madinamerica.news

Last edited: 2025/06/25

A topic I'd like to address here is the ad hominem fallacy, where instead of providing a reasonable refute of someone's contention there's an objective to discredit the person. There is two ways to consider that where there could be reason to challenge the person's motives, even if they have some valid point, since if given the opportunity the person would use the attention to be malicious in some way.

First off though, I'd like to bring up the motivation for this website, specifically the domain name, it is in fact a take on the madinamerica.com website and a direct response of mine to an unethical direct attack on me in comments on a Meta (Facebook) post the organization published. Oh yep, pity party time & all that ... poor me. Here I am being inconvenienced with having to defend my reputation on a post my own family might see but it was necessary since this young know-it-all (new in human services field, it seems) had the audacity to associate "offenders" with people in the demographic of mental health care recipients ... & yes, I'm very aware of the (paradoxical?) irony ... since there is an association. She commented that she had clients who were offenders and the mental health system worked well for them, including helping with independent living & all (was what she clearly implied) but their victims get locked up in institutions & medicated for life (which can happen). The association already exists where the latter will get stigmatized as being part of the former demographic. Anytime there is local zoning hearing for a new residential housing facility for people who are recipients of mental health care there are an overwhelming majority of social media comments (and likewise there are many at the actual meetings, I presume) that are full of hyperbole, and stigma ... and reality is that people in the demographic of "mentally ill" are sometimes noticeably different, they will ususally take public transportation to go anywhere (or the facility may have transportation for community outings) so having the territorial battle over parking spaces is what average suburban home owners live for since they just might be able to shoot someone.

The young lady deleted her original comment and commented the following. She tags it with the "metoo" like I'm some kind of monster defending other monsters and silencing friends of mine. In her (replacement) comment she makes the unsubstantiated claim that none of her offenders have ever been abused in any way themselves ... yea, I changed the statement but if "most weren't victims themselves" then she is admitting that some were so how can somebody know which were & which weren't (since that is the criteria for purposes here)? Her position is that for cautionary reasons we need to just label them all as guilty ... & there might be many who agree, but there is also the tenet of "presumed innocence", but not if this bitch can help it, is her posit. It ain't her who needs worry about being stigmatized and attacked by vigilantes ... she wants to read & watch the associated videos so she can enjoy the "schadenfreude"!

Andrea O'Brien
Erfahren Reyndur There is never an excuse to assault another human being. Contrary to popular belief most have not been abused themselves and most victims do not turn into abusers. I am sad that victims are still being silenced even after the #metoo movement.

(my reply)
Erfahren Reyndur
I have a friend who was assaulted by a step-father and she forgave him & he's the father of her two sisters, Andrea O'Brien, so it's really not up to anyone else as to whether he's forced into hell or not ... but you with God complex & you posit being the one to judge ... "Contrary to popular belief ..." how in God's unholy damned name did you come up with that statistic? "Contrary to popular belief there are people half my age who think they're in position to educate me. Some of my oldest women friends were victims of rape... YOU ACCUSE ME OF SILENCING WHO NOW? I was sexually assaulted by an orderly in a hospital ... I was walking past him heading out the door of room and he blocked me and pushed his groin against my leg & I pulled away & he says "oh, you didn't like that huh?" and he pushed up against me again & I went bezerk so they had their justification to four point me over the weekend. You're wanting to shame me & humiliate me since I explained that it wasn't right to stigmatize people ... you must be new but people out in the world already combine the two & you want to make me a scapegoat & you work in the field & this community is for people like me ... but now you culturally appropriate ...

The other clarification I could briefly make here is that the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, or argument from authority (also known as ad verecundiam, or ipso dixit), can be misinterpreted where the contention is that it could be a valid way to support an argument in some cases. ← There is a difference between hegemonic hubris and authority that needs to be considered since true authority isn't questioned as being such by anyone. (I think the argument that the phrase may not denote legit fallacy is an example of "begging the question", often misused phrase, but where it's assumed that "authority" is something that can be immediately confirmed. If a debate exists on whether a psych med is effective or not, and the "authority" given is a medical doctor, psychiatrist, who works with patients taking a medicine and the doctor insists that it's effective & it's just like a diabetic who needs insulin, then that comparison leans toward sensationalism. The authority for the evidence of effectiveness of medicine for diabetic person is established, undenied science in form of blood tests, etc., but in regards to the psychiatric patient it first needs defined what is meant by "effectiveness" since it's subjective. There's a billionaire who wants to colonize a different planet in our solar system and yet human beings have yet to build long term deep underwater habitations even though the technology to do so currently exists. That's a sociology question though, and everybody knows the evils of socialism (type thing). The man openly talks about that idea & people of means & opportunity listen & anybody who insists that it's complete waste of time to even consider such a quest is labeled ... what? "mentally ill" ... sure, why not. Let's just stick with that (b.s.)!

An authority isn't necessarily just more powerful but the best example that I can present is in instances where the actual authority may be a written contract (or some other legal document) but since it can be refuted as being applicable or pertinent to the subject, it's ignored. In the real world an example would be the Housing Assistance Payments contract that landlords agree to when they accept a person on Department of Housing rent assistance program(s). Leases are actually agreements but the HAP contract provides protection† for recipients since they're vulnerable, disadvantaged, and sometimes disabled people who go through a screening/intake process (which often includes relatable education) to begin receiving the benefits.
†It's because of Contra proferentem (Latin: "against [the] offeror"), also known as "interpretation against the draftsman" where the loophole in lease agreements is that protection for the signer wouldn't be applicable.

I will also mention here in this introduction that I've noticed that there's what could be considered controversial, and even deviant, topics brought up in social media in the popular psychology community (for lack of better description) which, although by the very nature of the main subject of mental health the opinions given are counterproductive. I'm not the only one who has taken issue with some of the articles that were published under the guise of psychology (which is supposed to be ethical science) because, although presented as mature, innocent discussion of alternate lifestyles, there's also similar circumstances that were described where the result was violence. There is also articles where mental illness is discussed and many would insist that would stand to reason since the main topic is popular psychology but in reality the term is disparaging and always has been. It's really associated with an ideology that there are inferior people who need medication in order to interact normally in society, but of course it's the very same society where a popular magazine supposedly about mental hygiene freely discusses "cuckolding" (although I'll have to find that article).

Also I will bring up here some influential figures for me, Megan Rice & her fellow activists (both military veterans), Michael R. Walli and Gregory I. Boertje-Obed, who, although didn't really seem to accomplish much, brought international attention to the fact that there were U.S. citizens who were aware of the issue and didn't agree. My point is that a main objective of sociology is awareness. Not everyone in my country are hedonistic, sadistic gaslighters (basically). Some of U.S. are still trying to set a reasonable, humanistic, example here.

Although there is the well established stereotype of people who were victims of violent abuse as children (by parents or other adults) are always cool, anti-conformists, & maybe anti-social who enjoy what regular people would consider as raunchy & crude as far as their speech, mannerisms, etc., there are people who don't (always) adhere to that cultural trope. There are lots of people in the demographic of survivors of abuse, labeled as "mentally ill", who are rather prude & introverted by society standards.

This is somewhat of a placeholder page, it's a copy of my holypsych.org for now. I will be updating this page soon. I plan on providing commentary on current social media & other published articles relating to fields of psychology (& sociology, psychiatry, etc.), but not only to critique, I can provide commentary on a few current social issues in news media here too.
... here's some of my standard content.

In an attempt to establish credibility for referring to myself as a "social scientist" I figured that I'd offer an introduction. Oh, you thought that I'd try to use the word "sociologist", didn't you! - oh, haha - so I'd get the "evils of socialism" rant and I'd then stand accused of being a communist ... of course I'm not, but it'd put me on the defensive ... it's like fighting your way out of a paper bag, but what's so hard about that? The question is how you got into the paper bag in the first place; by being cordial & accommodating & harmonious, but of course that reveals a fear of rejection, banishment. Reveal a weakness or vulnerability then sadistic people will have a way to exploit & extort, and have a source of entertainment. (See: Kafkatrapping.)

I am an autodidact and have some relatable formal education, but also I have been informally, but specifically & purposefully, educated in regards to the application of the guarantee of equal protection of law that the U.S. Constitution Fourteenth Amendment (is meant to) provide.

Here's an introduction to my take on sociology (a rough outline)

(To exert control over others ⇾ oppression ⇾ benefaction ⇾ oppression ⇾ benefaction ⇾ isolation ⇾ dependency ⇾ subjugation)

• Humans' needs: subsistence, clothing, shelter (⇽ and physical safety is implied therein with the latter).
• Anyone or entity that has control of access to those needs can subjugate another ⇾ render them subservient.
• With a group the oppressor can provide freely to one and restrict or deny another, which creates strife (safety becomes arbitrary).
• A way to manipulate a person's feelings of acceptance is to be dismissive of their accomplishments (as mundane, ordinary, etc.) but validate trivial feats or validate accomplishments in a misinterpreted &/or embellished fashion. (Patronize and placate.) The point will be to put a person on defensive and discombobulate them which effectively suppresses their free speech. A person can be coerced into compromising values/principles and then that action can be publicized by the group to be used to discredit (ad hominem) the person to erode their feelings of acceptance. The person's reason for feeling unaccepted then can be deliberately misinterpreted and misconstrued. (At this point the group can introduce an idea of a new action for the person to undertake to be accepted by the group.)
• A lackey may supplicant the oppressor for relief, sympathize with & abet the oppressor ... etc. (⇾ brainwash, cults, etc.) ... Here it is described as "Tertiary oppression" (pg. 3 of PDF under subheading: "Types of Oppression")
• Oh! & of course the ol' tried & true collective punishment (or threat of, to intimidate) can be used by the oppressor (or lackey†). (†In my missionrock.net situation I had tried to convince my assigned VA housing case manager that he could help by getting a HUD re-inspection for my unit to pressure the mngr into repairing the opener for the handicap accessibility door & he said "I have twenty-five other vets in there that would have to move if it fails inspection." ... I'm serious! The man actually said that. He wasn't a vet, though, so his point was to concede to culture. Don't make waves, type thing.)
• Traditional activity of "hazing", and similar behaviors are indicative of reinforcement of oppressive hierarchy (as I'll describe it here) but simply it's a way to induce conformity & loyalty to the group. A desire for acceptance, approval, and inclusion of the group for sense of safety is what's exploited.
• The concept of the "law of triviality" is also pertinent now in regards to online discussions where there can be a point of attrition to undermine a person's positivity about a subject, avocation, social cause, etc. with an onslaught of badgering & rendering a minor issue as unresolvable to impede progress toward completion of a goal. Of course if there is success in the behavior then the original idea/goal can be culturally appropriated (or stolen) but often would be corrupted, deprived of any original ethical motivation. (I'm careful to not attempt to paraphrase an opponents position in a more simple phrasing since it could be removed from the context I presented it in and attributed to me as outright saying it instead. ← There's topics in online discussions where that becomes immensely important!)
• There is also the effect of language used in communication. An oppressive person or entity can make a point to not use profanity at all in order to exert a superiority affectation. Someone can be derisive, belittling, patronizing, etc. by not necessarily vulgar words. Although a person "shouldn't let someone get to them" there is the underlying intention to hurt feelings & that's hurtful since there is a malicious purpose. There is implication that the receiver deserves to be berated. Sound does affect humans on a physical level too by the way our hearing works, is the point.
• The same could be said of human vision too since humans process colors from our retina (cone cells) that we use for color perception. We have trichromatic color vision, with significant response to red, green and blue light stimuli. So there is unavoidable mental process we all experience regarding what we see that is based on light waves that penetrate our eyes.

Other current relevant behavioral/mental health advocacy information

• War Neuroses : Netley Hospital, 1917 - Dr. Arthur Hurst
• Dr Jay Joseph's work for information regarding theories of genetic (biological) causation of emotional/behavioral disorders
• The long-term costs of traumatic stress: intertwined physical and psychological consequences | PubMed Central
• There Are No Rules About Psychiatric Diagnosis - And That Must End! Paula J. Caplan, NARPA 9/4/14
• Dr. Pat Bracken - Irish psychiatrist & philosopher: Post-Psychiatry, PTSD & Community Development | madnessradio.net | first aired: 05-09-2007
• Dr. Lucy Johnstone's article on the Power Threat Meaning Framework conceptual system incorporating social, psychological, and biological factors as an alternative to functional psychiatric diagnosis.

Brief list of popular related sociology studies & experiments

• Asch conformity experiments (a favorite of mine & not often referenced)
• Milgram experiment
• Stanford Prison Experiment (I've seen someone denying it ever took place & that's cruel!)
• The Third Wave high school history class experiment
• Rosenhan experiment pseudopatients feign psychosis to study validity of psych diagnoses

other sites of mine:

(Links open in new tab or window.)

• banect.info | advocating for banishment of ECT & presenting argument of providers' coercion tactics
• about a fatal apt fire and numerous violations by a property management corporation. (I had a man admit to the "long term investment" aspect.)
• Article & my commentary of a current & controversial subject | offscour.net
• realnextdoor.org an advocacy webpage regarding local laws & ordinances that protect renters
• missionrock.net video evidence of a property management company's ongoing ADA violation (old but informative)
• johnlaratta.net | Website about my 2015 civil court case where a real estate broker perjured himself
• local man who promotes labeling & scapegoating the "mentally ill"
• presentation of a Nextdoor post digressing to discussing violence but it was about lost elderly with tardive dyskinesia in May 2022
• freequaker.org - My website presenting some of my family genealogy work
• a 3 mins 18 secs audio clip of my testimony at my state's Senate Committee Session Hearing regarding an Extreme Risk Protection Order bill
• workbook.website | collection of older presentations
• thetan.news
• non-misogynistic men's rights & logistics advocacy .:. cameltoe.news
• Sociology presentation about a local political candidate who posts inappropriate comments & images .:. northglenn.news
• & my X (formally Twitter <eyeroll>)

Class conflict is another concept which upsets the oppressors, since they do not wish to consider themselves an oppressive class. Unable to deny, try as they may, the existence of social classes, they preach the need for understanding and harmony between those who buy and those who are obliged to sell their labor. However, the unconcealable antagonism which exists between the two classes makes this "harmony" impossible. ~ Paulo Freire