How To Downplay Ableism & Sexual Violence Against Especially Women With Mental Illnesses: Be Like the "Boston Globe", Among Others

With the none-too-surprising allegations against Dr. Keith Albow coming out in the news, Dr. Ablow reminds us of two facts:

1) Those with disabilities, such as mental illnesses, are more likely to be victims of sexual and non-sexual abuse than the general population is.

2) There are people whom either:

a)  go into the mental-health field and become ableists & abusers of those with mental illnesses

or

b) went into the mental-health field to exploit people with mental illnesses in the first place

The "Boston Globe", meanwhile, harbors that same kind of ableism against especially women with mental illnesses, as their the headline is misleading & should be something like, "‘I own you’: Prominent psychiatrist accused of raping patients and sexually exploiting other patients in other ways".

As for Andrea Celenza, she is among those whom also harbor those sentiments. Even though she clearly does not care to admit that, her statement obviously has those glaring sentiments in it:

"Andrea Celenza, a Lexington psychoanalyst who interviewed the women and reviewed their medical records as an expert witness hired by the plaintiffs, said in a letter filed with the lawsuits that Ablow’s behavior in the case of the New York woman “was sadomasochistic, anti-therapeutic, and constitutes a perverse use of his status and power.” The former patient said that, during their seven-year sexual relationship, Ablow persuaded her to get his initials tattooed on her arm."

Also:

"Celenza, in her letter to the women’s attorney, said Ablow’s alleged sexual misconduct with the Minnesota woman amounted to “the most egregious violation” of the American Psychiatric Association’s ethical code. “These behaviors are grossly unprofessional and unethical,” she said, adding that they “represent the worst and most damaging kind of abuse” in a therapeutic setting. 

If she did not actually agree with Dr. Ablow and the "Boston Globe" themselves, each of letters would contain unequivocal statements that Dr. Ablow's behavior was unethical as well as immoral, illegal, and unfaithful to the Hippocratic Oath, sadistic (not "sadomasochistic"), abusive in general (not just "anti-theraputic"), and general as well as specifically-ableist sexual abuse and non-sexual abuse (not "constitutes a perverse use of his status and power", as "constitutes a perverse use of his status and power" implies that his victim had some amount of complicity in what he did as well as that it "[only] constitutes" and isn't wholly a categorical abuse of status and power).

As for society in general, it needs to ask itself how and why it enables, outright encourages, and outright engages in—as NAMI calls ableism for what it is—ableist "discrimination, not stigma". After all, society affects and effects ableism to increasingly prevalent and severe as it, for example:

1. Tries every damned way to get around the ADA and HIPPA
2. Uses people with disabilities in of themselves as targets of "jokes" and other thinly-disguised abuse
3. Making light of disabilities by coining terms such as "libtard" as well as classifying evils such as sociopathy and narcissism as mental illnesses—which, by the way, sociopaths and narcisstics love, as it enables them to abuse especially people with real mental illnesses by affecting them to not be taken seriously when they seek mental-health treatment.
4. Ultimately affecting and effecting the creation of ableists from people such as Dr. Ablow all the way to the typical man (usually man, though sometimes woman) whom has a child with a disability and thus ableistically abandons and/or otherwise abuses his (or her) family (and yes, abandoning your family because you don't want a child with a disability is abuse).

A (Not-So-)Funny Thing Happened On the Way To This Point In American History, And It Doesn't Make One "Derang[ed]" When Distrust Is Earned

Three North Korea-kidnapped Americans were released and returning to the United States today, and to distrust a certain illegally-elected "POTUS" whom's currently under investigation by a special counselor does not make one "derang[ed]." After all, the last time that an American came back to the United States, the American in question died—and he had held out until he could die surrounded by loved ones, all of whom had been and still are targets of the illegally-elected "POTUS", D****d *****. So I'm certainly not withholding earned credit when I criticize *****, either. Besides, ***** praised Kim Jong-Un long after Otto Warmbier died; and the Warmbier Family were thus targeted again as recently as just over three weeks ago. They were also targeted when ***** maliciously withdrew the U.S. from the Iran Deal, as every single Jewish family was.

When an impurely-motivated person has repeatedly shown his or her Anti-Semitic and/or other bigoted true colors, I'm not going to give him or her "credit for anything good that he [or she] does". I'm also not going to say that two wrongs make a right, and the bad-enough Iran Deal certainly did not need to be withdrawn by somebody whom harbors just as much hatred for Jews as does the Iranian Government. In fact, I would be foolish to call "good" that Iran is now emboldened enough to "increase spending" on nuclear weapons and continue its Anti-Semitic attacks on Israel.

Call me and others "derang[ed]", then, though you're certainly not going to make *****'s wrong right or your slander against me and others true when ***** has continued to prove that the Warmbier Family, Americans as a whole, and Jews as a whole are only pawns to him at best and just continuous punching bags at the best of the worst—and Special Counselor Mueller luckily does have ***** under investigation, or only God indeed does know what (I kid you not) Mr. "proud to have that German blood" would do. By the way, ***** being proud to have German heritage would not be a big deal if he wasn't proud of it for malicious reasons—so I'm not asking anybody to go to the Germanophobic extreme that occurred during World War Two, and there were many righteous Germans¹ and are righteous Germans.

¹ Truth be told, though, I'm pretty sure that many "Righteous Among the Nations" were Jewish themselves and not counted as such either because of Rabbinic halachah and/or other identification by others as "gentile". One example is probably Hebert Coehn. "Coehn" or "Cöhn" can be German, but it is often Jewish. Also, Raoul Wallenberg and Eduardo Propper de Callejón were both Jews and never got recognized as Jews. We who are Jewish do ourselves a real disservice when we don't acknowledge Jews whom risked their lives to save other Jews as Jews.

Whoopi Goldberg & Joy Behar Didn't Embarrass Sarah Huckabee Sanders

For "Salon" to even have that as their headline is embarrassing, as Sarah Huckabee Sanders has embarrassed herself—or at least should be embarrassed because of her behavior, including defending Tr**p and her father. Also, Sarah Huckabee Sanders doesn't "have to go out and defend those lies every day", as she willingly took the job as Tr**p's press secretary and decided that "Like father, like daughter" is okay in her case.

Both "Salon" and Joy Behar ought to be ashamed for even defending Sarah Huckabee Sanders, especially right after Joy Behar called her out for her behavior—and for Joy Behar to turn around and act like Sarah Huckabee Sanders is a victim, and "Salon"'s (not to mention others') promoting of Joy Behar's lie that Sarah Huckabee Sanders ""[has] to go out and defend those [Tr**p's and her father's pro-Tr**p] lies every day" is embarrassing—and "Salon" and Joy Behar are embarrassing themselves by defending Sarah Huckabee Sanders and, effectively, Tr**p and Mike Huckabee. 

Again, Charlie Hebdo?

At a point, the higher good of making sure that nobody else becomes a victim like especially Georges Wolinski did outweighs the freedom of speech. Did Georges Wolinski really survive the German part of Holocaust only to become a Holocaust victim 70 years later and get his grave spit on by "Charlie Hebdo"? Did Georges Wolinski become a martyr only for evildoers whom will use any excuse to use "Charlie Hebdo" as an excuse once again?

"The words of a wise man's mouth are gracious; but the lips of a fool will swallow up himself. The beginning of the words of his mouth is foolishness; and the end of his talk is grievous madness. A fool also multiplieth words; yet man knoweth not what shall be; and that which shall be after him, who can tell him?"

Even wise words can become foolish in the mouths of fools:

"A fool hath no delight in understanding, but only that his heart may lay itself bare.....[and a] fool's lips enter into contention, and his mouth....is his ruin, and his lips are the snare of his soul." 

Arguing with fools is foolish. Those who emulate Mohammed and follow Early Islam look for anything to do evil like Mohammed did:

"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him."Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes."  

How else can I say that sometimes holding your tongue is better but that holding your tongue is sometimes appropriately answering a fool according to his folly?

Did Facebook Really Have To Wait Until The Murder Of Heather Heyer To Enforce Their Own TOS?

"Facebook does not allow hate speech or praise of terrorist acts or hate crimes, and we are actively removing any posts that glorify the horrendous act committed in Charlottesville."

Facebook surely has allowed other violations of their TOS for a long time, though:

"The company initially had allowed the page but decided as the event neared that it no longer met Facebook’s community standards because it was associated with “hate organizations.”

"The company said that it wants people to use Facebook to challenge ideas and organize peacefully, but draws the line when actions could put people in harm's way or involve hate groups."

How Facebook fails to enforce its own TOS and "draws the line when actions could put people in harm's way or involve hate groups" is beyond me. A mutual exclusivity exists between allowing "when actions could put people in harm's way or involve hate groups" and "draw[ing] the line when actions could put people in harm's way or involve hate groups.

Facebook has to either enforce its TOS to protect everybody against all hateful individuals and groups or not have a TOS at all. After all, Facebook shouldn't even have "allowed the page".

Originally On LinkedIn: Be A Boss Like D****d Tr**p & Reap What You Sow. For Example...

1. Resentment from your business' customers.
2. Resentment from many of your employees.
3. A crony- and pseudo-capitalist (since crony capitalism always is pseudo capitalist in) nature in your economy.
4. A workplace culture of low morale, less and cheapened productivity, and mafiosoism.
5. A stagnating and declining customer base.
6. Eventual risk on your bottom line, whether the risk hits overnight or precipitously comes down on your bottom line.
7. Fair and just removal from your unfairly-gained-in-the-first-place CEO position, in the same way that you unfairly fired those whom were testifying in a probe against you and your immoral, unethical, and illegal business practices; and prosecution against you because of your criminal and unscrupulous acts.

After the demonstration of all that Donald Trump has sowed (with the firing of James Comey being the final bad seed sowed), Donald Trump will absolutely reap getting impeached, removed from office, and prosecuted. Take a lesson from Donald Trump, then: criminality and unscrupulousness pays from your account, and you will be held to account. Especially no unearned executive privilege saves you from that, since earned executive privilege has saved other corrupt CEOs and executives when they've lost the right to it.

Originally On LinkedIn:

One of the common sentiments that I read and hear people express is that the journalism field—from the "mainstream media" to the "right-wing blogs"—are increasingly becoming unprofessional and more driven by celebrity status and entertainment than actual journalism. I myself can see this, even when I read the conspiracy theories about—for example—Seth Rich and Justice Antonin Scalia being murdered by, respectively, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama operatives. There are also commentators and analysts whom are driven more by celebrity status and entertainment that professionalism, and even commentators and analysts have a responsibility to be as objective and driven by the truth as possible—and one example whom I (and others) see as preferring to be a celebrity and showmaster is Sean Hannity, whom would rather promote particularly-Anti-Semitic and criminal businessman Donald Trump than call out Donald Trump's instances of racism (including the racism directed at President Obama, whom he claims was born in Kenya), ableism (including at Sergei Kovaleski), xenophobia (including at Mexico-born-and-naturalized-American Jorge Ramos), misogyny (including at Megyn Kelly, and at his daughter Ivanka and ex wife Ivanka—one of whom he stated that he would date were she not his daughter, and the other one whom he raped and later extorted into retracting her testimony in "Trump v. Trump"), and Anti Semitism (including at Julia Ioffe, the Republican Jewish Coalition, and even his own in-law son, Jared Kushner).

Other fields are just as increasingly unprofessional as the journalism field—among them are the academia, medical, and even law-enforcement and criminal-justice fields, with those like notorious Anti Semites such as the took-a-long-time-to-fire Joy Karenga, nurses whom take sexually-explicit pictures of unconscious patients, and the late Lieutenant Joe Gliniewicz and the should-be-under-investigation-for-perjury-and-evidence-tampering Jose Baez.

The unprofessionalism in all fields, meanwhile, is sadly a symptom of the morally- and ethically-declining American culture—with comorbid symptoms such as a declining work ethic and abuses of LinkedIn, which will become a de-facto social-networking site unless Microsoft and LinkedIn work to restore LinkedIn to its original purpose in the same way that, for example, Fox News had to fire Roger Ailes and restructure the Fox News hierarchy in order to start rebalancing and rectifying the unfairness in which the "fair and balanced" news channel has increasingly engaged.

Incidentally, the same United States that is returning to the production and consumption of organic foods, a balance of modern and ancient medicine, and the use of natural and organic hygiene and house-cleaning products is more willing to restore and maintain its physical health than its moral, ethical, and professional health—as has been since in cases such as the class-action-lawsuit case against the "non-GMO" Naked Juice, which actually fraudulently marketed their GMO-laden products as never having had GMOS in them.

Originally On LinkedIn: Facebook, Its TOS, and Algorithms?

A while back, a Facebook friend told me that Facebook apparently enforces its TOS by using algorithms. Algorithms—a well-over-$1-Million company uses algorithms to enforce its TOS?

Meanwhile, on a petition that I made to ask Facebook to enforce its own TOS, someone commented:

"I believe the maker of facebook is sexist and racist. Something should be done about it. I got in trouble for swearing at a racist but he didnt get in trouble for being racist. Something is so wrong with that"

I wish that I could've replied to her comment with the observation that its more that Facebook is evidently not hiring enough people to enforce its TOS—and while I grant that there are multiple TOS-violation reports a day, I also grant that there are:

1. Many people looking for jobs.
2. People like me whom'd be glad to have a job helping Facebook enforce its own TOS, especially since many of us have been affected by TOS violators. As for me, I live in Maryland and could help enforce Facebook's TOS virtually—I can't drive (since I have Cerebral Palsy) and, while I'm working on being an author and analyst-commentator, would love to be off of SSI benefits as well to help Facebook crack down the kind of, e.g., ableism and Anti Semitism by which I've been affected. Of course, I have to be prepared for the reality that Facebook will see me as nothing more than my Cerebral Palsy and what mental illnesses I have—after all, why would Facebook see me as any different since they often don't care when an individual with a disability is attacked by a TOS violator?
3. TOS violations that are so egregious, they've had to be reported to the FBI since Facebook wouldn't deal with them—and I remember that the FBI emailed me back per one threat that I reported and told me that I needed to forward the threat report to the Secret Service.
4. Too many instances in which Facebook even restores accounts and pages of TOS violators—and one page that they restored involved a threat against Hillary Clinton, while another on which someone reported content posted an obscene "**** Facebook" meme regarding when Facebook actually did enforce their TOS.

Since Facebook probably won't hire me, though (See Point Two and consider the case of Katie Shoener in a non-Facebook field.), they could at least consider what I've written here & hire others whom are looking for jobs.

My Basic Twitter Philosophy

Update (November 14, 2024 or 12 Cheshvan 5784):

1. If you unfollow me and I am following you, I will unfollow you in turn if I become aware that you have unfollowed me². Since I hold the philosophy that people online are a reflection of whom they are offline (including, as Curt Schilling pointed out, whom they would be offline if they could be that way offline), I have no time for you if you have no time for me, I have, as far as I recall, broken my unfollow-for-unfollow rule only twice, and that includes that I refollowed one person whom'd unfollowed me only because his work in his field is influential enough to merit for him a follow. I will also unfollow you if I recall that you followed me and then unfollowed me after I followed you, whether or not my recollection is correct.
2. If you abuse me in any way on Twitter—for example, if you twist my words (or similarly libel me) and/or engage in Anti-Semitic attacks—I will report and/or block you. ³
3. If you abuse others on Twitter, I will report and/or block you. ³
4. RTs are not endorsements unless the original tweet is favorited and/or the RTs are noted as endorsements of the original tweets. What RTs often are is FOIP (for only informational purposes).
5. While I do "unfollow for unfollow", I do not do "follow for follow"—I follow whom I want to follow, and I will follow those whom follow me if I find them worth following.
6. While and since I won't, and I really even can't, report every abusive instance and/or block every person whom's engaging in abuse, I will call out someone whom's being abusive if I feel (or at least hope) that I can reason with them. ³
7. I get Twitter notifications via text messages—and I don't have a smartphone¹, unlike some of these rich kids and others whom can afford smartphones. As soon as I get a chance to respond to and/or RT tweets, I'll respond to them; and be aware that I can see on my phone what abusive tweets you deleted and/or thought that you blocked from my view—and I will report and/or block you, and/or call you out. ³

Addendum [April 9, 2019/Aviv 3, 5779 (Before sunset)]: 

1. The Democrats & others who want to think that the Modern Right & the Alt Right are the same as well as try to demonize the Modern Right, ignore the #NeverTrump movement are only going to make the #NeverTrump movement fight harder against Trump's trying to destroy the GOP. In other words, their attempts to throw out revisionist tropes and thus give Trump what he wants haven't worked in the way that they wanted it to do so. If you're one of those revisionists and you're thinking about parroting out your revisionism as a response to my tweets, then, please keep away from me. On the flip side, if you're a Trumpite or one who dreads Clinton more than fears Yehovah, also please keep away from me if you're thinking about troping out your own revisionism in response to my tweets. 
2. On that note and a general note, common sense holds that one doesn't have to unnecessarily respond to something that he or she doesn't like. So, please, just don't respond to my tweets if you don't like them and have no reason to respond to them.

Addendum [November 4, 2019/Cheshvan 6, 5779 (Before sunset)]:

If you need a template to write to your Representative about indicting Trump instead of impeaching him:

"Rep. [Whomever]:

"By impeaching Trump, Congress would be handing him 25th Amendment rights and presidential legitimacy. The law (based on the law-from-the-bench principle regarding sitting presidents and indictment) says that one cannot indict a sitting president, but it doesn't say that one can't indict an illegitimate president. The assumption was always that and is that the sitting president had and has to be a legitimate one, since there is the principle behind the law as well as the law itself. Thus, please push for Speaker Pelosi and the rest of the House to acknowledge that Trump is not a legitimate president and thus should not be given impeachment rights, let alone 25th Amendment rights or presidential legitimacy.

"Thank you for your time and consideration of my request."

¹ Addendum: July 2, 2020/10 Tammuz 5780: I do have a smartphone now. It was a gift for Hanukkah, Christmas, and my 30th birthday; and I honestly resisted letting one anyone get me one and using one for a long time. What's not changed: I still block and/or report abusive tweeters.

²Addendum, same date: I realize that part of my problem is that I don't enforce my own unfollow-for-unfollow rule enough (sometimes because I'm unsure right away if someone followed me in the first place). To me, how one interacts with me online tells me how he or she would interact with me offline. In other words, I need to start meaning that I don't have time for anyone whom doesn't have time for me or wants me to have time for him or her. I will thus be enforcing my own rule more.

³ All of that fits my motto, "If you don't stand up to evil, evil will stand you down—and that is evil."

Originally On LinkedIn: The Injustice Of How Job Seekers Like Me Are Under the Radar Of Recruiters On LinkedIn(-Turned-Facebook?) | Nicole V. Czarnecki | LinkedIn

This issue reoccurs and reoccurs because of people whom use LinkedIn as another social-network link. Even today, someone who I'm following on LinkedIn had to ask someone else to "kindly refrain" from sharing a lewd and sexist photo on the "professional environment" that LinkedIn is supposed to be—and this person is already luckily in the workforce. As for people like me, the best that we can do is report that kind of content—and I was about to report the post until I saw the comment of whom I'm following. Needlessly to say, I liked the comment and did not feel the need to report the post once I could assent with a "Be professional" sentiment.

This doesn't change, however, that I majored in Political Science and paid attention in Political Research Methods 301 only to have my applications of my learning get entirely ignored while the LinkedIn abusers get commended. So much for the apparently-lazy Millennial stating this regarding a study about workaholism while professionals lazily abuse LinkedIn:

This is generalizable among and extrapolatable to only Norwegians. A study in a more-diverse country needs to be done.

I could be tempted to say that I wasted my time going to college since the LinkedIn misusers are wasting my and other aspiring professionals' time, anyway. Nonetheless, I can at least stand up at the end of the day and testify that the apparently-lazy Millennial had the integrity to at least try to go to college (which I did, and I graduated college with a B.A. in Political Science despite my Cerebral Palsy, mental illnesses, and other issues), the integrity and persistence to keep seeking a job despite that I'm a stigma with or without a college degree (since the sad reality is that those of us who have physical disabilities and mental illnesses are stigmas in of ourselves according to society, including the workforce whom deliberately looks us over and shuns us otherwise), and the integrity, persistence, and determination to find a job by using LinkedIn and other resources (including social media, such as Facebook and Blogger) appropriately (After all, e.g., Hadassa WordPress reached out to me when I was blogging with "The Times Of Israel"—and that's part of why I've had one book published so far, and I've not stated that I'm an aspiring author for nothing.).

I am—as others are—trying to use LinkedIn to meet professional goals, and I'd like to see those whom use LinkedIn to meet social-media goals go meet their social-media goals elsewhere and save LinkedIn for professional pursuits. 

PS Per the image above, via Baker131313 on Wikimedia Commons: the image fits because I have Depression; my aunt attempted suicide in my last year of college, and my estranged paternal grandfather died while I was studying for final-semester exams. Yet, here I am being paid only ~$25,000 in student debt and joblessness almost three years after graduation while LinkedIn abusers have jobs and money to cover their bills.