The fact that rhetoric used to describe people with mental illness contributes to the epistemic injustice. In this video the speaker talks of "mental health issues". Using the word "issues" continues to reinforce rhetoric that people who have mental illness may in some way be irrational and if that be the case then their way of seeing the world results in them being systematically silenced and smothered = epistemic injustice. We all have a skeleton and if we break a bone we don't say "broken bone issues" We all have cells and if we go on to develop cancer we don't say "cancer issues". We all have mental health and sometimes some of us will have "mental illness" end of not "mental health issues"
That's really interesting! I think that she was using it to get away from the negative conatation that society has with the term "mental illness". But I don't know what a better term would be. "Non-neurotypical" maybe? But that would still come into the skeleton problem you mentioned. Idk.
Your use of the word "illness" reinforces rhetoric that people who have differing mental states than those that are considered "healthy" may in some way be irrational and if that be the case then their way of seeing the world results in them being systematically silenced and smothered = epistemic injustice.
So an 'abnormality of bone health' could describe certain kinds of cancer as well as fractures and other injuries, couldn't it? But if all mental health problems (that are diagnosed or displayed in a manner that is considered obvious by some) are based on some sort of trauma, series of traumatic experiences and maybe additional lack of supportive environmental factors, would't we want to refer to them as more of a knot in the flow of mental health energy....? too far out? What strikes me as more noteworthy, is that it appears knowledge practices as described there, are considering the experiences of the members of the global majority as valuable whilst, at the same time, explaining that subject to a speakers ethnicity (or superficial appearance and presentation), the knowledge of a speaker might not be worthy of any consideration. Who defines systemic injustice, when systems are not challenged? Why are feedback cycles not implemented?
Is epistemic injustice only perpetrated to the marginalised, or those typically considered as oppressed/disadvantaged? Say, for example, a well-off business owner speaks in defense of his business practices in a court, but he instead is dismissed due to his leanings with the (allegedly oppressive) capitalistic system and hegemony. Would that also be considered epistemic injustice?
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
The fact that rhetoric used to describe people with mental illness contributes to the epistemic injustice. In this video the speaker talks of "mental health issues". Using the word "issues" continues to reinforce rhetoric that people who have mental illness may in some way be irrational and if that be the case then their way of seeing the world results in them being systematically silenced and smothered = epistemic injustice. We all have a skeleton and if we break a bone we don't say "broken bone issues" We all have cells and if we go on to develop cancer we don't say "cancer issues". We all have mental health and sometimes some of us will have "mental illness" end of not "mental health issues"
That's really interesting! I think that she was using it to get away from the negative conatation that society has with the term "mental illness". But I don't know what a better term would be. "Non-neurotypical" maybe? But that would still come into the skeleton problem you mentioned. Idk.
'Issues'ization of mental health
What is the significance of the issue?
Your use of the word "illness" reinforces rhetoric that people who have differing mental states than those that are considered "healthy" may in some way be irrational and if that be the case then their way of seeing the world results in them being systematically silenced and smothered = epistemic injustice.
@@duffharrold lmao, back to you, Alfrey.
@@duffharrold And epistemic smothering is "violence". Shall I call the police?
So an 'abnormality of bone health' could describe certain kinds of cancer as well as fractures and other injuries, couldn't it?
But if all mental health problems (that are diagnosed or displayed in a manner that is considered obvious by some) are based on some sort of trauma, series of traumatic experiences and maybe additional lack of supportive environmental factors, would't we want to refer to them as more of a knot in the flow of mental health energy....? too far out?
What strikes me as more noteworthy, is that it appears knowledge practices as described there, are considering the experiences of the members of the global majority as valuable whilst, at the same time, explaining that subject to a speakers ethnicity (or superficial appearance and presentation), the knowledge of a speaker might not be worthy of any consideration.
Who defines systemic injustice, when systems are not challenged?
Why are feedback cycles not implemented?
Is epistemic injustice only perpetrated to the marginalised, or those typically considered as oppressed/disadvantaged?
Say, for example, a well-off business owner speaks in defense of his business practices in a court, but he instead is dismissed due to his leanings with the (allegedly oppressive) capitalistic system and hegemony. Would that also be considered epistemic injustice?
Only the former. Systemic injustice is part of the definition.