Official Portrait
I would like to take you all on a journey today, a journey into the mind of a psychotic individual.
Let us first begin by defining what exactly the term psychotic means, given that it is often misused in popular discourse. Clinically, the term psychotic is used to refer to an individual who is actively experiencing irrational and disorganized thought, a distorted sense of reality, impaired functionality, changes in personality or behavior, and delusional perceptions of the surrounding environment. In most instances, there is an underlying, biological cause for clinical psychoses.
The term psychotic can also be used in everyday language to describe a line of thinking that is so out of touch with facts, reason and reality, that there can be no logical justification for harboring such thoughts. And unfortunately, psychotic cognitions have become a prominent component of popular and political discourse.
For example, we have seen numerous instances of raging bigots on radio and television who are fond of spending all day disparaging Latinos, disparaging Blacks and disparaging LGBT citizens. When someone (justifiably) calls them out on their bigotry, these individuals are also fond of shouting that they are now oppressed, because their “freedom” to be bigots has been taken away. They may even claim to be victims of “reverse discrimination.”
Such ramblings are often dismissed for their level of sheer lunacy. However, within many realms of political discourse, there exists a much more insidious form of psychotic rationale. We have seen a rise in the number of legislators and pundits who call for a society based on “rugged individualism,” wherein an individual’s care and concern is focused solely on themselves and their own loved ones. Empathy is branded as inherently un-American, and the less fortunate are characterized as merely paying the penalty for their supposed lack of work ethic.
As an example, many policies proposed (and passed) in Congress – most of which come from the modern-day GOP – often target certain groups of individuals unjustifiably, branding these individuals as holding primary responsibility for the country’s ills. Even worse, many of those proposing such legislation claim to be fervent followers of the teachings of Jesus Christ.
There exists a clinical term used to describe such individuals who lack empathy for others, who will justify such lack of empathy at any cost, and who will support measures that cause great harm to individuals en masse: sociopaths.
Recall the 1976 Republican National Convention, when Ronald Reagan disparaged the poor Black community of Chicago, inventing the term “welfare queen.” And now we have Paul Ryan, the presumptive vice presidential nominee for the GOP ticket. Ryan, like many of his fellow constituents, is fond of calling himself a devout Christian. Yet, this is a legislator who, literally, has supported or voted to:
(A) Gut the federal SNAP (food stamps) program
(B) Prevent LGBT citizens from hate-crime protection
(C) Drastically reduce Medicare for elderly patients
(D) Dismantle Medicaid for impoverished children
(E) Shift the tax burden to the socioeconomically disadvantaged
Wow, what a bastion of Christianity.
In the mind of a sociopath, it is not enough for the less fortunate to simply be blamed for the ills of the country. It is not enough to possess a nostalgic longing for the days when, supposedly, such individuals knew their place. These individuals must also be made to suffer. When you combine irrational thought with the absence of empathy, what results are draconian policies that incite unjustified vitriol and cause serious, tangible harm to many innocent lives.
About Nick Baez
Thanks, Nick. A much-appreciated perspective. @Oscar Velazquez RE “if the site wants to have a political conversation, it can’t be one-sided”: There is a conversation here—pro and con—in the comments. Nick’s rather controversial, but thoughtful, ideas are here to spark dialog. I imagine Being Latino will also welcome an offer from you to write a blog entry stating your position.
Agnotology
So frustrated with Being Latino. All Latinos are not liberals! At least cover both sides of the argument. If this site is about being Latino, that is, and not being liberal… I would be happy to join as a contributor for the conservative Latino perspective.
what does this have to do with being Latino,, I am PR born on the island, but I am educated and not just a number for democrats to use whenever they need a vote, then afterwards forget us Latinos.. honestly we don’t just vote for Obama because we are not consdiered white and are expected to vote with non white voters for non white candidates for whatever office, Please,, while there are some latinos who can be conned,, be advised that most of us are educated enough to vote with whom we feel will not forget us after the election… ARE YOU LISTING OBAMA
josh must be a rich boy.
Josh, contact Nelson or one of the folks from BL and ask them if you can write civil opposing Latino views. I don’t think they will turn you down. They might think 360 degrees from what you and I might, but they are pretty reasonable.
Romney and Paul Ryan…crooks and liars
This site needs to have balance and I’m not seeing that unfortunately. Both sides have their pros and cons and if the site wants to have a political conversation, it can’t be one-sided.
Thanks @Edward R –agree.. You took my comments out of my mouth. I was wondering the same –What does this have to do with Being Latino. I don’t vote for the party but for my personal convictions.
WTH did i just read? I wasted two minutes reading this article. This has nothing about being Latino!
I don’t know too many Latino Republicans, just like I don’t know many Gay Republicans. Why align with a political party that doesn’t like you?
I vote for issues not political parties.
I actually agree with Josh and Edward on the politics aspect of it. I have written many times on the topic of us being “used” by the politicians. Watch all this amnesty and all that go away if Obama is elected again. He’ll say “I overstep my boundaries my fellow Americans, and now I have to correct it and allow congress to do it’s job”. Or some b.s like that.
But, we all know that Latinos in general are liberal. It’s true and can’t be denied. As such the audience that being latino caters to is that liberal audience. It’s the same thing at poetry events, my middle ground views are not well received, and that’s ok, I know my audience and I don’t share much politics at those events. It’s not worth the trouble.
On my site, I write plenty on Conservative, but also liberal views. I try to keep it balanced and stick to the facts. However, we can’t blame Being latino or any site for picking a specific side. We all have the choice to not read the posts. Though I do read them because I enjoy seeing things from all points of view.
I am conservative on some topics, and liberal on others. These guys can write about whatever they like, and we in turn can choose whether or not to read it. That’s my view.
Shaun, with all due respect, being rich or not has nothing to do with our views. I am far from rich, yet I don’t approve or want government running every aspect of our lives. Nor do I want this “distribution of wealth”. If you want something, earn it. I don’t want anyone to hand me anything.
I think the site name needs to change to “Being one-sided Latino”
what a shame you would post this on your page.
BL – You don’t speak for all the “LATINOS”
Here’s the solution: if you don’t like the page click the unlike button and stop complaining. They don’t cater to your needs, they post what they want and if you dont like it then unlike it. Problem solved.
http://www.politicususa.com/virginia-republicans-call-armed-revolution-obama-wins-november.html 72% Latinos supporting president Obama…..republicans le temen a nuestro crecimiento.
Edgar makes a good point. However, I’ll add to it that debate is important and also helpful. So, rather than complain, contributing intelligent rebuttals and opposing arguments here, and in the comments section would deem useful. No need to unlike the site if you like 95% of their content.
@Dave, remember this? Voter intimidation?
http://nyctalking.com/new-black-panthers-put-obama-in-office/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU
http://nyctalking.com/man-opens-fire-at-the-family-research-council-hq/
PROUD TO BE A LATIN LIBERAL DEMOCRAT
My point being, that Liberals are just as, or more likely to take violent action than conservatives. Think of the Occupy movement. Who can forget this gem: http://nyctalking.com/occupier-on-occupier-violence/
Unless you’re also a millionaire, if you’re a Latino planning to vote for Mitt Romney, you’re also voting against your own interests. 72% Latinos we know the facts…obama 2012,
Dave, I haven’t decided yet, but I’m not very happy with Obama. Please share with me what you see that I may be missing here. And, I am not a millionaire, not even a thousand-aire. Just a regular guy that is tired of seeing the govt screw us.
How sad, all that education and not much sense! I would normally try to respond with facts, but what’s the point? This “scholar in the fields of psychotherapy, anger and aggression research” is the epitome of what is wrong with the “academic elite.” You make outrageous claims shrouded in bogus logic under the guise of academics with no supporting information or any semblance of objectivity.
I don’t think these commenters read this part:
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and should not be understood to be shared by Being Latino, Inc.
If you think the conversation is one sided and you have a different perspective then join in the discussion by becoming a contributor. Simple right?
Hey Nick! I’m looking forward to your next article entitled, “The Pathology of the Reactionary Liberal Mind.” I’ll take a wild guess and say you’re a Democrat.
Wasn’t it President Richard Nixon (Republican) and his administration that came up with the notion of the “Hispanic”? A whole population flocked and embraced this artificial identity. Well, not everyone… some didn’t like the word and decided to embrace the word “Latino” instead. Kinda like I say tomato, you say toMAHto. Both terms describe the same people. Both terms are no more than artificial identities created in the 70′s. So what is the logical justification for a large population of people to embrace and wrap themselves in artificial identities that didn’t exist before 1970? Your history didn’t begin 42 years and yet you put a great emphasis on artificial identities that came out of Republican policies. Mmm… it seems that you owe your identity to the GOP…. damn those psychotic, delusional, out of touch Sociopaths!
I’ve noticed that the Being Latino contributors lack the ability to argue their point without the name calling and the insults. There seems to be no such thing as respectful disagreement on Being Latino. Whenever anyone disagrees with their views or opinion, instead of respectfully stating a differing point of view, the article and comment boxes read like a playground free for all with words like “Racist”, “Bigot”, “Idiot” and other names being thrown out. No matter what the opposite position may be, no matter how much supporting evidence you might have for that point of view, if you hold a different view from someone else that makes you “stupid” and even “hateful.”
I personally think that most people have something to say that is worth listening to even if we don’t necessarily agree with their viewpoint. But, in order to get people to listen you need to voice your disagreement respectfully. Anything else will simply close their minds to what you are saying and more likely than not they will silently brand you with the terms that you applied to them.
So let’s get back to respectful disagreement and we all may learn something new.