you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 16 points 1 month ago (15 children)

I have no idea who this person is, but I'm pretty sure they should be in charge of things...

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 month ago* (14 children)

    I don't know where you live, but in the US, we've already got someone in charge who is constantly bitter, angry, and posting unhinged rants on the Internet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (12 children)

    What's actually true does matter. A bitter angry unhinged man is getting a lot of unhinged to happen. OP isn't unhinged.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (11 children)

    OP isn’t unhinged.

    The OP's enraged because their psychiatrist wants them to go on meds because they're so ridiculously angry. If I were the manager of a Dunkin Donuts, I'd seriously be concerned about workplace violence if I hired them. There's a lot of red flags going up here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (10 children)

    If they were running for office, I'd hire them in a heartbeat. In context it's not crazy at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    It is crazy. If you're a member of a church, you don't replace Joseph Di Mambro with Jim Jones. You try to find someone like Pope Leo or something.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    But what's true does matter. Dunkin Donuts and the church are already successful, and they don't really matter. Our public health system is not successful and it does really matter. If OP were upset about church membership, then yes they 100% would be crazy. "If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a bike."

    MAGA elected an angry guy because they wanted change. That doesn't mean that change is bad, it means that society should change in a way that's good. We should've elected Howard Dean when he dared show emotion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (7 children)

    You're right, Dunkin Donuts doesn't matter. That was my point. If I can't trust someone to man the checkout counter without punching the customers, I can't trust them to run a global superpower with nukes.

    We're not going to improve our health system by putting someone in charge who refuses to take their meds and wants to yank pathological rage out of the DSM-5-TR.

    Anger is bad. You can't think straight if you're angry and emotionally unstable. You're going to make bad decisions. You're not going to fix anything in that state. You're going to make more of a mess.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    You're begging the question that OP is going to randomly punch people and has pathological rage, not justified anger as they described. It's OK to be angry about something that can and ought to change.

    We trust people to do specific things, not a general trust percentage for all tasks. We aren't suggesting someone who's angry at the system to be your brain surgeon, because then it serves no constructive purpose. Meanwhile an unempathic brain surgeon might not be the best to hold office.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (5 children)

    The OP is saying that their doctor is telling them that there is something chemically wrong with them. It's not me assuming they have pathological rage, it's their doctor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Having something ""chemically wrong"" with you doesn't mean you have pathological rage, yes that is your assumption. You're literally missing the entire point of the post.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

    I'm making that assumption because, according to the OP's own words, a psychiatrist diagnosed them with a mental illness because of the abnormal level of their anger.

    I'm not missing the point of the post. The post wants to re-define illness. Like if I say we need to talk about the pathologizaton of Covid because my doctor said I'm sick because I have Covid, but I deny being sick because my fever, chills , coughing, difficulty breathing, sore throat, and runny nose are completely justified because I have Covid, so I am not sick.

    The OP and everyone else here is missing the point of what the doctor is trying to say.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    Like if say

    No. What is true

    does

    matter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    Are you having a stroke? Should I send I send help? You're reply doesn't make any sense. You keep repeating that and it has no connection to what I am saying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment