Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The terrorist inside my husband's brain

m.neurology.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 153 posts

Re: The terrorist inside my husband's brain

#111

Post by School-Cotton »

eridius wrote: post #83
cylinder wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I came to the comments hoping someone would address this. I'm American and totally agree. This word terrorist needs to just go away. Call them criminals. Call the networks "organized crime." Look at the bombing in NYC recently. "we do not think this is terrorism" said our idiot mayor. It is terrorism if someone detonates a bomb in a street! Period. If you mean "we're waiting to see if he's part of a broader network o…

I looked up entrée, and the Wikipedia page says that the American usage of the word is actually older than the contemporary French meaning of a dish served before the main course. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entr%C3%A9e

How could that possibly make sense etymologically? (I'm genuinely curious). Given that "entrée" means "entrance"...

Re: The terrorist inside my husband's brain

#112

Post by oska »

initram wrote: post #92
HSO wrote: post #33

This is obviously painful for the family and the fans, and I hope my words are not taken in the wrong way. But I really wish Americans (and yes, I think it's mostly Americans who have this tendency) would choose their words more carefully. If I am not mistaken, we are talking about a disease . What makes the analogy to "terrorism" apt here? For a while, everything seemed to be a "war" ("war on drugs", "war on crime",…

Have you ever lived with someone with a mental illness? I definitely see the relationship with terrorism. Terrorism thrives on fear - "will they attack today?", "Will they use some horrible method of attack?", "Will I be able to handle it?", etc. Living with someone with mental illness can strike fear into a person. "When I get home from work, will I get normal spouse, or lunatic spouse?", "Will I need to take my chi…

Something that is terrifying is not the same as a terrorist.

A terrorist is someone who deliberately and consciously seeks to create fear and terror, usually for political ends.

A disease can not be a terrorist because it is not conscious and has no political agenda (obviously).

Re: The terrorist inside my husband's brain

#113

Post by nameless912 »

oska wrote: post #112
initram wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever lived with someone with a mental illness? I definitely see the relationship with terrorism. Terrorism thrives on fear - "will they attack today?", "Will they use some horrible method of attack?", "Will I be able to handle it?", etc. Living with someone with mental illness can strike fear into a person. "When I get home from work, will I get normal spouse, or lunatic spouse?", "Will I need to take my chi…

Something that is terrifying is not the same as a terrorist. A terrorist is someone who deliberately and consciously seeks to create fear and terror, usually for political ends. A disease can not be a terrorist because it is not conscious and has no political agenda (obviously).

That's mincing words. Being bipolar feels like an assault on my psyche that exists for no reason other than to make me miserable and to meticulously sabotage everything I do. I totally understand feeling like having a terrorist in your head, because it's a great way to describe how I feel sometimes.

Re: The terrorist inside my husband's brain

#114

Post by losteverything »

Theodores wrote: post #93
davidhariri wrote: post #17

When I heard Robin had passed I had assumed it was from depression, but what does that even mean? This essay has really challenged me to go deeper on what mental illness is- a disease just like cancer that has causes which can be mechanical. It's heart-breaking to think of a person with no way out of rapid decline other than to check out early.

Some reality please... Robin Williams, by his own admission, was a life-long drink and drug user. If he wasn't on the class 'A' drugs then he was drinking to excess. If he was 'cold turkey' in re-hab then he was on other prescription drugs, none of them needed by normal people on a day to day basis. I am sure that with each hangover and come-down there was something telling Robin Williams that some part of his brain…

If you said that to me after my sibling died i"d punch you in the mouth (or if possible I'd make it so you never can die, a fate worse than death).

Respect the living by respecting the dead.

Even if everything you say is true or if he was a Martian or of he was a programmer he is gone. Some time people simply make mistakes with words. You have a chance to delete your comment.

Keep your words from others' eyes and ears

Re: The terrorist inside my husband's brain

#115

Post by intopieces »

oska wrote: post #112
initram wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever lived with someone with a mental illness? I definitely see the relationship with terrorism. Terrorism thrives on fear - "will they attack today?", "Will they use some horrible method of attack?", "Will I be able to handle it?", etc. Living with someone with mental illness can strike fear into a person. "When I get home from work, will I get normal spouse, or lunatic spouse?", "Will I need to take my chi…

Something that is terrifying is not the same as a terrorist. A terrorist is someone who deliberately and consciously seeks to create fear and terror, usually for political ends. A disease can not be a terrorist because it is not conscious and has no political agenda (obviously).

In the title, the author is using a metaphor, which is a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.

Re: The terrorist inside my husband's brain

#116

Post by nbb »

tmptmp wrote: post #95
tominous wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with metaphors linking the human body with society is they are essentially fascist. The "parts" have no value and the "whole" is supremely important. So it is incumbent on people who use these metaphors to remember that in society the "parts" (i.e. each individual) do have value. Otherwise it's too easy to turn things around and say, "Terrorists are like disease, we must kill them all; that fast-growing e…

>>The problem with metaphors linking the human body with society is they are essentially fascist. The "parts" have no value and the "whole" is supremely important. Yes, and also the problem with metaphors linking the human body with society is they are essentially communist also. In communism, the individual has no place if he/she is lesser equal and has almost all importance/power if he/she is more equal like politb…

No.

Re: The terrorist inside my husband's brain

#117

Post by jacobush »

abecedarius wrote: post #90
robotresearcher wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This word terrorist needs to just go away. Call them criminals. Terrorists are criminals whose main motivation is political. The main motivation of other criminals is not. One term is more specific, so they are not interchangeable, and the term terrorist carries useful information when used properly. Of course, diseases are not politically motivated, so that analogy is not great.

So Henry Thoreau and Richard Nixon were terrorists? I'd really prefer more specific (and disrespectful) terms like "violent troll". "Terrorist" helps feed the phenomenon it's naming.

Some suicide bombers are children, coerced or fooled into it. "Go stand there in the crowd. Your parents will be proud. If you dont, something very unfortunate might happen to your little sibling."

Re: The terrorist inside my husband's brain

#118

Post by beowulf_cluster »

intopieces wrote: post #115
oska wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something that is terrifying is not the same as a terrorist. A terrorist is someone who deliberately and consciously seeks to create fear and terror, usually for political ends. A disease can not be a terrorist because it is not conscious and has no political agenda (obviously).

In the title, the author is using a metaphor, which is a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.

And the contention here is that it's inappropriate (unless you mean to suggest that diseases are sentient or otherwise capable of intention to foment terror) and overplayed, and it ultimately corrodes the meaning of and devalues the word.

Re: The terrorist inside my husband's brain

#119

Post by ff10 »

HSO wrote: post #33

This is obviously painful for the family and the fans, and I hope my words are not taken in the wrong way. But I really wish Americans (and yes, I think it's mostly Americans who have this tendency) would choose their words more carefully. If I am not mistaken, we are talking about a disease . What makes the analogy to "terrorism" apt here? For a while, everything seemed to be a "war" ("war on drugs", "war on crime",…

I agree mostly, but I think not the usage of this analogy is the real problem in this specific case. I think the usage here is apt as a figure of speech. However, like you already pointed out, the usage of the word terrorist in general is inflationary and has a strong significance from its literal meaning. The notions compete with each other on this level and for some readers reading those words in this context appear to be like a cheap, sort of unfair stake in the battle(!) for attention.
Post reply on HN