it means "possessing of cognitive disorders that permanently and severely impact their ability to learn and process information in a negative way." For example, someone who as an adult would only have the intellectual capacity of a child.

That's one definition, sure. But it's not the only mental disability out there.

In fact, it's quite an unusual one. Bookmark is referring to what is typically called an intellectual disability. "Mental disability" is much broader. Are people interpreting that to mean an intellectual disability? Is that why people are getting upset?

While such people are not inherently lesser and deserve basic human dignity like the rest of us, calling someone who is not one such individual as such is to say that they are lesser than they are, which is offensive.

Sorry, I don't follow this reasoning. If being intellectually disabled doesn't mean someone is lesser than, then why would being mistaken for someone with an ID necessarily mean that the mistaker considers the mistaken lesser than?

This might be a case where I don't have the words to express the idea I am trying to convey.

"Mental disorder" is not the same as "mental disability."

Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder and mental disorders, but they're not mental disabilities, they're psychoses.

That's a different kind of disability.

Someone who is schizophrenic or bipolar has the capacity to take care of themself. It's their hallucinations or tendency to swing between emotional extremes that prevent them from doing so, not any cognitive problem preventing them from being able to gain the ability tin the first place.

Mental disability, meanwhile, refers to a cognitive disorder that robs someone of the capacity to fuction in certain vital ways.

My dsbale ed cousin? His brain damage has left him unable to... Well, he doesn't have the capacity to understand that running out into traffic is dangerous.

In comparison, a schizophrenic knows full well that running into traffic is dangerous but has hallucinated that an angel is telling him to do it and that he'll be safe from being hit by cars if his faith is strong enough.

From the outside, it looks like the same problem but the actual cause is completely different.

Politely: I think your ontology of clinical psychology is unusual, which may account for some of the miscommunication between us.

I hope it's not unfair to say that you also have a pop culture understanding of schizophrenia. While common, delusions and hallucinations are not necessary for someone to be diagnosed with sz. Furthermore, schizophrenia absolutely affects cognition. It's associated with brain changes that affect intellectual ability. Sz can also affect speech coherence, volition, and other symptoms that can reasonably fall under the category of cognitive disability.

Furthermore I apologize to Tai Liu for assuming unfair things about them. Just to make sure I didn't miss them.

There's no need to apologize, but I appreciate the sentiment. I'm sorry if my comments have caused you any distress.

[Bartmanhomer]

I think I could change topícs now. I wrote 12 chapters in my D&D: The Dragoon Family story and I was busy creating my Monster Rancher 2 Monsters as Pokemon today. So far I created 9 Pokemon.