M1ch431

If you read my initial comment in the thread, you would have seen me saying this:

If somebody is unable to provide for their needs, give them the ability to do so. Provide food, real housing, actual medical care, and an option for outpatient mental health care for them to recover if they are not in crisis.

Even in the comment you are responding to I said this:

In the latter situation, the best you can do is try to earn their trust and ensure they are provided an environment where they feel safe - providing them with every social support and alternative that they should be entitled to explore for their betterment.

I meant housing.

Nowhere in the article does it suggest that one needs to be psychotic or schizophrenic, only that they appear mentally ill to first responders. They are not able to diagnose this.

Even if you refuse to read the article, the subtext here on Lemmy reads:

The foundation of the new policy is that New York state will be able to authorize first responders to forcibly hospitalize mentally ill New Yorkers who cannot meet their own basic needs such as food, shelter or medical care.

There are economic and societal reasons for individuals to not be able to meet those needs.

Impoverishment and homelessness are issues that society, and capitalism at large, refuse to address with real solutions. Those solutions are too expensive to those that make policy.

A housing crisis, a depression of wages and rise in cost of living, inaccessibility of timely and cost-efficient health care interventions (mental or otherwise), inaccessibility of drug rehabilitation and a system that punishes drug use criminally, and having no social safety net (to prevent such occurrences of homelessness and lack) is the recipe that creates the situations that these individuals experience.

The headline is not accurate, read the article.

If they are actively violent and have committed a crime, hold them until their (expedited) court date (while providing them the option to explore support/therapy and/or access to spiritual counselors), record examinations by psychiatrists/perform them with outside/impartial observation, give the accused legal representation, and let publicly observable courts decide their fate. The option of a jury, witness/family/etc. testimony, and second opinions is imperative to their human rights.

If they have committed no crime (homelessness or being unable to provide for your needs are not crimes), are not violent, and are not a direct threat to themselves or others (and there is no concrete evidence that they will be) - there's nothing you should be able to do to violate their will.

In the latter situation, the best you can do is try to earn their trust and ensure they are provided an environment where they feel safe - providing them with every social support and alternative that they should be entitled to explore for their betterment.

It still exists. We may not lobotomize patients or put them in insulin comas, but forced ECT is still on the table. Even if the practice has improved with technological advancements, it can still be misapplied.

Though it was almost a decade ago (and in Austrailia) this story stuck out to me as being an example of everything that can go wrong in psychiatry: https://www.madinamerica.com/2016/05/psychiatry_garth_daniels/

It's fucking tragic.

Contesting forced treatment orders, such as forced ECT, is an up-hill battle. Even if the practice is more humane nowadays, it still results in damage if improperly prescribed in those deemed treatment-resistant.

I am speaking up for the people who are not served by the system and are effectively silenced. Psychiatrists are generally not legally responsible for iatrogenic illness/harm - proving damage is near to impossible, even in cases of clear malpractice and neglect.

I implore readers to look at https://www.madinamerica.com/ and consider reading Robert Whitaker's books. He is not a psychiatrist, but there are plenty of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals who write or indirectly contribute to that website. I consider him qualified, but please don't treat his voice as an authority and please use discernment when reading his works or reading anecdotes from that website. It takes a strong heart and stomach to be able to read some of the stories. If accurate and true, there are many crimes against humanity documented on that website.

There are many success stories to psychiatry. I don't want to discount the stability and healing some individuals receive from proper intervention. Please don't let what I write stop you from seeking out care if you are in need. There ARE good facilities that practice a leading standard of care - that do their best to not violate your will and treat you as a human.

Find a way of treating them and helping them to adjust to society without the use of coercion or a violation of their rights. That means giving them real legal representation, giving them access to courts that are open to public observation (mental health courts are NOT sufficient), giving them access to second opinions, and exhausting social supports (e.g. housing them in a safe environment) without imprisoning them.

The bar for being declared incompetent and unable to consent to treatment (which leads to forced psychiatry) is not high enough. Even coming from a psychiatrist, it is effectively hearsay in my opinion. There is not enough due process and outside oversight.

There are real side effects to psychiatry - it's called iatrogenic illness. When somebody is in crisis, what do they prescribe? They prescribe powerful drugs, usually neuroleptics. For example, tardive dyskinesia can affect up to 20% of people who take neuroleptics. It could be permanent - look up YT videos of those afflicted. It's easy to stereotype somebody as mentally ill if they develop TD.

It could be that somebody reacts nicely to the drugs they are prescribed. But what happens when they are released and can't afford treatment or become non-compliant with treatment? It can lead to disastrous withdrawal and terrible side effects, that can result in more hospitalization or a worsening of their illness.

Knowing that, why would you take away somebody's ability to not consent to treatment? Why can't we give them access to intensive therapy, that they consent to, that properly addresses the root causes of their illness and inability to care for themselves? Why do we treat traumatized individuals by inflicting MORE trauma on them? Being kidnapped, imprisoned, and medically raped is traumatizing. Why are individuals not given the option to not consent to medication, but only consent to therapy?

I invite you to look at Soteria Houses, which is a different model of care, that successfully achieves remission in those that are experiencing first-episode psychosis/schizophrenia. If they can achieve remission with little to no psychiatric medication (and likely no life-long prescriptions) in a severe illness, without coercion or locked doors, why don't we give more people the chance to experience that? What if they have the capacity to heal in a supportive environment that doesn't strip them of their rights - an environment that respects their will and autonomy?

Involuntary psychiatry is a violent practice that strips its victims of all human rights and effectively all due process. It is an unimaginable horror that can possibly lead to coercive psychiatry or medicalized rape.

“who appear to be mentally ill and who display an inability to meet basic living needs” could be taken against their will to a hospital for a psychiatric evaluation.

Not being able to provide for your needs is not mental illness. An appearance of mental illness is not proof that somebody needs involuntary commitment. First responders are not equipped to diagnose mental illness - this is a stripping of rights and imprisonment.

If somebody is unable to provide for their needs, give them the ability to do so. Provide food, real housing, actual medical care, and an option for outpatient mental health care for them to recover if they are not in crisis.

I understand some people are severely mentally ill, are in crisis, and are a DANGER to themselves and others and need care ASAP, but this is just targeting impoverished individuals, who may be homeless, based on what is effectively hearsay.

We can do better than this as a society.

It's more likely that the capitalist would just try to rip the inventor off and take full credit for the innovation and out-compete the inventor (unless it was incredibly unique and patented very carefully/licensed to a megacorp).

You basically need to be an expert in patent law to be able to bring a product to market. Even then, it still doesn't prevent copycats from also coming to market and completely obliterating you. You need to engage in lawfare to stop them - a patent is only as good as your ability to enforce it.

Of course, not every innovative product needs to be brought to market for others to enjoy in its unadulterated form and you certainly don't need to profit from or receive credit for your innovations to innovate (which is the point of the meme). Open-source or 3D-printed technology is a net positive for humanity if people have interest to make it themselves or learn from it.

This is a federated platform. Nobody here is a regular user akin to a tech-illiterate user at a company. Typical users here likely have the ability to read, which is all I needed to install all common (gaming/user-focused) distributions on my hardware.

I gave plenty of reasons why it works better for me. I have no special Linux knowledge and I use an entirely vanilla setup.

but telling others what they must give up to conform to what Linux can do is pushing cult mentality.

If all you're losing is your specialty audiophile hardware, which you paid good money to consume, you're not a regular user. Regular end-user hardware works fine, whether your GPU is NVIDIA or AMD.

You are only providing proof why people should always avoid Linux at all cost.

Unpatched admin account access, sub-par security features/process isolation, and running on the most common operating system targeted by malware is harmful to regular users. Windows Defender sending everything you download to their cloud is an invasion of privacy. No regular user of LTSC would know how to disable Windows Defender or even know how to use the group policy editor to disable exposed sources of telemetry. Since finding a source of LTSC is more difficult for regular users, they'd likely experience less hiccups just downloading a common Linux distribution and putting it on a flash drive. The principles of installing most user-focused Linux distributions are the same as the Windows Installer when proceeding with a graphical setup to write the operating system to your drive.

The reason that recently sparked me to switch to Linux was my bluetooth headphones not receiving audio when my screens turned off on Windows. My microphone frequently not working unless I uninstalled the drivers and rebooted. Take that in for a second. Neither device is uncommon for regular users. No, my computer wasn't going to sleep/hibernating.

VFIO setups are mostly practical for non-gaming/games that don't care if you're running them in a VM. This is viable especially if you have an iGPU to allocate to Linux or have a spare discrete GPU to insert either for Windows or Linux.

As for audiophile hardware, why support companies that only develop with their proprietary drivers in mind? That stuff is expensive - you can ruminate prior to purchase.

People only push Linux for gaming out of ideology, not a solution.

For me, it's been a much better solution. My microphone actually works properly on Linux, as opposed to not working on Windows.

I use my mouse left-handed and have to rebind keys on every game I play. When backing things up, I don't like dealing with configs and other files in random places all over my drive. Add in the better performance I have experienced and it's a no-brainer for me with my use case.

Using a translation layer or emulation means incompatibility, not a solution.

In my experience, Valve has been very eager to fix any bugs that sprout up. Maybe if more people adopt the Steam Deck or SteamOS/the various alternatives, more game developers will choose to support Linux natively - if there is any merit to doing so (which I highly doubt in the vast majority of cases).

Gaming on Linux because hate Windows, is not a solution.

I think their software and design philosophy is crap. 11 LTSC is particularly shit in its taskbar features being severely limited as opposed to previous LTSC versions - which are unwise to use if you are a gamer or are using software that targets the "latest" versions of Windows (e.g. the latest versions of 11 or 10). Developers are uninterested in fixing bugs that only affect LTSC versions. They cannot reproduce the bugs to fix them. I'd much rather be a non-Windows statistic for game developers to see, especially one that reports bugs that are actionable to them and Valve, as opposed to being part of the mass of Windows users.

Mental paranoia over telemetry does not make Linux a solution.

I am boycotting Microsoft because they are using their AI and cloud infrastructure for war. I'm unconvinced that a company with no morals, would also not have a backdoor/actively exploited zero-day in their proprietary operating system. We can't audit it. Call it mental paranoia if you wish. Backdoors and their security aside, they siphon too much data, even after hitting the group policy editor and disabling all exposed sources of it AND going into safe mode and disabling Windows Defender completely through the registry (since Microsoft thinks they know better than me setting a group policy to disable it).

I definitely don't trust Microsoft with my security when they have a multitude of UAC bypasses which they absolutely refuse to fix:

https://github.com/hfiref0x/UACME

Linux/Wayland is more secure by default than Windows is ever going to be - more secure even when considering the use of tools like Sandboxie-Plus and a strict software-based firewall on Windows.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/30/tyson-foods-toxic-pollutants-lakes-rivers

Don't forget the massive amounts of toxic dumping they engage in, which to the best of my knowledge, has not been remediated.