[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2605888/Woman-claims-PTSD-Twitter-cyberstalking-says-bit-war-veterans.html[/url] [quote]As a result of her PTSD, Ms Hensley says she is working from her home, but she remains active on Twitter.
On Wednesday she posted several disclaimers to her earlier tweet:
'1) I didn't self-diagnose or decide to have PTSD. I was diagnosed by a very good psychiatrist. I'm not looking for armchair psychiatrists.
'2) I respect military and would call commanders and other authorities only to defend myself against threats.
'3) I don't discount military vets' PTSD. I care about everyone with PTSD. I want people to realize that it is not a military-only condition.'
MailOnline contacted Ms Hensley for comment, but she replied that she is 'not well enough to answer questions'.[/quote]
I'm not sure you people understand the point of this thread, and are specifically responding to the parts of the article I left out, such as claims about her illness being similar to that experienced by veterans. This is about the tangible effects of cyberbullying.
-
Edited by Seggi: 4/22/2014 2:44:07 PMPlease, everybody knows you can only get mental illnesses in [i]real life[/i]. The internet is just in your imagination. Also, had a quick look back over her twitter feed (for those of you who feel the need to disparage another person's claim to mental illness when you have no knowledge of their circumstances): the highlights are that all she said about the military was that people can get PTSD for all kinds of reasons; and on why she's still on twitter, she did actually spend a good deal of time away from the internet after first being diagnosed, and has set up precautions to prevent being exposed to triggering content in her daily activities to minimise the degree to which she has to curb her personal activities and hobbies because of the effects of her mental illness. I can understand the urge to judge the validity of mental illness diagnoses - it's -blam!-ed up, but as somebody without a mental illness, I can kind of see where it comes from on a personal level because I've done that kind of thing before. The thing is, responding to the fact that people on the internet sometimes self-diagnose themselves with Asperger's by expressing ridicule and disbelief whenever somebody claims to have a mental illness doesn't make you a noble servant of the truth, it makes you a dick for assuming you know another person's circumstances better than they do, especially when it's done in such a way that can be incredibly damaging. I mean, a major newspaper running a story on how this woman who says she's been clinically diagnosed with PTSD caused by online harassment said mean comments are as bad as war (which, to reiterate, she did not do) is basically 'Irresponsibility: The Op-Ed'. For journalists to do that kind of thing is particularly shameful, because they're well aware of the responsibilities and the power that comes with their position, but these responsibilities are the kinds of thing it's generally good for everybody to make an effort to be aware of and incorporate into their behaviour. Or, if that's too much effort, then just quit judging people you don't know anything about.