this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024
111 points (94.4% liked)
And Finally...
1072 readers
186 users here now
A place for odd or quirky world news stories.
Elsewhere in the Fediverse:
- !weirdnews@real.lemmy.fan
- !offbeat@lemmy.ca
- !nottheonion@lemmy.world
- !nottheonion@lemmy.ml
- !nottheonion@zerobytes.monster
- !aiop@lemmy.world
- !jingszo@lemmy.world
- !forteana@feddit.uk
- !strangetimes@lemmy.world
- !goodnews@feddit.uk
- !upliftingnews@lemmy.world
Rules:
- Be excellent to each other
- The Internet will resurface old "And finally..." material. Just mark it [VINTAGE]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Do you not see any problem with allowing the media to make up mental illnesses? What's next, protesting? Voting for another party? Refusing to worship the right god, the right way?
If someone is habitually neglecting their health that's already a recognized mental disorder. Ascribing that to the subject of their fixation when there is no evidence that the subject caused that is, at best, irresponsible, and at worst pushing a religious or political agenda.
You misunderstand, the definition of a mental illness is a significant impediment to normal and healthy behaviour. It's not defined by the media.
Take for example, anxiety. It may or may not cause mental illness, depending on whether the anxiety is clinically significant.
Everyone gets anxious at times, but excessive anxiety is detrimental, and therefore, a mental illness.
Oh no I perfectly understand that. In various comments around this article I've said that the people with mental illnesses that compel them to overuse anything are valid and should be helped.
But throwing around the word "porn addiction" as the article is doing is irresponsible and misleading.
And it's possible I missed this, but I haven't found any evidence that any members of this tribe have been diagnosed by any medical professionals with any sort of mental illness. It's just a 73 year old complaining about the world around him changing. And even then, none of his actual quotes from the original NY times interview mention pornography addiction- that seems to have been entirely added by the editors of the various new outlets that have picked this story up. They are trying to sensationalize this story and rile up evangelicals.
Ah okay, I see what you're saying now.
I was less interested in the context and more on the clinical criteria.