« Previous: depression comix #330
Next Post: depression comix #332 »
depression comix #331
Reader Interactions
Comments
Trackbacks
[…] depression comix – 331 – View Site – View Patreon […]
comics and illustrations by clay jonathan
[…] depression comix – 331 – View Site – View Patreon […]
This is a VERY brave comic to post. You are probably going to receive a lot of hate for it, but you have just solidified my support. Thank you.
I’m already getting hate for it. Thankfully it’s not very well-thought out hate so it’s easy to argue against.
I don’t know if the point I wanted to make shines through, but we have a tendency to ascribe negative characteristics to other races when something bad happens but when someone from our own race is the perpetrator we sometimes use mental illness to give ourselves a free pass.
Let’s not forget that using mental illness to give people a free pass about racism actually throws those with mental health struggles under the bus. Intersections must be considered.
Especially when the media uses PTSD as an excuse for heinous acts. You know who have very high rates of PTSD? People living in warzones for decades. Mental illness gives that same free pass right back to “those people” that many have a problem with, but cognitive dissoance kicks in.
That is true as well. People who have mental health issues get unfairly labelled as the perpetrators of violence. A planned future strip will focus on that point more directly — it had a line about Trump in it so I thought I’d test the waters with this strip first.
This VERY thing is happening in my neighborhood right now (suburban Kansas City)!
It’s a bit naive, but I wish we could just see everyone as human. Trying to distance ourselves from these problems does nothing to solve them.
Groupthink. We and them. It’s not fascism when we do it. Etc. Bad for everyone, and at the same time a very natural defense mechanism. Being aware of it is very good first step.
Stereotypes, note even once.
Very true.
Don’t listen to anyone who sends you hate mail over this. They just don’t want to admit to their own racist tendencies.
I think people who do things like that definitely have mental-health issues. Not everything is in the DSM, and the DSM is political anyway.
And yes I know most mentally ill people don’t do stuff like this. I also know not everyone with an infectious disease has Ebola. There are lots of ways to be ill, with lots of different symptoms.
I was about to say the same. Those muslims and black people who do something like that are suffering as much as white people who do the same… if not even more.
Yeah but that’s not true. It’s just a way of coping with reality of yours mrs Seilhan.
I’m not exactly sure which you are referring to, but I don’t believe racism or violent behavior is indicative of mental illness.
i believe that depends a lot on who defines “mental illness”.
there have been cultures which considered greed a mental illness.
the tendency to commit violent acts may be a mental illness.
the tendency to racism may be a mental illness too.
or it may end up being classified as such in the future, if society develops in a way that makes for true equality.
fear of people with a different skin color than one’s own or a different god than one’s own might very well be a phobia rather than hate.
who even knows before it’s been thoroughly studied in a society where all are equal.
Although classifying illnesses arbitrarily that way was done in the past, nowadays identifying mental illnesses is more subject to the scientific method and usually requires multidisciplinary evidence.
After reading my comment again and thinking the subject from more angles, all I can say is sorry. I didn’t mean to offend anyone.
YES! Our buddy Clay speaking the truth over here.
Bravo.
Documented proof of this “character” in the comments only an hour before this post. Fortunately, it’s in response to people already trying to dismantle the stereotypes by calling out the journalistic double standard that softens language in order to cater to a certain fragile demographic:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1404012632952422&id=114050161948682
I’m not sure anyone actually thinks that way… the first 3, sure… I’m sure there’s some people out there who just do this naturally.
But in general most people presume everyone who dose a crime is mentally ill, not the other way around.
People with mental illnesses are more likely to be victims of a violent crime then the general population by far, and are not actually more likely to commit them in general. I’ve never however seen anyone say “well people like me with my illness wouldn’t do that!” Ever… maybe it’s because I’m a true crime fan and lurk elsewhere to you, but most people with a mental illness actually come down HARDER on mental illness then those in the crime fan groups who don’t have it. People without it say things like “well it was his illness not him, he shouldn’t get that big of a sentance as long as they can make him mentally stable.” To which people with serious mental illnesses without a doubt will reply immediately with there experiences of being stable and on medication and either stopping taking it, or it stopping working and relapsing and expressing how you cannot trust them, even if it was the illness and not them, because “mental illness lies” and you don’t feel like you are slipping when you are, and when your mentally ill AND have a history of violence it isn’t something that is let go… while few of these people are jumping st sending people with there illness to the gallows, they are much more likely to suggest they be forced to attend regular doctors appointments for the rest of there lives and other such “never let them out of our sights” methods.
Nobody seriously thinks the last panel per se, but it’s in the psychological literature that this is the process that gets used, it’s how we insulate ourselves from identification with people who do horrible acts.
Actually, the person in the comic is assuming that everyone white who does a crime must be mentally ill, just as you said. He isn’t saying all mentally ill people commit crimes. However, there is no evidence for mental illness = crime or even some mental illness = some crime so any link between mental illness and crime is erroneous.
Hmm well it was sort of lost on me… not to criticise I mean I love your work, this ones message just sort of missed the mark for me. Not a criticism of you, or your works in general XD this just sort of seems like it’s saying people with mental illnesses don’t think others with mental illness commit crimes in the same way that white dudes distance themselves from other white dudes who commit crimes and that’s overwhelmingly on true crime forums the exact opposite of what actually happens.
The third panel really sells it. It’s like you can see the mental gymnastics going on as worldview meets reality.
A religious studies professor I once had stated that one person cannot treat someone else poorly unless they have made them less than human in their mind. Just for the academic exercise, we tried hard to think of examples where this didn’t hold true. We were stumped; she was correct. If we view all human beings as true equals, then bigotry disappears. I stay away from bigots. I have no need for them. Nice, timely strip, Clay.
when the perp is latino: depends how light his skin is.
Mohammed decapitated 900 persons by his own hand and order the muslims to do the same…they killed everybody they did in 50 countries, then the muslims raped all the women and reduced to slavery them as sex slaves.
Huh. I live in a country where over 200 000 men, women and children were burned alive in an instant, and thousands more painfully died of their injuries soon after. I wonder what kind of asshole would do that.
It sort of depends on how you look at it. Were they assholes?
People always want to say “But we had to drop the bomb. If we didn’t, we would have had to fight a ground war and many more lives would be lost.” But in truth, it wasn’t even necessary to do that. Know why? Japan was already considering surrendering to the Russians. The Russians would have fought that war, and after seeing what they did to Hitler the Japanese weren’t sure they could hold them off. The truth is, the Russians couldnt lose. It was at that exact moment the Cold War had already begun. America saw the Russians as a threat and they didn’t want them taking Japan, and controlling all nearly all of the East.
Now as Obiwan-Kenobi said, “From a certain point of view…” someone could say America “saved” Japan from existing for decades under a communist regime. But you can see how biased that point of view is. Nonetheless for the Emperor, surrendering to the Americans seemed better than surrendering to the Russians. Beyond that, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki served his purpose. Up until that point the army and navy had suffered a string of defeats, the economy was shattered, and starvation was looming. If he JUST surrendered the people would be able to blame leadership for a disastrous war. But if he accepted the idea that it was the bomb alone that defeated Japan, he could preserve his legitimacy as a leader (he wasn’t a failure). He saved face. Furthermore he could receive international sympathy after his nation became the world’s first and only casualty of nuclear weapons, and reduce any punishment received for his aggressive action during the war.
On the flipside -whatever the world might have gained by not having a communist Japan, whatever rush of vindication the Americans might have felt for Pearl Harbor, the world that followed was in fact MORE dangerous. Not safer. The Americans dropped the bombs because they were AFRAID. But in doing so they began a cold war that had it turned hot …would have ended the world. Something even more terrifying than anything ever imagined. We can’t go back to before. We changed things. FOREVER. World around. In the long run, it wasn’t worth it. It was something Oppenheimer, Einstein, and others that had worked on the bomb or pushed for it’s creation (in FEAR that the Germans would build it first) never forgave themselves for. Sometimes I wonder if Hitler had held out long enough -until the bomb was finished, and the weapon used against Germany as it was originally intended ….how would the world feel about the atom bombs being dropped? For certain much of the world would say “They were NAZIS they were evil!” Much of the world might feel they deserved it compared to Japan. But….it wouldn’t change anything. Still, I know people would feel differently about it, even if the number of dead were far greater.
Were they assholes? Maybe. No…definitely. But MORE than that they were as Tommy Lee Jones said of humanity in MIB “dumb panicky animals, and you KNOW it”. I have always thought that things done to other humans out of FEAR were the greatest sins. And Fearmongers the greatest corrupters imaginable. It takes extraordinary courage to be good. And to me, the man in the comic’s courage is eroding. He fears the other, but trusts and excuses people like himself everyday.
The cold war was inevitable whether the U.S. bombed Japan or not. Once such a devastating weapon is invented it will lead to an arms race. Because humans are “dumb panicky animals”, the only safety lies in a stalemate, in which no nation dares attack any other with nuclear weapons due to the threat of retaliation.
Safety huh? Some people say war never changes.
But it did change. And what followed was M.A.D.ness.
Then again, maybe it is is as you say -inevitable. Before nuclear arms were the ultimate weapon it seemed everyone was researching bioweapons. And thereafter it became the poor man’s nuke. Hell, the Russians had the largest bioweapons program in the world (and quite a bit of it was just abandoned like Voz Island) even with all the nukes. And they had it because they FEARED the Americans would break the agreement to keep their programs as defensive research only. But perhaps…with some fortune the world might transition to Cyberwarfare over conventional attacks. Then again considering things like Stuxnet…maybe it makes no difference.
My point is, if everyone was held to their history, we would all have blood on our hands. It’s not the point, and irrelevant to the conversation.
About their parents raped and eviscerated half a million of women and babies in Nanking in a few hours, also in Hong Kong and many other places in Philippines and China? The Japanese military was pretty bad…however they today are nice folks…they only have 80,000 muslims in Japan but they get attacked constantly by the few islamics they dared allowed in…
You’re an asshole. “Their parents” … not everyone is responsible for what someone in their same race or religion does. However, I have reached the limit of your trolling so it is here we depart.
His name looked weird to me, and it is extremely troll unto itself. He named himself “ZOG YAWEH MOSSAD”. ZOG stands for Zionist Occupied Government. A conspiracy theory that Jewish men control every nation, which are only puppet states. (it originates with Neo Nazi publications) Yahweh is the name of the Israelite deity (the actual vowels are unknown). Mossad is the Israeli CIA.
All that aside there is a tendency to look at nations, and peoples as monolithic. As if they were a living entity or being unto themselves. People talk about things “America” or “Russia” has done for example (Not “AmericanS” or “RussianS”) -which usually was actually done by a particular subset, branch, or authority rather than the entire people. But why? People also take things that were done -not to them, but their grandfathers, and great grandfathers as if they were done to them personally. But why? Well , there’s an old idea of punishments for “the sins of the fathers” being visited on the children out to the third and fourth generations. But as you said Clay, if it were actually done so -no one on Earth alive would escape it.
Depressingly accurate. Rather like the threats and violence against Planned Pregnancy centres are not considered terrorism despite fitting the FBI’s classification exactly.
Don’t terrorists always have to have “organizations” that are lead by somebody?
No, by definition a terrorist is one who uses violence or the threat of violence to further a cause, political, religious, and/or ideological. They can act alone, as part of a group, or singularly while within the goals of a larger organisation.
So called “Lone Wolf” terrorists included Anders Breivik (neo-Nazi and misogynist), Arid Uka (Islamist in the style of ISIS/daesh), and Robert Lewis Dear Jnr (evangelical Christian, anti-abortion choice).
No, the definition of a terrorist is one who uses violence and /or the threat of such with a goal of political, religious, or ideological change. This may align with organisations without being part of such groups.
Thank you, Clay. In many ways this is more depressing than your usual (and excellent) revelations about more personal aspects of depression. It’s also both timely and quite true; that general principle is quite well-studied and has one of my favorite titles in psychology, the “ultimate attribution error”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_attribution_error
I just have a long string of random thoughts after reading this provocative (in a good way) strip.
I find it very frustrating that every time there is a particularly heinous violent crime, so many (particularly in the media) jump onto “He was mentally ill” as an explanation or excuse. Even if the perpetrator can be clinically diagnosed a more severe problem like some form of psychopathy or sociopathy, that in no way excuses or even mitigates their actions. It is easy to separate oneself from a perpetrator by saying “nobody in their right mind would do something like that so he must have been crazy”, but that is because many people do not want to accept the fact that perfectly rational and sane people are still capable of committing horrific acts. In other words, certain people are simply evil, not sick or crazy. Are people with mental illness capable of committing terrible acts of violence? Yes, but no more so than people without mental illness. In other words, the degree or type of mental illness, or lack thereof, has no correlation with the morality of any particular person.
One huge misconception here in the U.S. is regarding the insanity defense. People seem to think that it is a common and highly successful legal defense, the reality is that it is quite rare. In the U.S. insanity is used as a legal defense in less than 1% of criminal cases and in those cases where it is used it has only a 26% success rate. Most people are also unaware of the legal standard for an insanity defense. Many states use some variation of the M’Naghten Rule. This rule was first set as a legal principle under English common law in 1843. The original version stated, “At the time of committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from a disease of the mind, as to not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.” That is a standard that thankfully very few people will meet.
Short version, most people who commit evil acts do so not because they don’t understand the evil nature of the act but rather because they don’t care if the act is judged as evil. Some people who are not mentally ill are evil, and some people who are mentally ill are evil. The degree of mental illness, or lack thereof, has no correlation with the morality of any particular person.
The line of thought illustrated in the strip seems to be part of human nature. An unfortunate part to be sure, and hopefully we can continue to make progress in eliminating it.
Unfortunately, all these concepts do not reduce down to the soundbites that are so popular with the media and politicians. Complex issues rarely do, but you will always hear the media or politicians stick with their soundbites, it’s easier than thinking.
B-b-but sir.
Most crimes with a Muslim perpetrator are terrorist acts. Muslims in general don’t really rob stores and shit. They’re either ideal citizens (mot of them) or extremists of their religion.
Blacks don’t commit school shootings, they rob. Nothing to do with mental illness.
White people do all sorts of crime, but they make up basically all school shooters. Obviously mental illness plays a role among other things.
This wasn’t about mass shootings, this is about how crimes are portrayed in the media by race. But since you’re bringing it up
Questions: 1) why can’t Muslim perpetrators be carrying out these acts because of mental health issues? The recent acts on an American soil — the San Bernardino attack (a disgruntled employee) and the Orlando attack (a homosexual homophobe) can certainly be argued on these terms, yet rarely are.
2) why can’t white people be terrorists? The recent attacks on a Muslim church in Quebec City and the 2015 Charleston church shooting can certainly be argued on these terms — they were directed at people of a specific race/culture, and both were into white supremacist web sites and paraphernalia.
The truth is rarely as simple as you state, but it is telling how you think “Muslim perpetrators are terrorist acts” without saying any such thing about white perpetrators, and for them “mental illness plays a role”. You’re basically proving my point.
Ho ho! The guy in this strip is my entire family. Excellent comic. Totally nails the mindset of blistering ignorance & blame-gamers.
This has been answered several times in the comments.
If you still don’t get it, it’s your problem, not mine.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-considine/muslims-are-not-a-race_b_8591660.html
Do you even know what you’re talking about?
I wish I had bravery, conviction, ability to disregard other people well being and certainty in doing my own action like those perpetrators 🙁
there is a troubling conversation about recent proposals by Trump to reverse gun control laws. I am all for gun control but some organizations are basing their gun control efforts on the belief that mental illness has been the cause of mass shootings. It angers me that the mentally ill are scapegoated and used as an fear tactic for gun control. It is divisive and doesn’t help promote clarity or real solution to gun violence. Spot on portraying the blame game.
This annoys me too. The idea that someone has to be necessarily mentally ill to kill someone doesn’t fit in with what psychology knows about human behavior (look at Milgram’s experiments in the 1960s for example). It is merely a smokescreen for keeping guns prevalent even when every other western country with stricter laws enjoys vastly fewer gun fatalities by population.
And perhaps more importantly (as I got hung up on the mental illness angle) the old white male club/patriarchy/white male privilege has to be continually challenged. Thanks for putting yourself out there.
I love how at the end the mug says “Coffee Demon”, lol.
Thanks, I can’t remember why I did that though, especially when the star is not in the right position.