We as a human species won't tolerate what is cruel, but unusual is good for the arts: Axios Search 53 mins ago - Politics & Policy What to know about civil commitment, Trump's new policy for homelessness Josephine Walker facebook (opens in new window) twitter (opens in new window) linkedin (opens in new window) email (opens in new window) U.S. President Donald Trump displays a signed executive order relating to his AI Action Plan on July 23, 2025. President Trump displays a signed executive order relating to his AI Action Plan on July 23, 2025. Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images. President Trump's new executive order to combat homelessness encourages local governments to revive civil commitment, a process to place people with mental health issues in treatment facilities without their consent. Why it matters: Involuntary civil commitment has historically been used as a preventative method to confine people before they harm themselves or others, and most frequently affects vulnerable groups such as LGBTQ+, people of color and people with disabilities, according to several studies. Context: The order Trump signed Thursday calls for shifting homeless individuals into "long-term" institutions for "humane treatment" which the administration says will "restore public order." The order directs officials to determine if federal resources can be used to ensure that those "with serious mental illness" are not released back into the public solely because government facilities lack enough beds to hold them. The order also requires the Justice Department to evaluate homeless people arrested for federal crimes to determine if they are "sexually dangerous persons." The other side: Critics say the order won't help people afford homes and that previous attempts at mass institutionalization frequently violated Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. "These executive orders ignore decades of evidence-based housing and support services in practice," Donald Whitehead, Jr., executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless, said in a statement. He added that the orders "represent a punitive approach that has consistently failed to resolve homelessness and instead exacerbates the challenges faced by vulnerable individuals." Here's what you need to know about Trump's new executive order: What is civil commitment? Involuntary civil commitment is the process in which a judge, or someone else acting in judicial capacity, orders a person be admitted to a psychiatric hospital or a supervised outpatient treatment facility without their consent. The specific criteria that a person needs to exhibit to be confined varies in every state, but the guidelines usually mention those with mental illness, developmental disabilities and substance abuse issues that pose a danger to themselves or others. Modern day commitment proceedings have to follow due process laws under state and federal law. How was civil commitment previously used? Before the late 1960's, people with mental health issues were often thrown into jails for vagrancy alongside criminals, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. The standards that states had to follow to commit someone had little legal oversight. Since then, there's been a push to orient facilities towards mental health treatment rather than incarceration. More than 500,000 people were committed to mental health treatment facilities in the 1950s, according to a 2010 study. That number fell to 30,000 by the 1990s with a shift in focus on treatment. The Supreme Court has also stepped in to define the boundaries of civil commitment. In a case out of Florida in 1975, the court ruled that an individual must pose a danger to themselves or others to be held against their will. The court ruled in a separate case in 1979 that a "clear and convincing" standard of proof is necessary for involuntary civil commitment. Who was most likely to be affected by civil commitment? The American Psychiatric Association classified "homosexuality" as a mental disorder until 1973, making it easy for states to send LGBTQ+ people to institutions because of their sexuality. Having a "mental abnormality" is typically a requirement for admission to a facility, according to the Prison Policy Initiative, which researches the effects of mass incarceration. The group argues that having a definition that broad would imply that all people who are civilly committed are disabled, which made it hard to accurately determine the number of disabled people in the population studied. Patients of color are more likely than white patients to be committed to involuntary psychiatric hospitalization, according to a 2022 report from the American Psychiatric Association. Black patients and those who identified as multiracial were still more vulnerable even after factoring confounding variables. Go deeper: Map: Which U.S. states saw largest prison population increase facebook (opens in new window) twitter (opens in new window) linkedin (opens in new window) email (opens in new window)
-
-
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
-
-
-
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment