Freddie deBoer

The formal definition according to Google is "a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality", so I guess technically, a dream meets that definition.

I think the commenter you're responding to is also referring to the way that in a psychotic state, all actions make sense to the psychotic person. The "psycho" stops following a deductive/conscious/scientific logic chain, and starts following inductive/subconscious/superstitious logic chain, all while perceiving internally a consistent narrative of reality.

Examples in the difference in logic chains:

- In a non-psychotic state, when I'm in my bedroom and notice that I am cold, I do not start a fire, because (a) fire is dangerous inside; (b) I remember that I have blankets, an HVAC system, etc.

- In a psychotic state (either dreaming or awake), when I'm in my bedroom and notice that I am cold, I might start a fire, because (a) an angel told me to; (b) it will protect me from the spirits in the darkness; (c) I believe the heating system is broken (even if I haven't looked at it) and I'm worried I'll freeze to death...

One cannot personally perceive psychosis while psychotic--reality always makes sense in the moment. Even the most demented Alzheimer's patient will construct a narrative of what's happening to them, even if it's just a vague sense of prehistoric fear and rage at the strange object invading their space (which in reality is a nurse trying to give…

> Regardless of any internet-level understanding or resentment, the millennial/zoomer understanding of mental health is completely destroying people's lives.

> I work and have worked in mental health for my entire adult life (late 20s now). I have my own mental health diagnoses. I was diagnosed with severe OCD when I was 11. Since then I've gone through periods of generalized anxiety, agoraphobia, panic disorder, you name it. It has destroyed my life once every three or four years without fail. Losing jobs, friendships, my grades in college, everything. Just utter ineptitude and catatonic inability to take care of myself. I have been blessed with the most supportive family anyone could ask for. I do not fail to see the differences between myself and those who I now serve. But there is an intense illness that is permeating through our younger generations that is destroying the possibility of recovery for these people suffering through legitimate mental health issues.

> I have met and helped and treated numerous individuals now who are my peers in age - anything from 18-early 30s. And so many have internalized a generational "understanding" of mental illness that is toxic and worthless beyond condemnation. Our youngest generations' understanding of mental health enables, encourages, and at worst glorifies mental illness. I can not understate the number of times I've met a young woman who has made being mentally ill, and polysexual, and queer, and autistic, et cetera, their…

I'm not talking about free speech absolutism. What I'm describing here is a specific US-centered cultural phenomenon - thin-skinned, hypocritical tribalism that has turned people against each other, where every conversation that strays outside of narrow doctrinaire bounds, however innocuous or well-intentioned, might be reported on by a remorseless army of cruel snitches ever hungry to find some way to elevate themselves by destroying others. It's the very opposite of being kind or considerate, and, having seen its effects on colleagues, I can't imagine anything more damaging to "team morale". Freddie De Boer has a pungent phrase for this - "planet of cops" - and his essay is worth reading:

https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/planet-of-cops

I feel focus on the first amendment gives people of this bent cover: it lets them exert incredible power over speech in every practical way, while claiming that free speech is intact because there's no violation of the constitution. The fact that we need to clearly rebut people like this is exactly one of the reasons why I feel over-indexing on the constitution is unhelpful.

I think it's a fair point that bots should strive to be useful and not just mock people's mistakes, but in the 8 years since this was written the whole "punch up, not down" idea in comedy has gotten a lot of criticism and is kind of passe at this point, at least in my experience.

Human beings simply do not exist on a single monolith spectrum of power; who is "up" or "down" often depends quite a lot on context. If an underemployed white male comedian makes a joke about Kamala Harris, is that punching up or down? _Parasite_ is a movie that mocks a rich family even as it portrays their poorer help as scheming and untrustworthy - is that up, or down? To steal an example from this excellent Freddie de Boer post on the topic, if an adjunct professor runs afoul of a student, are they really the ones in the position of power?

Anyway Freddie sums the whole thing up much better than I could: https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/punching-up-and-punching-down-have

Traditional newspapers and newer media (like Buzzfeed, Huffpost, Vox...) are scared, especially their journos. The clickbait, garbage content factory approach just doesn't cut it anymore, and it doesn't raise their profile as journalists offering anything of value. They despise Substack because it threatens to erase the last thing they have left in this business, a kind of ill-perceived legitimacy that they demand their work at a major outlet should give them. The success of independent Substack writers just vaporizes this entirely.
They are stuck in a low-paying job, have no prospects in this industry, and no one to appreciate their pathetic work except their like-minded media colleagues. That's why they hate Substack writers. Substack writers pull traffic, the average journos @nyt, wp, you name it, don't.

I highly recommend this post from ferddie de boer https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/its-all-just-displacement

Right, but you hear "everyone should be in therapy" from all corners; there's at least one dating app (Bumble, I think) that has an "In therapy" tag you can put on your profile; and BetterHelp advertises themselves with a commercial where girls at brunch talk about a guy one of them has been seeing, and they agree she should stop seeing him once they realize he's not in therapy, even though they know almost nothing else about him ( https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/im-not-trying-to-be-dramatic-but).

That isn't really a view of therapy as a specific intervention, but as an almost mandatory practice for adults, kind of like going to the gym. The view of the psychologist you mention is actually sadly rare. Obviously, I think the widely shared view of therapy is a total bastardization of any worth therapy might have had in the first place.