WIlder seems to have lost his freakin’ mind…

Posted by john on 23 September 2007 @ 7am

I don’t understand what’s going on. What’s the backstory here?

Posted by Tim McCormack on 23 September 2007 @ 12pm

Would you say “that’s so gay” Waldo?

Why do you call it lunacy? It may be bizarre, but it has nothing to do with sanity vs. insanity unless you know more than you are saying here.

Posted by Alison Hymes on 23 September 2007 @ 12pm

Alison,

Well, it’s likely not bizarre–I’m pretty sure Doug isn’t sporting any facial hair.

Posted by Kaveh on 23 September 2007 @ 1pm

Lunacy: n. pl. -icies 2a. Great or wild foolishness. 2b. A wildly foolish act.

Either lunacy is a valid word to describe people who behave in a manner that is incredibly foolish or it’s a valid word to describe people who are mentally ill. I do not use the word to describe mental illness, leaving me with the former definition. If you like, I could reverse that preference, but I suspect you’d prefer my current practice.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 23 September 2007 @ 2pm

Many people within the city limits and in the surrounding counties hoped that management of the city would improve under Wilder.

Needless to say, many people have been disappointed by his tenure. It’s been a sad spectacle to see that man become such a laughing stock.

Posted by I.Publius on 23 September 2007 @ 3pm

No, I would prefer you reverse your preference and reserve lunacy and every other word whose first definition is mental illness for actual mental illness or actual craziness or actual nuttiness or actual psychosis or any of the other synonyms out there.

I don’t mean to pick on you, but people using synonyms for mental illness to mean bad behavior or weirdness or stupidity is something I am on a campaign about. People with mental illness are under seige with bad press in this state and around the country, an organized attack by groups like the Treatment Advocacy Center that want to equate mental illness with violence and bad behavior in the public’s mind even more than that stereotype is already there in order to achieve their goal of easier forced treatment in every state.

Posted by Alison Hymes on 23 September 2007 @ 5pm

Alison,

That is an admirable goal, and yet seemingly at odds most of the efforts of the psychiatric community. The continued use of words that came into existence for the express purpose of maligning and denigrating the mentally ill (cf. lunacy–mad crazy by the moon) seems to do your cause a disservice. What about cretin, moron, retard, or technical terms used to describe the mentally ill? Should we use those? What about wacko? Is that an acceptable descriptor of a schizophrenic?

Simply put, I think that the vast majority of professionals and advocates of the mentally ill would prefer that lunatic and moron not be associated with their consumers. But that may just be me.

Posted by Kaveh on 23 September 2007 @ 6pm

BTW–I don’t mean the goal of reserving terms of mental illness for mental illness, and not as a synonym for bad behavior, is at odds with the community. Again, I think that’s great. I just think that reserving terms like lunatic for that community is a disservice.

Posted by Kaveh on 23 September 2007 @ 6pm

I really can’t speculate as to Mayor Wilder’s mental state. But I can say that his actions are crazy. I could try out all sorts of convoluted euphemisms (“these actions of his are wildly inconsistent with logical thinking,” “his behavior is highly unusual for an elected official,” “what he’s doing makes no sense,” etc.), but really we have a series of perfectly good words to describe when somebody behaves in this manner. One of those is “lunacy.” Others include “crazy” and “nuts.”

Labeling somebody with a mental illness as “nuts” is, at best, insensitive, and that’s something you’d be right to take umbrage at. But labeling somebody’s totally illogical and wildly self-destructive behavior as “nuts” is totally reasonable within the confines of both reasonable discourse and the English language as it is generally practiced.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 23 September 2007 @ 6pm

Most people living with a mental illness or who have been given a psychiatric label will not take umbrage at being called crazy when they are in a crazy state. “mentally ill” is no step up from lunatic or crazy of any of the rest. People who are advocates “for” rather than advocates “of” people with psychiatric labels will spend a lot of time telling you which is the correct word to use and how using the correct word will make “stigma”, by which they mean what is ordinarily called prejudice but they had to come up with a special stigmatizing word for prejudice against people with psychiatric labels, go away. That is nonsense. It doesn’t matter which word you use for mental illness or psychiatric episodes as long as the connotation is bad behavior, crime, stupidity, bad character, etc. Just as some gays and lesbians have reclaimed “queer”, some psychiatric survivors have reclaimed mad and crazy for their own use and really don’t see a difference between being called mentally ill, crazy, mad or a lunatic. Because there is no difference as long as they all mean “bad and stupid”.

The English language as generally practiced in America and elsewhere reflects the basic and enduring prejudice that says that mental illness and bad or stupid behavior are synonyms.

Posted by Alison Hymes on 23 September 2007 @ 8pm

Mayor Wilder is daft, kooky, loony, crazy, idiotic, whacked, loony, and just plain nuts.

Oh, and his bad behavior reflects a man seemingly unhinged and borderline deranged.

Now… whether he is actually mentally ill is, as they say, a whole ‘nother matter. But as Forrest Gump would tell you — stupid is as stupid does.

Posted by I.Publius on 23 September 2007 @ 9pm

If I were to live long enough to make a change in attitudes towards people with psychiatric labels, I would never die.

Posted by Alison Hymes on 23 September 2007 @ 10pm

I refuse to believe that there has been any effort by even the smallest subset of the mentally ill community to reclaim the term lunatic. Best of luck in your quest to reappropriate the English language.

Posted by Kaveh on 23 September 2007 @ 10pm

Back on topic–why did Wilder want them out of city hall?

Posted by Kaveh on 23 September 2007 @ 10pm

The Richmond Times online has probably more than any non-Richmonder will ever want to know about all this:

http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/home.html

The “Reader Reaction” link shows that a lot of folk side with Wilder in his conflict with the school system.

Posted by David Sewell on 23 September 2007 @ 10pm

Kaveh, believe what you want to believe. Do you also have opinions about other minority groups of which you are not a member and tell members of those groups they are wrong about their own group? Or do you save that for my minority group?

Posted by Alison Hymes on 24 September 2007 @ 12am

Sorry Allison, but whatever word you decide to use to refer to crazy people will quickly take on a negative, insulting cast. Like we used to call retarded people ‘retarded’ but then ‘retarded’ made people sound retarded so everyone switched to saying things like ’special.’

‘Stevie is a very special young man.’

So now ’special’ means ‘retarded’ and if I were to suggest that someone was very ’special’ with the right tone in my voice it would be just the same thing as calling them ‘retarded.’ You can’t win. Being crazy or retarded or mentally ill in some way that involves acting out in some dramatic way will always be looked down upon.

Anyhoo, Doug Wilder might very well be getting a little bit special as he gets older. This is not rational behavior. Whether these actions result from simple bad judgment or from a bona fide medical condition of specialness, I don’t think it’s out of line for Richmond to start looking into what would be involved in impeaching a mayor.

I’ve been a supporter of Wilder in the past and I thought it was really great when he decided to run for mayor. Frankly, the whole thing has turned out to be an embarrassment and it’s a shame that he’s ruining his legacy like this.

Posted by Jack on 24 September 2007 @ 10am

Jack, that’s my point exactly. This is why I don’t mind words like crazy or lunacy being used to describe actual mental illness but do mind them being used to describe bad behavior or stupidity, because most of the time, most people with mental illness are not acting badly nor bizarrely nor stupidly.

Posted by Alison Hymes on 24 September 2007 @ 12pm

Alison,

You are absolutely right–most or the time, people with mental illness are not acting badly nor stupidly. The term lunatic refers to people who act badly or stupidly, a manifestation of perceived mental illness, regardless of whether such mental illness actually exists. It is not, not has it ever been, a term exclusively used to accurately describe someone with a diagnosed mental condition. You want to reclaim technical terms used to describe mental illness or disability, like moron or cretin, fine. I’d agree that insane should not be thrown about casually. But lunatic, wacko, and nutjob? The majority of “psychiatric sufferers” I know or have worked with want nothing to do with those labels.

And again, please refrain from using the term bizarre to describe behavior that does not conform to logic or normative standard. My bearded friends want to reclaim that word.

Posted by Kaveh on 24 September 2007 @ 1pm

STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me ‘Loretta’.
REG: What?!
LORETTA: It’s my right as a man.
JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA: I want to have babies.
REG: You want to have babies?!
LORETTA: It’s every man’s right to have babies if he wants them.
REG: But… you can’t have babies.
LORETTA: Don’t you oppress me.
REG: I’m not oppressing you, Stan. You haven’t got a womb! Where’s the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
LORETTA: [crying]
JUDITH: Here! I– I’ve got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can’t actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody’s fault, not even the Romans’, but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 24 September 2007 @ 2pm

Biscuits, meet the kittens in the oven.

Posted by Mark Brooks on 24 September 2007 @ 2pm

REG: What’s the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can’t have babies?
FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG: It’s symbolic of his struggle against reality.

And Waldo wins.

Posted by Kaveh on 24 September 2007 @ 2pm

Er, well, I left that bit off for a reason. :) I like Alison, and I appreciate her viewpoint, I just don’t happen to share it.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 24 September 2007 @ 8pm

Okay, I don’t get the bizarre thing. Is there somewhere I can look it up? And thanks Waldo, we can agree to disagree. I like you too. But I don’t know where that skit is from. I am so old. And I don’t mind saying so.

I would add, if nobody struggles against the current reality, the current reality is all we got. Everybody happy with that? :)

Posted by Alison Hymes on 24 September 2007 @ 10pm

Okay, I don’t get the bizarre thing. Is there somewhere I can look it up?

The word “bizarre” is from the Basque “bizar,” meaning “beard.” Strictly speaking, nobody should be called “bizarre” unless they have a beard. But, of course, language changes. :)

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 24 September 2007 @ 10pm

Thanks Waldo. Language changes? Oh my goodness, somebody should have told my father that…..

hint: first name Dell.

Posted by Alison Hymes on 24 September 2007 @ 10pm

Well, I didn’t really mean to direct that quote at Alison. At least, not really. :-)

‘Tis a noble goal, and one that I applaud Alison for wholeheartedly. Really. Like Waldo, I may not agree with all aspects, but seeking respect and dignity for the mentally ill can never be wrong.

And the skit from Life of Brian (a Monty Python movie).

“I would add, if nobody struggles against the current reality, the current reality is all we got.” — very well put

Posted by Kaveh on 24 September 2007 @ 10pm