The same kind of trivialisation of mental health issues.
And I get your point re OCD and use of the term to describe personal behaviours.
But I am still at a loss at your attempted joke regarding the OCD community, asking “add your own punchline”
I think its fine to have a joke about serious matters, Gervais, Boyle, Carr et al…but then don’t preach to others about what their views should be?
It was more that I was more pre-empting (what I thought would be) an inevitable joke about what an OCD community would be like, and not wanting to go there myself. It doesn’t read like that, I admit.
I’d go back and edit it if I thought I could without someone picking that up.
It depends how you’re doing it. I find Ricky Gervais and Jimmy Carr frequently just cruel. See Carr’s recent episode over the gypsy joke. It’s anything for a laugh, and no thought about how that joke lands.
Frankie Boyle I think is a bit hit and miss. He is fucking hilarious, in a way that IMO Jimmy Carr and Ricky Gervais aren’t. He clearly thinks about his material, but he doesn’t get it right all the time.
The idea of ‘cancel culture’ ruining comedy is frankly bollocks. What is under threat is the kind of unthinking, downward kicking, joke at all costs comedy that is better left at the end of the pier. I still think you can joke about anything but there is an obligation that you actually think about how to present that joke and put it in context.
Stewart Lee once did a long routine about his imaginary black wife. In the hands of a less thoughtful comedian, it would have been problematic. But he took a lot of care to make sure he was the butt of the joke - it wasn’t really about having a black wife (it later moves into him having an imaginary male ‘gay wife’). It’s his own ridiculous liberal delusions and crude stereotyping that are funny.
If it a dead person ever complains to me, I’ll reconsider my use of those words.
Regarding trivialisation. I always consider the lads who went over the top in WW1 and wonder what they’d think of the gallimaufry of medical conditions that people seem to suffer from these days.
You have gender dysphoria? I’m running at a machine gun. As a very stark example.
They can’t, will nobody please be offended on behalf of the dead???
I imagine they say ‘If I have Gender Dysmorphia does that mean I don’t have to pointlessly run at a machine gun? Sign me up’
It’s a pretty poor example. You’ve seen Blackadder. You know these lads (and they frequently were just lads) were treated as fodder by incompetent, pissed generals who didn’t have a clue what they were doing. And the fodder would try anything to get off the front lines - any kind of ailment or malady known at the time. Insanity pleas. You name it. Do you think if people had understood about ME back then people wouldn’t have been scrambling over each other to get a diagnosis?
Like PTSD? Back then it was called Shell Shock and they were lucky if they were diagnosed as such as many were simply shot for cowardice instead.
Advancement in medical science tends to be regarded as being for the common good. There is even a Nobel prize that recognises it.
It’s a very good example and I can quote most of Blackadder from memory. Never imperculiate my knowledge of the world’s greatest comedy. The reasons for the charges are irrelevant. I’m clearly talking about the mind set of the lads going over the top, not the madness behind it. You’re moving the goal posts here.
Which is a valid point. But what about explaining somebody who can’t go to work in a shop because he has a crippling fear of cash registers? Or to go back to the original example, potentially takes time off with stress because they are suffering from stress because a colleague made a light hearted comment about their deeply difficult to deal with OCD disorder.
About that machine gun.
If someone has to take time off work because of a light hearted comment then it probably wasn’t the light hearted comment that caused that. A continual barrage of “light hearted” comments is quite a different thing.
A barrage would infer a constant and intended attack. That’s not the case here.
Something springs to mind. Suppose a worker has chronic arachnophobia and another worker has a spider tattoo on her hand. She also has an allergy to latex and rubber so can’t wear gloves. They have to work together for scheduling reasons. What’s the solution?
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, I would have thought.
Same then for OCD? Agrophobia? Ptsd? Gender disphoria?
Oooooh can of worms.
No I’m not. You brought World War I into it, as in look at what these lads went through. Imagine if they were complaining about OCD and Gender Dysmorphia.
It’s a spectacularly bad example to use because those boys - in some cases, children - were ordered over the top at gunpoint. It was a fucking slaughter. There was nothing noble or glorious about it. It was a choice of being shot by the Germans or your own side.
This is the reason why, a few years ago, I decided I would no longer be wearing a poppy.
Have you seen 1917? Jesus Christ thats a grim experience.
I find it a bit crass to try and make comparisons between an incompetent, military slaughter and working today.
Who is suffering stress? This is another one of your wild, tangents.
A colleague asked me not to use OCD as a shorthand for being fussy. No-one was going off with stress. It was a polite request that I was happy to accommodate. I really do t see the problem. I mean I could have told her to do one, and it’s just words and she should stop being so sensitive, but I think I’d be the prick in that situation.
It’s a really tough one. However, fortunately you’ve also totally invented it, with the aim of denigrating more reasonable requests.
As always, problematic, hard to resolve issues should not preclude us from dealing with the easier ones.
And what if you are allergic to cans of worms?
What if?
What if?
WHAT IF???
It’s also entirely uncomparable unless the colleague with the tattoo is repeatedly shoving it in the face of the colleague with the phobia and refuses to stop despite reasonable requests.
These are all on the DSM-5. Are you suggesting that psychiatric treatment is not appropriate?
You presumably understand what dsm-5 is. I have no idea.
Not at all, just asking the question as to at what point (again) we draw a line between something that can be treated and something that MUST just be accepted.
Sorry, DSM is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. In fairness, the NHS uses the ICD which the broader catalogue but they are trying to align them.
In terms of treating and accepting something, both will go on. If something can be treated it is generally better to do that, but where that is not possible or not desirable it is better to accommodate it. So, for example, if someone breaks a leg it is common to provide physiotherapy so that they can regain full use of that limb. If they have permanently lost use of that limb accommodation is made in terms of access - ramps, dedicated parking spaces and the like. Believe it or not, some people take issue with that.
There can be a line. We can accept that around that line things aren’t quite clear, it’s a bit complicated, and we might get it wrong.
That does not mean we have to be dicks about stuff that is absolutely nowhere near the the fucking line.
Mate, you keep using the term OCD as a shorthand for being a bit fussy. Would you mind not doing that - I’m OCD, it’s much more complicated than that, and I find it a bit upsetting.
No, because what if I’m arachnophobic, and someone with a spider tattoo won’t wear gloves? Have you ever seen Demolition Man?
Really?