When Philosophers Go Bad

I've probably paid less attention than I should have to the matter of Matthew Harris, the apparently schizophrenic former UCLA philosophy lecturer whose threats shut down the school for a day a couple of weeks ago. Still, I just came across the FBI agent's affidavit accompanying the criminal complaint against him, and there is quite some stuff there; one of Harris's emails in particular struck me:

u stupid caucasoids n kikes teach ACTUAL NAZIS LIKE HEIDEGGER AND KANT
AND CARNAP (FUCK UCLA)
ALL OF THOSE FUCKING PIECES OF SHIT WHEN THIS NIGGER SAYS HIS OWN PHILOSOPHY
FUCKING GET SHOT THE FUCK UP U CAUCASOID-KIKE FAGGOTS …

Yow.

Comments

[DaivdBehar]

Was he referring to the lawyer profession in that email?

[DaivdBehar]

What the lawyer denier, Volokh, is not saying, is that this situation is 100% the fault of the lawyer profession. The dumbass Supreme Court decided to take over psychiatry in 1976. The sick fucks imposed a lawyer rent seeking scheme on the nation and caused massive damage as a result. Prior to 1976, 2 physicians could certify this unfortunate person needed care as a medical necessity. The chance of abuse in that arrangement was nil. He could then get involuntary outpatient treatment and get restored to high function.

After a 1975 decision, he would have to have done something physically dangerous. Then a hearing would be held to employ 3 lawyers, one to prosecute, one to defend, and a know nothing asshole to decide. No busy doctor wants to do that. It is part of psychosis to deny illness, and to refuse treatment, to be sincerely puzzled why everyone wants treatment for the person.

Result? Massive numbers of psychotic people are untreated. Result? 10% of murders are committed by psychotic people for not apparent reason. There are 800000 murders around the world. That is 80000 victims of the lawyer profession a year. Those include the majority of rampage killings. If you liked your kindergarten students killed by a psychotic person, thank the Supreme Court, and the rent seeking profession. His mother could not force him into treatment for a year prior to that rampage.

Hey, Eugene, stop denying the utter failure of your toxic profession.

[QuantumBoxCat]

Alright, who the hell gave Professor Harris access to the Internet?!?

[DaivdBehar]

Mock if you want. I pray, you do not get shoved onto a subway track by a lawyer loosed psychotic.

[DaivdBehar]

This mocking Volokh post is ironic. Volokh believes in mind reading, in forecasting, and that standards of conduct should be set by a fictitious character with the fearful personality of Mickey Mouse. The Rules of Evidence, of Civil and of Criminal Procedures, of Conduct are riddled with psychotic, fake ideas. Sovereign immunity is justified by the sovereign's speaking with the Voice of God.

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo. Ding. The entire lawyer hierarchy, including endowed Chairs, is psychotic and committable.

[DaivdBehar]

Then Volokh is imposing these psychotic ideas to intelligent, ethical young people by the hundreds. This sick fuck should not be mocking the mental illness of anyone.

[DaivdBehar]

Hey, Volokh, you want nuts? Try the Harvard administration.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lifestyle-buzz/why-this-week-s-open-letter-battle-at-harvard-turned-into-such-a-spectacular-mess/ar-AATK8E3?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

[Don Nico]

"Result? Massive numbers of psychotic people are untreated. "
Yes because the number of beds in psychiatric hospitals has diminished fro half a million in 1955 to 55 K today.
Mental illness carries a huge stigma right down there with felons. SO what did you expect;
Your posts today make you sound like pat of the problem not part of the solution.

[DaivdBehar]

Harris and most people like him can be treated at home, with IM depot medication, once a month. Hospital beds add no value to treatment whatsoever. They were more big government, rent seeking scams.

[DaivdBehar]

Don. Just read the conclusion. Takes a minute. There are hundreds like it, from the 1970's on.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5427126/

[Don Nico]

Daivd,
You obviously know squat about this topic from real life experience. Care to enlighten us. Otherwise stop beclowning yourself..

[DaivdBehar]

Feel free to argue with the data.

[Don Nico]

Of course, you have no answer, just as I expected.
All you could do is whine saying "do my homework for me."

[Don Nico]

Behar,
Answer a simple question directly.
How much personal experience do you have in treating a paranoid schizophrenic on a daily (or nearly daily) basis.
Don't sidestep

[David Nieporent]

If there's one thing we can all agree that Behar is an expert on, it's psychosis.

[Rip Murdock]

Example No. 1 .......

[Titus PUllo]

Coke is a great drug

[Stephen Lathrop]

The point of detailing the ravings of an alleged psychotic is what exactly?

[darkknight9]

We promised your doctors we'd keep an eye on you for any changes in behavior.

[Don Nico]

SL,
If you ever had to deal with a paranoid schizophrenic over an extended period of time you might understand.
Not all reflections are political. And some realizations are painful needing sharing with others.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico, once again you ought to slow down. And maybe stop targeting me too. You have no idea what experience I may or may not have with paranoid schizophrenia.

[DaivdBehar]

Steve, aren't you a lawyer? You make your living off psychotic delusions. Minds cannot be read. The future, especially of human behavior, cannot be foreseen. Then, standards of conduct should not be set by a fictitious character. The sovereign does not speak with the Voice of God, as you claim. He speaks with the voice of mob boss greed. You are as psychotic as the professor, but you make a good living off your delusions.

[Don Nico]

Behar,
SL never claimed to be a lawyer. At least not that I ever recall.

[Don Nico]

Well, you did not make any useful comment about the topic just an expression of bewilderment. However, if you have experience it would be good to hear it in contrast to Behar.

[Don Nico]

By the way I was not trying to target you today.
I was hoping for some useful comments on a topic that should be a disgrace to the government of the state of California rather than Behar's extreme raving.

[Kazinski]

Obviously the point was stylystic: going to all caps distracted from the actual content of the message.

Or maybe it's because EV teaches at UCLA and having another lecturer there go completely off the rails hits close to home.

[AtR]

I agree ... I wonder about the prudence of publicly embarrassing a person who may be going through a psychotic episode.

[Don Nico]

If the campus was shut, the person has had far more embarrassment than a post here.

[QuantumBoxCat]

Another Leftist university tramples academic freedom and cancels an instructor because of his unorthodox speech.

I'm sure Keith Whittington and FIRE will be all over this to vindicate the rights of the instructor.

[DaivdBehar]

Add an ADAAA claim to the ones for the First Amendment.

[MatthewSlyfield]

ADAAA?

[DaivdBehar]

Yes, it included mental conditions as protected disabilities.

https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/americans-disabilities-act-amendments-act-2008

[Don Nico]

QBC,
Your empathy circuits are shut off

[TwelveInchPianist]

Sure, you clingers support ideologically motivated censorship of people like this guy and Kirkland, but you give a pass to conservative controlled schools like Liberty University.

[Voize of Reazon]

I don't find this man's illness entertaining.

[Brett Bellmore]

Neither do I. I really feel for people with mental health problems. If you've got your mind working properly, you can surmount or endure almost any physical problem, but if the problem IS your mind, you're really just screwed.

[bernard11]

Nor I.

[DaivdBehar]

The organ of decision making is not working. So instead of meddical necessity or caring by loved ones, the lawyer has taken over a subject he knows nothing about, to make a few bucks. Thousands die as a result, including the child murder victims of almost all rampage killers. You lawyers are pire evil.

[Craig Johnston]

I don’t think it is offered for our amusement; I think it was meant to be informative. I found it informative. I hope he recovers.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't know, that was the impression I got.

But I wonder; They say "In vino veritas".

"In insania veritas"? Sure, he's nuts, and that's sad, but did going nuts cause him to violently hate, or did it just remove his filter and turn what was already there up a couple of notches?

[SimonP]

Take a second look at the title Eugene chose.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Sure, but "When Philosophers Go Bad' is better than 'Another Chance To Publish A Vile Racial Slur With Plausible Deniability.'

[bernard11]

I did not find it informative.

What did you learn?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You are not this blog's target audience.

I blame your education, character, and lack of disaffectedness.

[Don Nico]

It was not meant to be entertaining.
Think again on a more human level.

[Eugene Volokh]

I generally don't find people who threaten to kill lots of other people entertaining -- especially when they threaten to kill lots of people at the very institution where I work. (To be fair, my odds wouldn't have been that bad had he shown up and started shooting, but it's still sobering that this could have happened just one building away from my law school.) I don't think Harris' illness is amusing; I do think it's noteworthy, at least to me, in a macabre way.

[Voize of Reazon]

Victorian freak shows were billed as educational, and there were real reasons to study the afflictions of their inmates, but that's not why they were popular. They did at least have the virtue of providing for people who otherwise would have had a hard time getting by - Elephant Man Joseph ("John") Merrick volunteered to be put on display because it was better than life in a workhouse.
There is much to be concerned about with Harris, especially for someone near the crosshairs like yourself. Were the warning signs, which apparently go back at least as far as early last year, appropriately handled? Does his history of violent threats without action mean the danger was less? He tried to buy a Smith & Wesson .38 in November in Colorado, and was denied because of a three-year restraining order issued in California last summer. Is that a good result from a good system, or a coincidentally good result from a flawed one?
Yes, there's much to be considered, but a sensational symptom of his illness and a "Yow" strikes me as more sideshow than substance.

[Eugene Volokh]

That was a "This guy wanted to kill people like me, especially in the building right next to mine" "yow," not a "this is really funny" "yow" (not that I usually use "yow" for "this is really funny"). Indeed, though, this wasn't really a policy analysis post, useful as policy analysis on such matters might be.

[Commenter_XY]

Keep publicizing these people, Professor Volokh. Keep them out in the open and in the light.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Which people?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Professor Volokh, I too have had a personal brush with a paranoid schizophrenic, many decades ago. My experience was more intense than yours.

It included many gunshots, a charge against the perpetrator of attempted murder (of me, but that shot missed), another charge of attempted murder of a police officer, and a list of others. The events also included my testimony at a subsequent trial, where the perpetrator was acquitted of all charges (a story of its own).

After his release, the perpetrator called the few people in the phone book with my last name. He connected at random with my parents, and proceeded in repeated phone calls to threaten them, and inquire after me.

After the shooting was over, and the perpetrator captured, I also got a squad car trip to the police station. The cops wanted to see what I might have done to contribute to the violence (nothing at all, except forgetting my room key—my attacker was the building manager—he and I had spoken only when he accepted monthly rental envelopes—until the night when things blew up, when I asked for his pass key to get into my room).

At the police station, in Washington, DC, I saw the perpetrator beaten by the police, and thrown handcuffed across a desk, to land on the floor on the other side. It became clear from taunts the cops made that they understood perfectly that the perpetrator was a paranoid schizophrenic. His raving—while he was shooting up the building, and at the police station—was every bit as florid as what you report here. Problem was, the cops understood the perpetrator's mental condition made him dangerous, which made the cops hostile.

I saw a cop wearing a St. Christopher medal taunt the schizophrenic about the non-existence of God. Some of the raving had been about God's judgment, which would shortly fall on me, and on the the cops.

One cop had been instrumental in the capture. He had been in the lead, with a shotgun, when the cops broke down a door behind which the gunman was barricaded. The gunman was holding his pistol as the cops came in. The cop in the lead made a split-second decision—that the gunman was not going to use the pistol. The cop tossed his shotgun aside, tackled the perpetrator, and disarmed him of his pistol, and also of a Bowie knife he had strapped to his waist. The blade of the Bowie knife turned out to be engraved in gothic lettering. On both sides of the blade, it said, "BIRTH CONTROL."

I did not see that shotgun part happen. I saw the Bowie knife at the scene, during the aftermath. I learned details of the capture at the police station, by listening to a screaming tirade the cop got from his superior, for not killing the gunman. It was all going on simultaneously, in one big room.

At the police station I also got a look at some scrapbooks the cops brought along from the scene. They showed pictures of the perpetrator with Charles Lindbergh, and Lucille Ball, and the Governor of Montana, among many others. The gunman's name was Washie Bratcher.

Bratcher had been a big band leader, and a DC celebrity, before WW II. Anti-war advocacy, drugs, and draft dodging got him imprisoned. When he got out, he could not get his career going again. He formed an impression that he was being followed around by the FBI and the CIA, to ruin his chances. He concluded I was part of that.

I satisfied the cops pretty quickly of my non-involvement. They suggested I look into a career as a police officer. Then they took me home—where I was no longer locked out because I had bashed through the door to my own apartment, while running from the initial gunshots.

I offer that story to add context for skeptical comments from me about gun policy. As you may have read on your blog, I long ago concluded that a policy to arm almost everyone is folly. That Washington experience is part of what made me think so. I have other examples, more than a few, from Washington to the Rocky Mountains. When you make it a policy—as a practical matter—to arm everyone, you of course include among the armed the feckless, the drunks, the criminals, and the insane—people like the guy you have been talking about. He may not have been armed, but Bratcher was. There is no meaningful difference but happenstance in those two cases.

So I ask you, do you suppose your own proximate brush with a dangerous schizophrenic will lead you to reflect at all about your own advocacy? Do you really think that a policy which makes it easy for folks like Bratcher to arm themselves, and thus to maximize all the violence their derangement can trigger, is also a policy to increase your own safety? If you do think that, why?

I was unarmed that night. I have gone unarmed for decades since. I have seen notably more than my share of gun hazards and gun violence. And here I am now. Looking back, I cannot think of a single instance where being armed would have made me safer. I can think of several where having a gun could easily have gotten me killed. If I had had a gun, I could have tried to use it to confront Bratcher. But it wasn't until I saw his gun pointed at me that I even knew there was trouble. I think that is the way gun trouble comes to most people. By then it is too late for your gun to make you safe—but maybe just enough time for it to get you killed.

Far better for me if Bratcher had not had that gun at all. I have never been able to figure out any gun policy which could, as a practical matter, allow me to go armed, but prevent the bad guys from having both their guns and the initiative to use them first.

Professor Volokh, I have seen you advocate gun policy, but cannot recall seeing you justify it. Maybe now would be a good time to hear what you think makes an expansive gun policy a practical policy on behalf of public safety.

[DaivdBehar]

Thank the rent seeking Supreme Court for your experience.

The sick fuck lawyer excuses these dangerous people. Which would you prefer as a cellmate for safety, a contract killer for the mafia or a paranoid schizophrenic? One gets the death penalty, the other walks according to the sick fuck lawyer.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Far better for me if Bratcher had not had that gun at all. I have never been able to figure out any gun policy which could, as a practical matter, allow me to go armed, but prevent the bad guys from having both their guns and the initiative to use them first."

The problem is that, as a practical matter, it's quite easy to come up with gun policies that would prevent you from going armed, while allowing the bad guys to both have their guns, and the initiative to use them. We call those policies, "gun control".

Wisdom starts with realizing that passing laws against people having guns isn't the same as people not having guns, and that the people most likely to do wrong with a gun are also the people least likely to obey gun laws.

So, the situation where neither you nor the bad guys are armed is not available. We can only chose between both the good guys and the bad guys being armed, or just the bad guys being armed.

[SimonP]

This comparison only works if you assume that gun control laws would have no affect on how many "bad guys" could get guns, or the lethality of the guns they acquire.

You're probably also collapsing the category of "essentially good people who might make a bad choice if armed" into "bad guys," which rhetorically makes your case simpler than it is.

It can be conceded that a drug cartel gangmember may not have any particular difficulty arming themselves in whatever way they like, gun control laws or not. But Stephen's personal example asks a different question, which is how his scenario plays out differently if the paranoid schizophrenic had a harder time getting his hands on a gun than he evidently did. It's not at all obvious that such a person would have the motivation or means to acquire a gun, if our regime made them significantly less accessible.

Personally, I have never been robbed, mugged, held hostage, kidnapped, or part of any situation where an armed criminal was able to control the situation because he was armed, and none of the "victims" were. However, I have been in a number of situations where I've had intense personal conflicts with people that may have played out differently, if they had been carrying a gun. Why would anyone support an approach to gun control that simply makes it more likely that those intense personal conflicts, which happen far more often than criminal situations, will involve firearms on one or both sides of the equation? How does that leave society better off?

[Absaroka]

"This comparison only works if you assume that gun control laws would have no affect on how many "bad guys" could get guns, or the lethality of the guns they acquire."

I don't think that's a fair statement of what Brett is saying. He's not saying 'no effect'. He's pointing out that any given law will be differentially obeyed.

When you pass a law that says, for example, 'no one can carry guns outside the house for personal protection'. Consider two groups of people, say 'people with prior convictions for armed robbery' and 'members of the Chamber of Commerce[1] with zero prior convictions for any crime at all'. Which group is most likely to ignore the law and misuse guns, and which group is most likely to strictly obey the law against carry?

Brett's point, I think, is that the easiest people to disarm by fiat are also the people least likely to cause a problem. And the hardest people to disarm by fiat are the people most likely to cause problems. You can have a level playing field[2] or you can tilt it against the most law abiding.

[1]Or soccer moms or whatever group you think likely includes a high percentage of people likely to obey the law
[2]Or try and tilt it against the likely offenders with, e.g. Felon in Possession laws.

[SimonP]

But you're just engaged in the same sleight of hand that Brett is.

Brett said:

We can only chose between both the good guys and the bad guys being armed, or just the bad guys being armed.

Your version just gussies this up with some fancier-sounding language.

My point is to say that we're not really talking about just two groups of people, where one group is largely law-abiding and would therefore obey gun control laws, and another is not law-abiding and so would therefore disobey gun control laws. I am saying that there are at least five:

(1) Criminals for whom gun control laws have no effect, because they will violate whatever laws they please to obtain the guns they want.
(2) Criminals for whom gun control may limit the number of guns that have, their willingness to use them, the lethality of the guns they acquire, and/or the ease with which they can acquire them.
(3) Generally law-abiding citizens for whom gun control laws effectively limit access, but who would obtain guns without those laws, and would not always be safe or responsible in how they use them.
(4) Generally law-abiding citizens for whom gun control laws effectively limit access, but who would obtain guns without those laws, and would be safe and responsible in how they use them.
(4) Generally law-abiding citizens who would not obtain guns regardless of the existence of limits.

Your and Brett's arguments collapse (1) and (2) together and (4) and (5) together, and don't consider the possibility that (3) exist.

Brett asks: We can choose a strict regime where only (1)+(2) would have guns, or a looser regime where both (1)+(2) and (4)+(5) would have guns. But this overlooks the differential harm caused by (2) having greater access to guns, assumes that all (5) people would be (4) people, and ignores (3) altogether.

You ask: What differential impact do gun control laws have, when we look at (1)+(2) vs. (4)+(5)? Your point is that gun control laws really only impact (4) people, but in fact they would impact (2) people as well.

For me, the wisdom of gun liberalism comes down to where empirically we think the population breaks out, as between the different categories. Personally, I'd expect that the "criminal" community consists of some (1) people but primarily of (2) people, and that there is a solid core of (5) people.

So a big part of the question, for me, is whether we have any reason to believe that would-be gun owners are more likely to be (3) or (4) people. I frankly have zero confidence that my fellow Americans would be, by and large, (4) people. That being the case, the only difference that gun liberalism could really seem to make is: no effect for (1) or (5) people, (4) people are more armed but safe, (2) people are more armed and more dangerous, and (3) people - in my view, the likely bulk of people who would choose to obtain guns if it were easy to do so - would be more armed and more dangerous.

[Brett Bellmore]

There's no slight of hand here, Absaroka has correctly identified the reasoning: The least desirable group to have guns are the hardest to disarm, the most desirable group to have guns are the easiest to disarm, so gun control tilts the field against the good. (In addition to being both unconstitutional, and driving a black market.)

And this has been known in criminological circles for better than 200 years, weapon control is NOT a new idea, and is well established to have this effect. Which is why most gun control 'studies' are NOT conducted by criminologists.

Sure, your "group 3" can be posited to exist, but the truth is that people actually ARE rather bimodal in this particular distribution, group 3 is pretty small, and you reach them only after you've gone through group 4.

"I frankly have zero confidence that my fellow Americans would be, by and large, (4) people."

Right, we get that: You have a highly warped internal model of humanity, which is resistant to correction, and are basing your desired public policy off it.

The truth of the matter is that humanity is somewhat bimodal in regards to violent crime, the middle ground isn't all that big, and most people are in group 3 or 4. Almost all violent crime is committed by a small, aberrant fraction of society.

You'd understand this if you could just internalize what the data is trying to tell you, the existence of areas of the country with high rates of gun ownership, and low crime: Group 4 has to be most gun owners, or else such places could not exist.

[Stephen Lathrop]

So, the situation where neither you nor the bad guys are armed is not available.

Nonsense. Many parts of this nation—including entire states—feature situations where a notable majority of people are not armed with guns, including would-be criminals, and many practicing criminals. Presumably, gun policy tailored to do so could further enlarge that fraction.

Governing that way has other advantages. It makes depression less deadly. It reduces harm which occurs in response to exceptional instances of impulsive anger among generally reliable gun owners. It reduces violence and reckless gun use which happen when folks with solid records of law-abiding conduct turn into drunks, or become spouse abusers, or go insane. It reduces the number of guns in the hands of folks who just do not manage tools and implements well. It reduces the number of guns available to escape from the control of purchasers who may have been exemplary owners, but who cease to control those guns, maybe because the erstwhile purchasers have since died of old age.

Gun enthusiasts tout a gun-ridden dystopia to justify pro-gun advocacy. That is nowhere near to being an inevitable feature of civilized life—not in this nation, nor in most other nations around the world.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Many parts of this nation—including entire states—feature situations where a notable majority of people are not armed with guns, including would-be criminals, and many practicing criminals."

OK, so we've established that you're living in a fantasy world with very little connection to reality. But it does have internet, there's that, I guess.

[Shamie Ervin iv]

Him angwy.

[Don Nico]

Not funny at all

[SimonP]

I've probably paid less attention than I should have to the matter of Matthew Harris, the apparently schizophrenic former UCLA philosophy lecturer whose threats shut down the school for a day a couple of weeks ago.

In a world where weapons capable of killing dozens of people are widely available, and it's up to us to defend ourselves against their use, one should probably exercise a fair amount of caution when these kinds of threats emerge.

[Harvey Mosley]

Yes. It's amazing how easy it is for someone with mental illness or previous violent felony convictions to buy or borrow a car.

[SimonP]

I 100% believe that personal cars are potentially lethal instrumentalities whose use should be more tightly regulated. So you may be trying to pump the wrong intuition here.

[starlord1988]

Person with schizophrenia, not schizophrenic. Would you say a cancerous person or a person with cancer?

[Absaroka]

Diabetic, paraplegic, asthmatic, epileptic, ...

But not maliaric or mumpsic or whatever.

It's like english has lots of weird contradictions.

[Brett Bellmore]

Perhaps the distinction is whether it's a passing problem, or a life-long characteristic? I think it might be.

[Absaroka]

I dunno. You don't say 'multiple sclerotic', 'hypothyrodic', etc.

People with TB are 'consumptives', not 'tuberculics'.

This is a language where flammable and inflammable are synonyms but flexible and inflexible are antonyms, after all.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not saying it's a hard and fast rule, but it does seem to be a trend. If it's with you for life, it tends to label you, if not, not.

"People with TB are 'consumptives', not 'tuberculics'."

Because the disease used to be called "consumption", and the term got established before the name of the disease was changed.

[Michael Masinter]

Person first language is controversial among people with disabilities; just ask anyone who is Deaf or Autistic. Neither group prefers persons without hearing or people with autism; both prefer Deaf and Deaf/HOH people or Autistic persons. Ditto with people who are blind.

[Steve Griffin]

Because we should all learn to be governed by the ways other people order us to describe them.

[bernard11]

Not a matter of orders but of courtesy.

You apparently like to go by "Steve." If I called you "Steven," or "Stevie," or "Steverino," and you objected and I then persisted - even mocking your request - that would, I think be quite rude on my part.

[Eugene Volokh]

Names are understood to be pretty arbitrary -- whether I call you "Steve" or "Steven" doesn't much matter, because neither is likely to have a different ideological valence.

But when people insist that we use some words to describe a particular group rather than other words -- precisely because they think the new words carry a particular nonarbitrary meaning or ideological connotation that they prefer -- it seems to me that others are entitled to balk, rather than just view themselves as compelled by courtesy to go along. Now to be sure, sometimes there's some powerful argument in favor of changing the label; but there needs to be such an argument, rather than just an insistence of the group's self-appointed representatives.

To take an extreme example, imagine that Steve insists that people call him "Your Highness" or perhaps "Saint Stephen." I think that people might reasonably refuse, because "Your Highness" and "Saint Stephen" have particular meanings that they don't want to convey (in a way that "Steve" and "Steven" don't, and in a way that even "Saint Stephen" might not have, if everybody knew that this was, say, his family's last name for generations).

Likewise (though with a considerably subtler shading of meaning), "people with schizophrenia" is deliberately urged as a phrase that's aimed at conveying or at least suggesting a particular meaning, indeed a particular ideologically laden meaning. I don't think courtesy requires the rest of us to go along and convey that our meaning ourselves.

[starlord1988]

The meaning it is trying to convey is that the illness does not define the person. You are of course free to use schizophrenic if you want to and courtesy does not require you to refrain from using it, just like courtesy does not require you to refrain from using and word that you want. It is courteous to call people what the desire when it comes to something they cannot change like illness, race, ability, etc., but you are free to not do so if you do not want to. I am simply pointing out that many people with schizophrenia do not like that label.

[Kazinski]

Go ahead and use your words the way you want to use them.

But when a word has an accepted definition and usage then word policing becomes very tiresome.

"schizophrenic noun
Medical Definition of schizophrenic (Entry 2 of 2)
: an individual affected with schizophrenia
"

[Brett Bellmore]

"The meaning it is trying to convey is that the illness does not define the person."

But this is a fairly stupid point. The disease does not fully define the person, obviously. But if it's something that's not going to change, it partially defines them.

I mean, I'm an Aspie. That's never going to change, and it's a fundamental part of who I am, even if it's not remotely all of who I am. I wouldn't mind being called one, because it's true. And why should I object to the truth?

[starlord1988]

If you are okay with referring to someone with cancer as cancerous, someone with leprosy as a leper, someone with any disease as diseased, or someone with dementia as demented, it is of course your right to refer to them that way. If you feel it is not okay to refer to people with one or more of those diseases in that way, it is just that you are picking and choosing which diseases should be seen as defining the person and which diseases should not.

[Brett Bellmore]

Typically it has been organs that have been described as "cancerous", not people. Somewhat in keeping with the general rule I've pointed out, distinguishing between permanent conditions and at least potentially passing conditions. Leprosy, after all, formerly didn't have a cure. Since it has gotten one, the practice of calling people with leprosy "lepers" has largely fallen into disuse.

"If you feel it is not okay to refer to people with one or more of those diseases in that way,"

There is no "feel OK" about it. I'm just identifying a language pattern. I have no emotional investment in it at all.

[starlord1988]

Then use the words in that way. If the only thing that matters is a language pattern, people should still be using many different offensive words that were once not offensive and/or were in common use. Refer to people in the way that you want but I am just pointing out that schizophrenic if offensive to many in the mental health community. Talk as you will.

[Brett Bellmore]

IMO, investing terms like that with such emotive power is itself something of a pathology. Especially when somebody insists on imputing ill intent or insult where nothing more is going on than communication using the language as it is.

Probably the worst social development of the last half century or more has been the way we've been encouraging people to be offended, and even use their offense as a weapon against others. It sets up a dynamic where the level of offense just keeps climbing.

[Noscitur a sociis]

How does "schizophrenic former UCLA philosophy lecturer" suggest the schizophrenia defines him in a way that "former UCLA philosophy lecturer with schizophrenia" does not?

[starlord1988]

Person with schizophrenia keeps the schizophrenia, a very stigmatizing diagnosis, apart from the person. The way I look at it, the word that comes first is the dominant work in the sentence. So, in schizophrenic person, schizophrenia is the dominant word. In person with schizophrenia, person is the dominant word. I can't speak to if this is the justification for person-centered language for other people that use it, but it is mine. This is obviously only my opinion and from my personal and professional experience most people in the mental health community. Look at the wording from the National Institute of Mental Health or the National Alliance on Mental Illness. I think one should refer to people with stigmatizing health conditions the way they prefer.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Person with schizophrenia keeps the schizophrenia, a very stigmatizing diagnosis, apart from the person."

No, it doesn't. It doesn't because everybody knows what it means. The underlying information remains the same, regardless of how you rearrange the noises or marks on paper used to convey it.

This is a fundamental point about how language works, Starlord1988. It just doesn't work the way you'd like it to. The map is not the territory, the name is not the thing. Cut out the magical thinking and accept that.

The iron law of euphemism is a real thing, and you can't defeat it this way. All you can do is end up with the original meaning, while annoying people.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, we get that. EV's point is that demanding control over what people are allowed to convey isn't basic courtesy. It's, essentially, an effort at thought control disguised as a demand for courtesy.

It's a conversational power grab. People have no obligation to cooperate with it, or to pretend that failing to cooperate is inpolite.

[DaivdBehar]

Eugene, why do you use the feminine pronoun in legal writing when 90% of criminals are male? Why? Because you lawyers are as committable as this professor. The profession is crazy, and delusional. And, it takes our $trillion each year. That makes it crazy and evil.

Transgender people false beliefs are more extreme than this guy's delusions. Yet, we are forced to address them with the wrong pronoun. I like the neutral pronoun, it, in such cases.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What is your position on use of the term "clingers," Prof. Volokh?'

I am mildly surprised you have not banned that term (yet) because there is evidence it bothers a portion of your target audience.

[starlord1988]

I can of course only speak for myself and my experiences but I am a person with a disability and would take offense if someone called me a disabled person. I serve persons with a diagnosed SMI in my job and many have expressed the same thing.

[Ridgeway]

Lighten up, Francis.

[Don Nico]

Sorry, stars,
Your blasphemy sensors are on overload.

[ravenshrike]

Touchdown. On paper? UNBREADED!

[J. Denny]

This is sad. I hope he gets the treatment he needs.

[DaivdBehar]

Until he does something physically dangerous, he will never get the involuntary treatment he needs. He needs that because he is in neurologically based denial of having anything wrong. This is the deep misunderstanding of the Supreme Court, The organ of decision is damaged. Others will have to make the decision.

[MatthewSlyfield]

There is a long and well documented record of abuse and torture (under a thin veneer of treatment) in mental institutions prior to the restrictions placed on involuntary commitments.

[Don Nico]

That is likely true Matthew; now for a paranoid schizophrenic with potentially physically violent episodes, the present approach is continual sedation.
This fellow may seem fine when he is not having a psychotic episode as he is an otherwise high-functioning individual. In that state he might participate in group sessions. But in a state evidenced by the outburst posted, benzodiazipines plus a large dose of an atypical anti-psychotic would being very likely treatment

[MatthewSlyfield]

The problem is that there isn't currently the capacity in the mental health system to handle that many in-patients.

In general, you can not massively increase capacity in any process heavily dependent on human labor without serious negative impacts on quality.

In-patient psychiatric treatment is not an exception. The existing well regulated facilities don't have the capacity. The regulators don't have the capacity to properly monitor a large scale increase in capacity.

If we were to remove or significantly loosen the restrictions that were placed on involuntary commitment, we would very quickly end up right back where we started, with the majority of the facilities engaging in abuse and torture that masquerades as treatment.

[Don Nico]

Matthew,
You are quite right. We do not have the capacity in general in the US and specifically lack the capacity in California, because that capacity has been dismantled over the past 60 years with nothing in its place except the concept of mainstreaming and a much wider range of benzodiazapines, anti-psychotics and anti-depressants.
At some point in the past 10 years CA had only 14 professional conservators.
In CA patients waiting for a psychiatric bed wait three times longer than patients waiting for a medical bed in hospital EDs.
The number of CA state psychiatric beds decreased by 14% from 2005 to 2010; in 2005, there were 50,509 state psychiatric beds available nationwide; by 2010, the number had shrunk to 43,318. the estimated current number has shrunk to 38,847; and more hospital beds are slated for closure.

I am not sure if you are saying to throw in the towel but we have made NO movement forward in CA in the past dozen years and CA does lag behind other states such as MA and even New York, and that is true even in the "enlightened" SF Bay Area.

[MatthewSlyfield]

No, I'm not necessarily saying throw in the towel.

However:

"We do not have the capacity in general in the US and specifically lack the capacity in California, because that capacity has been dismantled over the past 60 years "

I would argue that the level capacity for real treatment rather than abuse & torture masquerading as treatment never existed in the first place.

Building the capacity for that level of in-patient treatment without a serious drop in the quality of treatment is something that would take decades, assuming it's possible at all, and no, that it is possible is not a given. Relaxing the standards for involuntary commitment before that capacity exists is a recipe for disaster and would almost guarantee that quality capacity never gets built.

As harsh as it may sound to you, the ones who aren't actively dangerous are probably better off living on the streets than in the kinds of "mental health" facilities we had 60 years ago. And the ones who are dangerous might well be better off in prison then in the types of "mental health" facilities we had 60 years ago.

[Don Nico]

"rather than abuse & torture "
Quit the drama and cite real evidence that things have gotten better.

I don't buy your story. Mental health professionals have been complaining about the lack of facilities for decades. The situation in CA has certainly not improved in any way since the reagan governorship. You can see this very easily in CA by looking at the number of 5150s who are kept in EDs because there are no hospital beds for them.

You're correct that your bottom line does sound harsh; that is because it is harsh. Regardless of your first line, you have thrown in the towel. You're welcome to disregard the pleas of mental health professionals, but that does not make you correct, despite the attempt at being sympathetic with the "abuse & torture" line.

[Kazinski]

Oftentimes the choice is between a long lifetime of degradation and misery in an institution, or a shorter lifetime of degradation and misery on the streets.

The best solution of course is family that have the capacity to support, supervise medication, and monitor a close family member. Or a halfway house with staff to do the same. There are quite a few degrees of disability caused by schizophrenia, and a lot of people can live fairly normal lives with the proper level of support.

And there is some small percentage that can't have their illness effectively managed without intense supervision.

[Don Nico]

At least your are realistic Kazinski. There are a significant number of treatment resistant schizophrenics. In fact at least 25% of schizophrenics take clozapine which has 7 black box warnings and requires monthly blood tests (weekly in year 1)

[DaivdBehar]

That is fake propaganda. Any abuse was rare and on the margin. We are sending an untreated psychotic person to your house. Report back about your policy preferences. The majority of rampage killers were not treated for years, prior to blasting the kindergarten class. Your woke ilk is responsible for the majority of rampage killings.

[Don Nico]

Daivid,
You post is truly one of ignorance. He ws doubtless detained under a 5150. His history of threats make it almost certain that he will progress to a 5250 hold and then be brought to the Conservatorship Court in LA. Given his level of threats to others he is likely to be placed under a state appointed conservator.
The biggest difficulty is the very poor level of mental health treatment and the extent of mental health facilities in California.
Whith the huge budget surplus in the hands of Newsom and pals,

it is a disgrace that we have heard nothing about restoring the level of mental health facilities that existed 60 years ago before Reagan decided to mainstream the mentally ill. Places like Napa mental health facility are actually dangerous for staff and patients alike. Instead the one-party state looks to increase welfare expenditures for those not legally in the system. I have nothing against that in principle, but first things first.

[DaivdBehar]

Don. I agree that de-institutionalization has gone too far. There should be double the state hospital beds for the treatment resistant minority of psychotic people. I doubt the 10 fold increase would make a difference. Treatment helps 90% of people, including paranoia. There is now a state hospital bed system, it is called local jail. The LA jail is the biggest mental hospital in the world. That is not ideal. However, they are getting care there, and are apart from the public in LA jail.

You and I act up, and make a rukus in a store. We get a $50 fine for disturbing the peace. If mentally ill, you are deemed incompetent to stand trial. You then spend 4 years in prison awaiting restoration of competence. Then when that does not happen, you get transferred to the Forensic Unit of a state hospital for 3 more years. Meanwhile, the majority have accepted treatment in jail and in the state hospital. The majority is doing better. That arrangement was deemed unconstitutional by a federal court. This is for your information.

[Don Nico]

You make a useful point that one probably does not need a 10x increase and that 2x would make a huge difference especially for the staff of EDs who are not specifically to deal with such patients which guards at the door of the patients room.
What is not excusable is the continuing steady decline in the number of beds plus the scarcity of crisis response units even in "woke" regions such as the SF Bay area

[Brett Bellmore]

"Even"? Unless that was a sarcastic "even", you really don't understand woke.

[MaverickNH]

2019 data found about a third (or more) of homeless in LA had acute mental illness. No statistics on university faculty.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-10-07/homeless-population-mental-illness-disability

[DaivdBehar]

20% of the faculty will have a serious mental illness in their lives, 5% each year, if average for the population.

https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/mental-illness

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Is he actually threatening to shoot anyone in this email? I think he meant that people can teach the philosophy of actual Nazis (Heidegger true but Kant?) but if a black person were to teach his own philosophy the black person would be shot.

[Eugene Volokh]

Interesting -- perhaps this particular e-mail might bear that interpretation, but I guess I was reading it in light of other items such as:

“KILL EVERYONE WHO IS NOT A NIGGER.”
“KILL WHITE CIVILIZATION.”
“SHOOT EVERY MAYER WHO IS ASIAN. SHOOT ALL ASIAN POLITICIANS. SHOOT ALL THE ASIAN STOREOWNERS AND COLLEGE STUDENTS. SHOOT ALL THE ASIAN BUSINESSOWNERS AND LAWYERS. SHOOT ALL THE ASIANS. SHOOT ALL THE KIKES TOO.”
“NIGGER kill all of the children of other tribes. KILL ALL THEIR KIDS.” ...
“BURN AND ATTACK BOULDER OUTSIDE BY THE UNIVERSITY.”
“GENOCIDE THEM my NIGGER. Schoolyard massacre. University disaster. Take your pick.”

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Oh, that does seem to make things clearer. I hope Mr. Harris gets the help he needs, before he has the opportunity to act on any of these impulses.

[DaivdBehar]

He is sincere, and not lying or joking. He has to be taken seriously, and receive involuntary treatment. Yet, he cannot until he does something physically dangerous.

[DaivdBehar]

And, of course, a trial employing 3 lawyers, is required to get him involuntary treatment. Thank the rent seeking Supreme Court for this tragedy. The Supreme Court is populated by truly evil idiots. Their awful judgments have killed millions, yet Volokh is worried about this unfortunate, and not about the mass murdering maniacs on the Supreme Court.

[David Welker]

When people who are suffering a mental illness express racist perspectives, we should look at that a lot differently than when other people, especially people with power, express racist perspectives.

Of course, it is possible that a person with a mental illness has some amount of power. And to the extent that is true, it is still concerning. And yet still distinguishable. When it comes to racial bias, what we are concerned is more significant strands of thinking, not isolated individuals whose mental illness makes them susceptible to deviant thought patterns.

I recall a news article about an anti-Asian American "hate crime" that mainly consisted of some racist comments by a mentally-ill homeless woman who committed some other minor crime (it might have been trespassing). This, unlike many murders, was considered newsworthy. IMO, it is truly scraping the "bottom of the barrell" for the news media to prominently report on such incidents at the same time they are not as prominently reporting much more serious crimes.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" When people who are suffering a mental illness express racist perspectives, we should look at that a lot differently than when other people, "

Thank you for sticking up for Brett Bellmore.

[ReaderY]

Yow.

[benji]

Amusingly among all his unhinged rantings that make no sense at all there's a bunch of very pointed critique against certain fields and specifically in philosophy.

[DaivdBehar]

Harris has a high IQ.

[Don Nico]

At one point he would likely have been considered high-functioning