This anti psych med bullshit is dangerous. Drugs snapped my brain back to baseline normalcy and away from suicide ideation in a few weeks. I didn’t need to take them for long, but it was a switch that needed to be flipped and I couldn’t do it by myself.
I thought the message of the comic was that we need to change society to better manage our mental health better not that medication was bad. Like we prop up our society on medication to get people to handle it. But I don’t get messages like that clearly so may be wrong.
Yeah I see that, but also maybe it means that the fact you have to be medicated to deal with the system highlights some inherent deficiencies in the system itself?
I don’t always convey my thoughts well, sorry, I meant that too with thinking we should improve society, so we can have better mental wellbeing without pharmaceuticals.
deleted by creator
it’s not explicitly anti med. I’m pretty fundamentally anti med for a few reasons. Primarily just the fact that i believe environmental factors are the most prominent influence on day to day life, i think focusing on those to make yourself more productive, and functional is better than being hamstrung to a bunch of drugs, that might probably work, but they might stop working, or you might not be able to get them, or afford them, or they might have really bad side effects, or health insurance is a bitch, etc…
Interestingly, i’ve seen a lot of rhetoric along these lines (your post included) among people with ADHD, which i understand, but i have to wonder if that’s due to dependence on the meds of some form. Which isn’t exactly the fault of the individual, when paired with society and it’s expectations, it’s almost explicitly what you would expect to see, which is a little weird to me. It gives me vibes i dont quite jive with and im not sure how i feel about it.
So, I struggled massively with ADHD symptoms in my teens and 20s. Despite failing out of school, and struggling in all the classic ways, I was never diagnosed.
My folks “didn’t want the kids on pills” and so despite needing help I was just called lazy and never received any help.
The best way to mitigate the symptoms is with stimulants. I self prescribed caffeine. If I was in a different environment that could have easily been something illegal.
I was never diagnosed and I wish I was, because if I could have focused on classwork in high school, I could have went to college, and I could have started doing work that interests me at the beginning of my 20s instead of the end of my 20s.
You need to examine your shallow attitude about medication. It’s “I don’t like it because other stuff is better”, and a bunch of anxiety around what if what if what if.
What if you deny your child the one tool that actually allows them to reach their potential? You try these “better” options and waste their youth instead of using methods that are proven to be reliable?
You know it’s not too late to still get a diagnosis right? I got mine at 21 or something, but I’ve seen people in their 40s or 50s get their diagnosis and finally get some relief or explanation for their symptoms.
I don’t really need it at this point, it doesn’t interfere with my job and I’m having less problems around it.
My life feels like it’s getting easier and I feel more organised.If I was still procrastinating a ton I absolutely would.
Anyone that feels like they are struggling and don’t know why or how to make it better should talk to their doctor!
My folks “didn’t want the kids on pills” and so despite needing help I was just called lazy and never received any help.
this is realistically a bigger problem though, your parents just didn’t care about your well being very much.
You need to examine your shallow attitude about medication. It’s “I don’t like it because other stuff is better”, and a bunch of anxiety around what if what if what if.
i’ve examined it plenty enough, it’s a personal opinion of mine. I’m not forcing it on others, and im certainly not having kids. You’ll notice a lot of problems with them are as you said, what ifs, that’s true. But i simply don’t trust myself to maintain something like that, or for that matter, trust anybody else to maintain it for me. Doctors can be very helpful, but sometimes they aren’t, or maybe they are but insurance just refuses to cover your meds because they decided that you did one too many instances of illicit substances in your past, or who knows what fucking reasons they have.
If i had a hypothetical child, it would be up to them, i unlike other people, give other people free will. If they believe that medication is going to be beneficial for them, who am i to tell them what to do. Ironically, you seem to be arguing that i should be supporting drugs unquestionably, which is objectively bad. However i’m not holding that against you, i’m just making my point here. There are certain problems, which most consider to be outweighed by the positives, i however, disagree.
I do not make the rules, i just exist in proximity to them. As does everyone else.
I’m not forcing it on others, and im certainly not having kids. …If i had a hypothetical child, it would be up to them
That’s awesome.
supporting drugs unquestionably
Nonono, I’m supporting healthcare unquestionably. There’s science behind best practices, and when it’s drugs or therapy or surgery, best practices should be considered.
I get that science is improved all the time, and things like lobotomies and such are found to be more harmful than good… That harm is the exception, and getting more rare.
Scientists and researchers who make a career of examining these practices should be in charge of creating recommendations for changing these practices. It’s too complicated a field of study to leave choices to legislators, parents and other layman.
Nonono, I’m supporting healthcare unquestionably. There’s science behind best practices, and when it’s drugs or therapy or surgery, best practices should be considered.
i suppose so, but even then we still only think that drugs are helpful. Simply because we have no better solution, and i guess from that aspect it’s true. But then again we also invented heroin as an alternative to morphine. Whoops.
There is certainly a place for drug advocation, but if you are supporting healthcare (or more accurately, medical science) as you say, there is also a place for discussing the potential downsides and negatives to them, without bias. Because otherwise, you cannot have a scientific environment. And you risk doing more damage to people than necessary, or worse slowing down the time of progress. Which is objectively bad.
I mean for example, it’s well established practice and knowledge that not everybody reacts to the same drugs the same way. It’s on an individual level basis. For some individuals, it would follow that the recommendation might be none.
No way, for other disorders therapy is very effective and non invasive.
Discussion is fine, but real prioritization needs to be done by impartial researchers that are considering harm reduction vs effectiveness.
The people that do not respond well to a treatment need to be classified vs people that respond very well.
i mean yeah, therapy is very functional. There are quite a few disorders that can both be treated with meds and therapy, anxiety is a good example.
I’m really just waiting for the medical field to stop classifying everything under a set of rules, because it’s less than ideal and causes problems.
I know this is “just a joke” but I still think it’s harmful. Depression may be brought on by being in a bad situation but it isn’t simply unhappiness or dissatisfaction with being in that situation. Antidepressants don’t make a person artificially happy or numb. If you are clinically depressed because your life sucks, antidepressants may give you the mental fortitude needed to change your circumstances. There are drugs that people do use to try to cope which just make things worse, but you won’t get then from a psychiatrist. (You can get the most popular one at the grocery store.)
It’s not cool to stigmatize mental illness.
It’s not cool to stigmatize mental illness.
This is not at all what my take away from that comic is. I guess it is somewhat open to interpretation, but I think it rather asks what the underlying societal dynamics are that cause people to develop depressions in the first place.
The meme doesn’t stigmatize mental illness because it’s not talking about mental illness.
If anything, pathologizing the predictable and inescapable results of living under oppressive systems designed to keep you as down and alienated as possible as a mental illness, instead of a perfectly valid reaction to living in dystopia deeply and negatively impacts how we treat actual mental illness.
The idea that pointing out that we have societal problems pills can’t solve is somehow stigmatising actual mental illness (which pills can help) just goes to show how deeply indoctrinated society is in to toxic individualism.
This was also my takeaway. The comic isn’t making a value determination for medication in any form, but instead commenting that we as a society would rather address symptoms rather than address any root causes.
I concur
Thank you for saying something. The saying “suffering isn’t noble, just take the damn pills” has been floating around lately, and I think it’s been changing my mind. I should probably be on something.
I worked at a Psych hospital for a while, it’s pretty well accepted that most people could benefit from something sometimes, even if it’s just a Valium or a pot brownie.
Can confirm, took a lot of antidepressants, didn’t make me artificially happy nor numb.
You know what else is not cool? Overreacting and willfully misinterpreting comics just to jerk oneself off.
People who are unhappy with their life tend to medicate. Whether that’s alcohol, weed or antidepressants doesn’t matter that much.
It absolutely matters whether you’re managing your depression with alcohol or antidepressants because one of those two is enormously more dangerous than the other
Especially dangerous together.
Ehh, depends on what you’re taking and why. I like alcohol (in moderation, of course) but when I wasn’t properly medicated for my depression, I’d find my mind wandering to dark places if I had some. Now that I’m doing a bit better thanks to the medicine, and the medicine in question doesn’t have any bad interactions with alcohol, I can actually enjoy a drink again.
“YoU kNoW tHoSe PiLlS aRe BaD fOr YoU!”
Cool. Next best option is me being unable to function and longing for death while my brain craves any type of happiness, forcing me to engage in potentially harmful and unhealthy habits to get any hit of happy chemicals that my brain struggles to make naturally.
I’ll keep taking the pills, thanks.
But the pills are bad for you!
Well, maybe not you specifically, but they are not to be taken willy-nilly. They often have quite severe side effects, withdrawal syndromes, and, in some cases, long lasting or even permanent damage. Second opinion is not optional, given how trigger happy some of the doctors are to just send you home with a prescription for the hardest hitting shit they have available. Take that from someone who had multiple first-hand experiences of all of the above.
I’d say, IF there is an option to alleviate symptoms and find a place in society without meds, it’s definitely a much better option. If not, well, sure, go for it, no third option here. The hardest part is actually figuring out on which side of it you are.
ADHD? I’m postulating a theory as of recent, that people with ADHD, who take meds for ADHD are dependent on them, similar to addiction, but the side effect here is actually being productive, in a shitty society.
I’m not sure the totality of it, or what the general implications are, but it’s an interesting thought. So far, everytime i’ve mentioned this theory to someone with ADHD, i’ve been yelled at, so uh. Surely that’s worth something?
I’m postulating a theory as of recent, that people with ADHD, who take meds for ADHD are dependent on them, similar to addiction
Dependence ≠ addiction.
Diabetics do not have an insulin addiction.
The folks who have scolded you are not doing so baselessly.
When you have chemical deficiencies that affect your brain, people seem much more outspoken about giving their opinion about your affliction. I’ve heard folks saying “don’t do chemo!! These people are just trying to scam you and get your money while killing you!! Maybe you should cut out all that processed food?” Hoo boy. Just… don’t.
Compound that with folks using our already stigmatized & shortage-prone medication for fun, and it gets worse for us.
I love finally being in control of my thoughts and finally feeling normal and able to actually pursue the things I want. But I think the desire to be in control of your functions is… pretty sane. I don’t miss the chaos that was my constantly hopscotching thoughts & unwilling body.
I don’t miss the suffering. I’m addicted to “not suffering”, probably.
Dependence ≠ addiction.
I said similar to addiction, as a means of describing the mechanism underlying it, please try not to lie outright.
Diabetics who take insulin, are not addicted to it, that is true. Much like drinking water because you will literally fucking die otherwise, does not make you addicted.
However, taking meds for something like ADHD, doesn’t outright prevent you from dying, merely functioning better in society. A similar thing can be argued for things like depression, although depression is much more complicated, especially when you get into fields with SZPD and it’s related disorders, where everything stops making any sense, so it’s hard to say there.
I know they haven’t scolded me baselessly, that’s why i preface everything i say very explicitly with “this is just a theory, this is just something im thinking of, i know why people do this, i understand why people are attached to these things” I am very explicitly explaining myself most of time.
When you have chemical deficiencies that affect your brain, people seem much more outspoken about giving their opinion about your affliction. I’ve heard folks saying “don’t do chemo!! These people are just trying to scam you and get your money while killing you!! Maybe you should cut out all that processed food?” Hoo boy. Just… don’t.
yeah, that’s definitely an interesting one, you’ll notice i never said anything explicitly other than my persona opinion though. I never mentioned that you or anybody else was wrong or bad for taking medication, merely that there was something interesting i’ve noticed.
The medication issues are compounded primarily by doctors, and the previous opioid crisis we had. This is a very real effect of people being overly dependent on things like medication, and a very real concern that i have. Whether it’s founded is not trivial to say, but i feel like it’s a very genuine concern.
I love finally being in control of my thoughts and finally feeling normal and able to actually pursue the things I want. But I think the desire to be in control of your functions is… pretty sane. I don’t miss the chaos that was my constantly hopscotching thoughts & unwilling body.
that makes sense, im just worried that there are potentially negative implications to this, notably opioid crisis type beat problems. It seems like a rather dangerous game to be playing IMO, i suppose that’s the reason it’s prescribed, and highly regulated, though im not a massive fan of authority myself. Especially if it determines my functionality on a regular basis.
I don’t miss the suffering. I’m addicted to “not suffering”, probably.
I actually really like the way this is phrased.
I choose you Cannabis!
Cannabis uses THC, it was super effective.
Hurray! Their humon is weak to thc due to genetics and is now permanently confused!
What I really need is a prescription for $$$$$, but it’s a controlled substance and I don’t meet the pre-existing conditions to be prescribed.
Better than nothing, I guess.
Is it? The call of the void sounds better than 40 more years of this shit, if I even make it that far.
Having experienced the pills and the nothing, yes, the medicine is so much better. It’s not even close. They’re not magic happiness pills, and they don’t make you feel good. They just make it a bit easier to manage the worst times. And that makes a huge difference.
Option 1 is something we haven’t been able to figure out since agriculture went mainstream thousands of years ago despite the average person desiring it for the entire period of time. Option 2 helps some people deal with this system the way it is right now when it would be excessively difficult otherwise. Maybe Option 2 won’t be as important once this system collapses, maybe it will become more important. It would be nice if we could eventually figure out Option 1, but Option 2 is helping a lot of people right now. In fact, there are plenty of people who wouldn’t be able to work toward Option 1 without that aid of Option 2 regardless that the cause and solution to the problems addressed by Option 2 are only relevant to this system we live in now.
I think you fell right into the trap of modern capitalist realism claiming that we live in the “best of all possible worlds” despite of how horrible it actually is. You don’t have to go back to pre-agrarian times to find societies which were vastly better to live in. I recommend reading The Dawn of Everything to update your understanding of relatively recent history.
This is interesting to bring up because I’m coming from about as opposite a point of view as I can. Capitalism contains in itself the seeds of its own destruction which is as clear today as it was in the nineteenth century. It inevitably trends toward the centralization of power and the most any government has ever been able to do about that is slow it down or reverse it temporarily. For the last few decades the global nature of capital has made it a supernational force which is above regulation, even determining who is allowed into government at all throughout much of the world. Either Capitalism will end when the winners close the door behind them and some kind of neo-feudalism on a world scale will happen or the infrastructure supporting Capitalism will collapse prior to that point. Capitalist Realism is absurd unless one has been conditioned to assume it as self-evidently the best possible system which can exist and actively dismiss any criticism of any kind of economy at all.
I have not read the referenced book, so I’ll address the general idea I got from the wikipedia summary. It is absolutely true that there have been models for settled society which were vastly superior in terms of average quality of life than anything based on European Feudalism, including Capitalism. There are clear examples from history and existing today (The Zapatista movement is a favorite of mine). The issue is that these cultures don’t exist in a vacuum and can only exist for as long as they don’t have to contend with an amount of violence which threatens to supersede their sovereignty, and collecting the volence to wield themselves undermines the pro-social nature of their own society. The power of global capital has been wielded with impunity for the last few centuries directly undermining many of the pro-social societies. Many of these societies collapsed not because they failed their people but because they failed to defend them. If they had changed fundamentally to repel violence, they would have lost their society in doing so anyway. In 2024 technology and the centralization of wealth to a few places on the planet has made it possible for a few people to run a global empire, and everyone on earth must deal with this reality in some way. Either they conform to it or resist it, but they must deal with it. I don’t like the nature of the system that we live in but as long as it is possible to inflict the will of power using violence and there are people around who are willing to believe that people wielding power like this are legitimate, we will continue to have this problem.
I’m not even arguing that this scale of violence is natural. Like agriculture itself, it developed gradually by complete accident. For most of human history the level of violence one needed to prepare for was vastly different in different parts of the world, allowing for many of these societies to flourish without worry. In 2024 everyone is vulnerable to capital. After capitalism, we could have a socialist system we developed intentionally which hopefully covers all the important variables this time but most likely our intentions will meet with millions to billions of people testing the new system in all kinds of ways the designers could never have predicted. We could also simply have warlordism, as there would still be plenty game theory types feeling obligated to take everything they can get before they get overrun by not growing fast enough from the myriad others thinking exactly the same thing. My preferred end to history is a series of autonomous communities run democratically with no violence whatsoever, but we have a lot of development to do as a species before we can settle into that.
You might not have realized it yourself, but you again failed to truly imagine that a better world than capitalism is possible. In your own words it’s either neo-feudalism or warlords. Imagining that changing this is only possible through evolutionary change of the entire species is transhumanist territory, and I hope I don’t have to lay out the negative implications of that.
I think you should look at the actually defining characteristic of humanity, which is culture and being able to reinvent itself through it. Culture doesn’t need huge species wide developments to happen, but it does need imagination of real possible alternatives.
Thanks for the opportunity for some positive clarifications. Neo-feudalism or warlordism is the inevitable fate of capitalism if nothing is done. I support that something can indeed be done if we are prepared to implement socialist systems. I only mean to say that whatever form these systems take is going to be highly compromised compared to the form they may eventually take with further development, especially considering that defense must be a consideration immediately post-capitalism. When I say “development” regarding people I certainly don’t mean in any way biological or eugenic. I am talking about the building of our collective wisdom which is our true human strength. Optimally, everyone will understand why it’s a bad idea to use violence for selfish ends and for that reason would choose to abstain because what can be yielded through pro-social means will be universally understood as obviously better for all. I think this is something to be taught and learned by all people rather than something we might evolve somehow to believe.
I already think that humans killing humans is unnatural since every I account I’ve read indicates there is a massive mental cost to doing this, the alternative being to depersonalize or dehumanise which is a different cost to mental and social health. I think the main reason violence is happening now at such a scale is because of the momentum of the kind of societies established in Europe whose successors today today can project their violence on a scale never before seen. Without this specific cultural force and knowing that it’s possible for such a cultural force to be built, I think we will have a much better idea as to how to avoid it and why we shouldn’t have things like nobility, race, or allow any disproportionate power anywhere. Hopefully we get rid of the concept of hierarchy altogether and live more naturally. I think all this is possible for humans to do but I can’t be sure of the path or the timeline.
Well, I think you are getting there 😊 But believing that you can educate people into pro-social means is a classic mistake that Marxists and related socialists often make. Culture is not so much about what you are taught but rather the social substrate we find ourselves in, often without realizing the effect it has on us.
Glad we’re on the same page. I’m even using the phrases “taught” and “learned” very generally. We have obviously not yet figured out how to successfully impart these pro-social values universally. Pending the utopian future, I’ll be ok with the early form of a system most of us want to work and are prepared to work on in the absence of hegemons and class distinctions.
'Would you rather be happy or right (mutually exclusive)?"
Right. Just because if you only accept things the way they are then you can’t improve them, or attempt to anyway.
Well being right makes me happy, but being wrong also does, because I get to be right next time.
Yeah I get it. I just meant that it also hits on another level for me.
what if, we entertained the idea. Somebody should make something, like a tank, but on a bulldozer platform, and then do something amusing with it. That might interesting, i think.
I think it is called alcohol for most actually.
I was here at a point. I still struggle but acceptance of Christ has been an indescribably edifying and healing force. There is a way other than prideful hedonism, cynicism and nihilism. Virtue and beauty can scarcely be found in the modern world but both of these things can be found in abundance in Christ. Make no mistake – I and every Christian you’ve ever met fails to live up to the standard set before us but similarly to a recovering alcoholic or drug addict the earnest Christian takes it one day at a time with the sincere hope to arc ever closer to Christ. It is a difficult but beautiful struggle.
I’m not superstitious enough to adhere to the esoteric and religions, but for me I delved into the spirituality side of things.
Meditation and Yoga seem to do the trick for me and probably have similar mental benefits. And bonus, I get in better shape by doing such a nice activity.
Buddha figured this out thousands of years ago: desire and suffering are part of the human existence. It has nothing to do with the nature of society, but the nature of being human. This time isn’t unique, and there is no form of society that would fix this for you.
The fix comes from within yourself. If, of course, you aren’t suffering from some legit chemical imbalance that needs to be corrected by drugs.
