... O.K., fair enough; thanks. I agree that impairment and individual cause (I think? I might want to tease out the notion of causation here, though...) are

You write: "Bi-partisanship is becoming more and more implausible as extremist-politics seem to take center stage."

Is political "extremism" really the problem here? I mean, I don't know about you, but it seems to me that there are some things extremely wrong with the world we live in (endless war, systematic assaults on women's reproductive choices, a massively inhumane system of racist immigration controls, a culture of violent hatred and shame towards queer and trans people, etc. etc.), and that these extreme problems call for passionate, uncompromising, unflinching protest and resistance. Don't you think?

When I call myself a feminist, an anti-racist, a peacenik, etc., and demonstrate that those principles do commit me to seeking some radical changes in the world around me in the interests of peace, freedom, equality or justice, I'm told that I am an "extremist," since I care a lot about these issues, and since I am not content to just accept the political status quo with only a few tiny tweaks here and there around the edges. As well I should be: as I see it, some things are non-negotiable, and (e.g.) the lives and freedom and dignity of innocent people are among them.

The problem with, say, Sarah Palin is not that she's an "extremist," is it? It's that she's a creep: what she advocates is despicable and harmful. And the right response to that is not moderation, bipartisanship, or compromise, but rather to call it out for what it is, in no uncertain terms.

As Dr. King wrote, "You spoke of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of the extremist. … But as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a bit of satisfaction from being considered an extremist. Was not Jesus an extremist for love — 'Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you.' Was not Amos an extremist for justice — 'Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.' Was not Paul an extremist for the gospel of Jesus Christ — 'I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.' Was not Martin Luther an extremist — 'Here I stand; I can do none other so help me God.' Was not John Bunyan an extremist — 'I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience.' Was not Abraham Lincoln an extremist — 'This nation cannot survive half slave and half free.' Was not Thomas Jefferson an extremist — 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.' So the question is not whether we will be extremist but what kind of extremist will we be. Will we be extremists for hate or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice—or will we be extremists for the cause of justice? ... So, after all, maybe the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists."

You write: "Bi-partisanship is becoming more and more implausible as extremist-politics seem to take center stage."

Is political "extremism" really the problem here? I mean, I don't know about you, but it seems to me that there are some things extremely wrong with the world we live in (endless war, systematic assaults on women's reproductive choices, a massively inhumane system of racist immigration controls, a culture of violent hatred and shame towards queer and trans people, etc. etc.), and that these extreme problems call for passionate, uncompromising, unflinching protest and resistance. Don't you think?

When I call myself a feminist, an anti-racist, a peacenik, etc., and demonstrate that those principles do commit me to seeking some radical changes in the world around me in the interests of peace, freedom, equality or justice, I'm told that I am an "extremist," since I care a lot about these issues, and since I am not content to just accept the political status quo with only a few tiny tweaks here and there around the edges. As well I should be: as I see it, some things are non-negotiable, and (e.g.) the lives and freedom and dignity of innocent people are among them.

The problem with, say, Sarah Palin is not that she's an "extremist," is it? It's that she's a creep: what she advocates is despicable and harmful. And the right response to that is not moderation, bipartisanship, or compromise, but rather to call it out for what it is, in no uncertain terms.

As Dr. King wrote, "You spoke of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of the extremist. … But as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a bit of satisfaction from being considered an extremist. Was not Jesus an extremist for love — 'Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you.' Was not Amos an extremist for justice — 'Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.' Was not Paul an extremist for the gospel of Jesus Christ — 'I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.' Was not Martin Luther an extremist — 'Here I stand; I can do none other so help me God.' Was not John Bunyan an extremist — 'I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience.' Was not Abraham Lincoln an extremist — 'This nation cannot survive half slave and half free.' Was not Thomas Jefferson an extremist — 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.' So the question is not whether we will be extremist but what kind of extremist will we be. Will we be extremists for hate or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice—or will we be extremists for the cause of justice? ... So, after all, maybe the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists."

... Marja, Sure, of course. But I didn't mean mainly to distinguish among diseases, disabilities, and stigmatized healthy variations. Let me put it this way: I

... Marc, Unfortunately I don't know of any good systematic survey treatment of the issue that I could recommend off the top of my head. There may well be one,

... I don't think anybody really knows, because (as far as I know) nobody's trying to gather systematic nation-wide data on this, and if they did try to they

... Well, that's fine (*). Out of curiosity, have you read them? Or do you just mean to say that you would disagree with them, given that you hold an opposite

... No doubt. Who here does that? -C

... During the Brezhnev era, when Soviet dissidents were forced to take neuroleptic drugs against their will (they had "sluggish schizophrenia," you see), this

... It's clear that Szasz has had some concrete affect on the practice of psychiatry. (In particular his writing has made them less willing than they once were