The One True Minority

Originally posted by autumnofburnoutcommie67
Much of the problem really is just plain discrimination, or maybe even the failure to discriminate in an appropriate and constructive manner.

Failure to discriminate in a appropriate and/or constructive manner?

Please do elaborate on this point, and offer an insight to exactly what you are referring to. If I were to discriminate against a man of disability, just how would I go about it in an appropriate manner?

Originally posted by chissler
Please do elaborate on this point, and offer an insight to exactly what you are referring to. If I were to discriminate against a man of disability, just how would I go about it in an appropriate manner?

Politely.

When a person's physical or mental condition is not relevant to the job, then there would be no justification for choosing a less qualified "normal" person over one with a "disability." However, there are physical and mental conditions that make a person unfit for some positions.

In those cases, discrimination on the basis of disability is justified.

The advances in technology relative to appliances and prosthetics are making certain physical conditions, such as amputations, almost advantageous, but a man confined to a wheelchair and who requires oxygen is not likely to get a job as an arc welder on a high-rise building, even if his welding skills are exceptional.

In any case, a person should be looked at not in terms of weakness, but in terms of strengths. Not that the weaknesses aren't real, but because going with a person's strengths gives the person something upon which to build and the wherewithal, and a starting point, to overcome weakness.

This is one of the reasons I don't like the idea of creating a minority class of disabled people. For one thing, the term is not used in any statistical manner, but in the Marxist/leftist sense of perceived power or lack thereof, as in the case of a black person living in a urban center that is 70% black is considered a minority.

In fact, the whole minority-class dogma has done nothing to empower anyone in America. The only outcome to classifying people according to minority status is to create a privileged class that has a built in excuse to fail.

How contradictory is that?

Being a minority gives one preferential treatment in the job market, but if that person fails, then the problem must be institutional discrimination.

And in this sense, I don't mean to give credence to the movement to change the names of everything undesirable, such as "differently-abled" and whatnot.

That's a good mentality, but again we are creating an atmosphere of denial of reality. The strengths perspective does not deny the weaknesses and should not give them vague names.

In fact, by assuming the role of a "minority," the person whose abilities are limited for some reason is really placing an albatross around his own neck.

In the work place, discrimination is the name of the game. Employers want to hire people who will be the best for the positions for which they hire. A person who goes into an interview with the idea that he's a minority who's going to face discrimination is not going to present very well. The deck is stacked against him in two respects.

The employer is going to be looking for weaknesses in each applicant and expecting the applicant to accentuate the strengths. The free market isn't group therapy. It's hardball competition.

Every applicant who wants to have a chance has to have the best attitude that he can have, but at the same time expect that there will be rejection in the job search.

Only the employer knows what qualities he's actually looking for and in many cases, they are probably intangible and indescribable.

So, classifying oneself as a "minority" really isn't in one's best interest. Considering oneself as eminently qualified is the best attitude combined with the perseverance to continue in the face of rejection.

I hate to keep harping on this theme, but it is a far more productive approach than the one I see being made here.


[edit on 2007/7/13 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by autumnofburnoutcommie67

..."External political pressure can result, apparently, in the inclusion of a diagnostic category. For example, PTSD was included in the DSM-III as a result of massive lobbying on its behalf by Vietnam vets and their supporters. Prior to that, PTSD sufferers were routinely diagnosed with character disorders."

I know a little about mental health issues and more than a little about PTSD.

While it is true that there was pressure placed on the APA to include PTSD as a diagnostic entity, it was not done in the absence of data to support such an inclusion.

Contrary to the implication of the person you cite without any commentary of your own, PTSD was not included purely on the basis of politics. The data regarding stress disorders had been building ever since the American Civil War and the names attached to such disorders reflected the understanding of the conditions at different times in history.

So, what we see happening is not clinicians voting on the data as it exists, but voting on the clinical interpretation of the data. The question is whether or not a majority of the clinicians who have a vote interpret the data to be such that a diagnostic category can be justified.

It is true that before PTSD was included in DSM-III, veterans who presented with the symptoms of the disorder were given diagnoses that were compatible the then current DSM. Many were classified as having personality disorders, adjustment disorders and some were classified as psychotic.

The pressure placed on the APA to acknowledge the new diagnosis was necessary because the treatment given to those with PTSD was ineffective,, at best, and harmful, at worst.

It is a shame that mental, psychological, emotional, and personalty disorders are not better understood and that there are often no chemical tests that can isolate them, but this is the reality and the fact that they are not well understood or easily diagnosed doesn't make them any less real.

Forgive me if I fail to grasp your point, in so far as you failed to provide one, but the quotes you provide do nothing to clarify the issues at hand and while containing some seeds of truth are incomplete and deceptive.

[edit on 2007/7/13 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
When a person's physical or mental condition is not relevant to the job, then there would be no justification for choosing a less qualified "normal" person over one with a "disability."

Well, in this scenario, the individual with the disability has not been discriminated against. If one wants to be a victimizer and make something out of nothing, than that is their decision to make. However, the aforementioned is not a case of discrimination. It is a case of finding someone who is a better fit for the job. Both had their strengths, but one was better suited. The disability itself had nothing to do with the selection of applicants.

So, I don't see how that it is an appropriate manner to discriminate.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
In any case, a person should be looked at not in terms of weakness, but in terms of strengths. Not that the weaknesses aren't real, but because going with a person's strengths gives the person something upon which to build and the wherewithal, and a starting point, to overcome weakness.

Agreed.

I try to reinforce that the individual needs to define the disability, and not allow the disability to define them.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
This is one of the reasons I don't like the idea of creating a minority class of disabled people.

Who is trying to create this class?

From what I can see, this population of disabled people are being assimilated into society, just as any healthy man or woman. There are the victimizers who want to be singled out, and walk around with that tag which represents a badge of honor for them. But it should be noted that they are merely the squeaky wheel that tends to get the grease. They do not make the majority.

Through my experiences, an individual with a disability wants to be treated just as anyone else. No better, no worse. Don't insult me, but don't patronize me. Don't pity me, just empathize.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I hate to keep harping on this theme, but it is a far more productive approach than the one I see being made here.

That being... ?

I just ran across an article that's posted just today in the World Net Daily online newspaper (link to specific article is in the External Source). Besides the problems facing those with mental disabilities that manifest as emotional problems, there's another added danger involved: A danger not only to the disabled, but to those around them!

More at Source: Mania!
The shocking link between psychiatric drugs, suicide, violence and mass murder


From Columbine to Virginia Tech, every time another headline-making mass murderer is discovered to have taken antidepressants or other psychiatric drugs, rumors and speculation abound regarding the possible connection between the medications and the violence.
-------------------------
To begin with, many of the most notorious mass killers in recent memory have been on, or just coming off, prescription mood-altering drugs.
-------------------------
All very interesting, you may be thinking, but what do the drug companies say in their defense?
One of the most widely prescribed antidepressants today is Paxil, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline.
Paxil's known "adverse drug reactions" – according to the drug's own 2001 FDA-approved label – include "mania," "insomnia," "anxiety," "agitation," "confusion," "amnesia," "depression," "paranoid reaction," "psychosis," "hostility," "delirium," "hallucinations," "abnormal thinking," "depersonalization" and "lack of emotion," among others.
With a rap sheet like that, no wonder pharmaceutical companies are nervous about liability lawsuits over the "rare adverse effects" of their medications. In 1998, for example, GlaxoSmithKline was ordered to pay $6.4 million to Donald Schnell's surviving family members after the 60-year-old man, just two days after taking Paxil, murdered his wife, daughter and granddaughter in a fit of rage.

I've known for years that the FDA has been in the pockets of Big Pharm Interests & could not be trusted to do any good for our National Health, but this takes the cake! If you're a person who's close to someone prescribed with psychiactric drugs, I think it would be a good idea for you to look into what drugs that person is taking...And don't forget to bring up the subject when you're communicating with your "elected officials."

Also included in the article is a failrly long list of known mass-murders that have been link to some of these psychiactric drugs! It seems that there's not only our Government creating its own "terrorist threat" in the Middle East (The CIA trained people in the Middle East with terrorist tactics during the Cold War Era!), but also a long-term link with the FDA & Big Pharm to create "terrorists" out of the mentally disabled!


Edit: Shortened quoted text.

[edit on 14-7-2007 by chissler]

Chissler

Maybe I've misconstrued the point of this thread, in which case, I guess we agree.

These are the senses in which I use the term discriminate.

1 a : to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of b : DISTINGUISH, DIFFERENTIATE
2 : to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences; especially : to distinguish from another like object

intransitive verb
1 a : to make a distinction b : to use good judgment

www.merriam-webster.com...

I reject the second intransitive sense, because as you can see from the sentence examples the clarification is made in the sentence, not in the word itself. So, the problem is not discrimination; it is the basis by which one discriminates.

intransitive verb
2 : to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit

discriminate in favor of your friends
; discriminate against a certain nationality


[emphasis mine]

www.merriam-webster.com...

Maybe that will clarify my approach to the question at hand.

I apologize if I missed the point.

[edit on 2007/7/14 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by chissler

Originally posted by autumnofburnoutcommie67
Much of the problem really is just plain discrimination, or maybe even the failure to discriminate in an appropriate and constructive manner.

Failure to discriminate in a appropriate and/or constructive manner?

Please do elaborate on this point, and offer an insight to exactly what you are referring to. If I were to discriminate against a man of disability, just how would I go about it in an appropriate manner?

Well, in fact the paragraphs underneath the first one did. Note that I was complaining about the faults of "normal" people, the neurotypicals who expect everyone to hit the ground running, regardless of whether the end result is just more raw horse manure or not.

It would likely have helped had you followed the link.

Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical
isnt.autistics.org...

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

I know a little about mental health issues and more than a little about PTSD.

While it is true that there was pressure placed on the APA to include PTSD as a diagnostic entity, it was not done in the absence of data to support such an inclusion.

Contrary to the implication of the person you cite without any commentary of your own, PTSD was not included purely on the basis of politics...

[edit on 2007/7/13 by GradyPhilpott]

Nothing gets done without being primarily based on politics. In the case of PTSD, politics FINALLY made them do the right thing for a change. Had politics not been required and "human" (H.s.s., neuro-typical) nature was better than it is, we'd all be Aspergian Hss/Hsn hybrids and not even discussing the issue but rather traveling to the outer reaches of the universe or traveling to other universes within the multiverse with technology based on physics we can't even contemplate right now.

The Neanderthal theory by Leif Ekblad 2001-04-24 (often revised)
www.rdos.net...

From Abstract:

...This theory approaches the problem from a new radical viewpoint. Instead of approaching autism as a disorder, brain defect or the result of poor socialization or parenting, it claims that autistics are fully functional.

All the areas that are central to autism are related to species-typical adaptations that vary widely between species. These include nonverbal signals, social organization, sensory acuteness, motor skills, general preferences, sexuality, physical traits and biological adaptations. Some of this diversity in autistics is poorly understood and virtually unresearched and therefore is not published in peer-reviewed journals. Because of this lack of research, Aspie-quiz, an online questionnary, is heavily referenced for these traits.

Recent genetic research have demonstrated that the Out-of-Africa (OoA) model with no interbreeding fails to explain nuclear DNA diversity in Eurasia. Several models of interbreeding that do explain this diversity exists today. It therefore is quite likely that Neanderthals contributed to the Caucasian genome. Aspie-quiz have demonstrated in a large survey in the US population that Afroamericans have only 1/6 of the autism prevalence of Caucasians. The same survey also indicates that Asians and American Indians have about 1/2 of the autism prevalence of Caucasians...

Again, for the full heavily referenced paper:

The Neanderthal theory by Leif Ekblad 2001-04-24 (often revised)
www.rdos.net...

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
I just ran across an article that's posted just today in the World Net Daily online newspaper (link to specific article is in the External Source). Besides the problems facing those with mental disabilities that manifest as emotional problems, there's another added danger involved: A danger not only to the disabled, but to those around them!

More hysteria from reich-wingers?

There is the prevailing view that these drugs improve motivation faster than mood. From my own experience I'd agree. One is supposed to increase doseage gradually for this very reason.

I do find adding "fluoride" compounds to water as suspect though. Reducing tooth decay isn't a good reason, esp. when the compounds are unnatural man-made waste from pollution-control scrubbers of the phosphate fertilizer industry such as sodium fluorosilicate, but that is another matter.

Well, maybe not since I am inclined to believe that some people are most likely more sensitive to certain chemicals than others -- that some "disabilities" are reactions to toxins in the environment such as the above one. Indeed, there is a new "controversial" (most likely as a result of state-chartered bureaucracies wishing to skirt responsibility for as many more decades as possible) syndrome called Multiple Chemical Sensitivities.

corporation - n. a state-chartered bureaucracy, usually, but not always for profit. syn.: socialist government agency, superhuman individual with superhuman "rights" or reiches