> It’s nonsensical to speak about preserving the freedom of a psychotic person! A psychotic person cannot be free because psychosis obliterates true freedom through the imposition of delusion and hallucination. […] This destroys every argument about personal freedom and choice, permanently and totally.
This is like a passage ripped from a monologue from the fascist villain of some dystopian horror story. “There is no need to preserve the freedom of the [neologistic slur for fictional underclass demographic], bc in their debasement they have no freedom to preserve in the first place.” Aristotle holding forth on the fitting position of natural slaves isn’t this blunt.
I don’t really it’s dignified to respond to this sort of statement. Once you’ve blinded yourself this totally to the natural human desire not to writhe in restless agony or lose your power of abstract thought or be restricted to life in a cage imo you’ve more or less outed yourself as an enemy of all ppl of good will; “he shows a corrupt mind.” All that’s fitting is to point and mock
It’s worth noting that Freddie De Boer is schizophrenic
He’s not saying “we need to cage up Those People” he’s saying “I would like it if I was put in cage & not let out till I’ve taken my meds, should I stop taking my meds”.
Personally, I disagree with him, but he’s not making the argument that you’re acting like he’s making.
what? yes he is, he’s simply applying it to everyone including himself
No, it’s clearly different.
“I have experienced this. From experience, psychosis takes away all the good things that being involuntarily committed takes away, and then some. Therefore, involuntary commitment is an improvement.” is a completely reasonable argument. Not fascist, not blind, not corrupt.
If you think he’s wrong, find other medicated psychotics to survey, and determine whether this is a common view of psychosis.
Because if he’s right about the experience, he’s right about the conclusion.
Well, he is by his own admission psychotic and therefore cannot be trusted to evaluate his circumstances or experiences rationally. Given that as a psychotic individual he is taking to the public square to incite acts of extrajudicial imprisonment and violence, he should probably be forcibly prevented from accessing the internet or speaking his mind
This is not an incursion on his freedom. He already has no freedom on which to incur
Okay, now you’re just lying, pointlessly, about what other people believe and say. Cut it out.






















