N/A

"For members of targeted groups, the initial impulse is often to withdraw, to go into hiding. Yet when it comes to both individual and collective self-preservation, it can be wiser to act assertively at the beginning, while it is still possible to influence the course of events. Even if this goes badly, it can be better to bring the conflict to a head immediately, before one’s adversary becomes more powerful. If nothing else, this strategy has the virtue of making it impossible to lull oneself into a false sense of security while the threat increases.

Staying home is safer—at least, it’s safer until the long-term consequences of abandoning the streets set in. Then nowhere is safe, and it turns out it would have been better to take some smaller risks earlier on.

that's a misnomer; neuroleptic drugs don't combat a singular biological state of 'psychosis' because there is no such observed or biomarked state. neuroleptics don't have good evidence for their efficacy in actually improving patient outcomes, and are known to cause a range of serious short- and long-term (including permanent!) side effects ranging from metabolic dysregulation to movement disorders (neurological damage) to sedation (they have previously been known as 'major tranquilisers').

on principle i think people should be able to use psychoactive substances of their choosing; in practice i think this is basically a moot point in regards to neuroleptics because the side effects are so common and severe, and the benefits so minimal. these are drugs that continue to be popularly prescribed because they make patients more 'compliant' -- ie, because our current social–economic situation is so profoundly hostile to variation in perceptions of reality that we render people more 'functional' when dangerously medicated into submission.

oh we stan