“Free speech” does not work when we forget its purpose (holding power accountable). When it is a disembodied notion promoted for its own sake, abusers of power (such as Donald Trump) can use it for themselves to silence, defraud, and kill. nytimes.com/2021/04/02/opi…
It works like the rest of law: when its compass of justice is lost, it becomes “a weapon for the rich, and a whippin’ for the poor” (essentially, a weapon for any power).
This applies to the Second Amendment: when disembodied “gun rights” are promoted, abusers of power (such as the gun industry) can keep amassing profit as the people only kill themselves (literally mostly themselves, through suicide) and would never be useful in defending....
... against an abusive government, which, mind you, has bombers, tanks, and nuclear weapons.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Are people aware that Jeffrey Lieberman, whom they keep going to as “authority” is the one who actually broke ethics in the way “the Goldwater rule” was intended (to prevent irresponsible diagnosis based on incomplete information)? harpers.org/archive/2021/0…
His focus, even in this article, indicates that his interest is mainly in shutting down consciousness. Is it any wonder that he accused fellow professionals conscientiously pointing out danger—NOT diagnosing—of that which he was guilty of (breaking “the Goldwater rule”)?
He compared us to “Nazi and Soviet psychiatrists,” when a specific concern we raised was that the field of psychiatry would collude with a dangerous government—the true reason why psychiatry under Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union was dangerous.
As I warned since April 2017, the APA’s abuse of “the Goldwater rule” as a gag order would cripple the nation’s ability to hold a president accountable for his mental unfitness. That mental unfitness has now caused about 500,000 unnecessary deaths.
Here is evidence:
“if the country had begun locking down … two weeks earlier than most people started staying home, the vast majority of the nation’s deaths—about 83 percent—would have been avoided.” nytimes.com/2020/05/20/us/…
Here is a simple calculation:
“a direct comparison of ... the U.S. and other countries—South Korea, Australia, Germany, and Singapore—indicates that between 70% and 99% of the Americans who died from this pandemic might have been saved.” statnews.com/2020/06/19/fas…
Remember I said that Donald Trump was more dangerous than Adolf Hitler, despite being less cunning, because of: the power of the U.S. presidency; the complacency of his opposition; and the obvious gullibility of his followers.
He may be partially gone, but the conditions remain.
I am posting this in response to Georgia’s alarming voter suppression bill, which hands to the legislature the power to decide who won state elections, regardless of the vote. This same governor “won” based on his control over votes in his own election as secretary of state.
Our insistence that “it can’t happen here” all but guaranteed it would happen, and it is happening. Dangerous personalities are present in any nation, but strong democracies generally keep them out of power. We already elected one to the highest office of the land.
Very surprisingly, the NY Times broke with its custom and allowed publication of an article on me this time. However, as expected, all of the most critical quotes from me have been omitted, likely after submission (I have kept evidence this time): nytimes.com/2021/03/26/nyr…
And, of course, there is not one mention of Jeffrey Lieberman’s actual diagnosis of the president and his very blatant violation of the very guidelines I am said to have violated:
Just as we should not call for the resignation of minor sexual offenders while the accused of 26 + 43 assaults is on the loose, should not the greatest violators be held accountable first? This is why I have called for a “uniform application of rules”: bioethics.net/2018/01/appeal…
I never diagnosed Donald Trump or his supporters. Do you know who diagnosed Trump, in extensive detail, without full information and with faulty assumptions? A past president of the APA: vice.com/en/article/wjj…
What was the APA’s response to him? As you guessed: total silence.
Yet we, who merely called out dangerousness and the urgent need for an evaluation, were slandered with “armchair psychiatry,” “use of psychiatry as a political tool,” and “self-aggrandizing”—without examination and authorization, thereby breaking its own gag order.
I never imagined I would hear such unprofessional phrases (not to mention inaccurate) from a professional organization, but then the past APA president libeled the MOST renowned experts with: “tawdry, indulgent, fatuous, tabloid psychiatry” (while accusing others of what he did).
Yes, and Marie Yovanovitch, also! (how could I forget?).
The saddest part for me is that I turned down a Harvard faculty position to return to Yale, my alma mater, which at the time had the largest endowment, purely from grateful alumni who were happy it was not investing in Halliburton, etc., as Harvard was doing at the time.