u/occult-dog

Disclaimer : I am not talking about clinical consensus on diagnosis here in this post. This thread is more about public discourses and social change.

I've been thinking about how public discourses surrounding mental health now push us as a society to favor Therapeutic Ethics instead of legal and moral framework of ethics.

An argument by Martin (2006) that Therapy Culture (therapeutic ethics was the term he used), overtime, slowly psychologizing virtues and pathologizing vices. I started to reflect about the implication of 'mental healthiness' becoming a new virtue, since before therapeutic ethics gain dominance, we used to rely on sin system which is a spiritual economy (where sin and bad karma are a form of debt). The sin system worked for awhile in theocratic society. We went through a pretty big change after secular moral philosophy gain dominance.

I also think of a paper by Hallett (2025) when he proposed that legal process should made it clear that insanity defence should be valid only if a person clearly lack the ability to control himself, and other 3 criterias (such as lack of knowledge, and inability to reason, and so on).

We also have Thomas Szasz himself in 2011 criticizing insanity defence. Szasz thought that insanity defence take away the human dignity to be judged as a moral agent, and it take away a person to be taken accountable for their misbehaviors.

Although some might think of Szasz's argument here as ableism, I think it could also be anti-determinism. Szasz thought that we should not remove human agency from someone with a mental health diagnosis.

With more and more research trying to connect psychiatric diagnosis with genetics, it makes sense how more diagnosed people start to see how their behaviors and feelings are out of their control. This also extends how diagnosed individuals using the deterministic argument that their behaviors are outside of their control, and misbehaviors (in a case that there is some self-control) are to be categorized as the inevitable results of their diagnosis.

If you read to this point, yeah, I think this is an extension of insanity defence, but now it is also outside of courtroom, while the criteria gets less strict about agency.

Take for example, gossiping. In the sin system, gossiping is an unacceptable behavior. And now we get frustrated people feeling OK with destroying someone's reputation and livelihood while justifying it as a harmless venting, and some might argue that gossiping is a tool by the marginalized to fight authority (which is an ok Anthropological perspective), but a simple fact now is that Therapeutic Ethics might be more dominant in terms of moral claims that other form of ethics.

Take a case of Jason Arday, for example, which is highly politicized to the point that we couldn't possibly know the truth. There is this argument by a group of mental health professionals that claimed that Arday should be immuned to criticism of dishonesty since neurodivergent brains recall timeline and facts differently. While what happened to Arday by the hands of media outlets was truly terrible, to claim that factual integrity should not be expected from someone because they are neurodivergent, stretch the 'extended insanity defence' further. But if we are to look at the situation again without making an assumption based on this deterministic view, it might be rational to judge fairly and finding the truth about the plagiarism claim, and it might be easier to look at behaviors and facts without assuming underlying therapeutic causes.

I take this sort of argument seriously and think about them. What if we as a society is now stretching it too far? People are now more confused about accountability. The moment a criminal was revealved to be bullied, somehow, many would quickly feel sympathetic and express that the criminal in question are a passive victim of circumstances (again, this not to victim blame, but to highlight how misbehaviors and unethical behaviors could now be explained away by this framework).

Therapeutic Ethics also work against someone with a diagnosis who can control themselves (despite protecting those who 'have no control'). Let's say that Jane is in a bad mood 40% of the time she's at work, and she received a diagnosis that fit well with mood-related disorder. But if Jane has some self-control left, that same extended insanity defence effect would not be applicable on her. Jane might be labeled 'toxic' or 'mentally unhealthy' and so on.

Let's think of 3 scenarios for Jane here.

1. John takes Jane's diagnosis at face value and believe that Jane should be immuned to both criticism and demands for accountability.

2. James takes the moral route and think Jane still has self-control enough to be held accountable. James see Jane as an adult who can make her own choices, and Jane has a potential of improvement or to feel less suffering.

3. Jake takes Jane's diagnosis as a stigma. Even when Jane is in a good mood, Jake would assume her to be in a bad mood. Jake interprets Jane's normal human fallable acts as a sign of illness. But Jake thinks Jane should be immuned to both criticism and demands for accountability.

Out if these 3 scenarios, John and Jake might look at Jane through a lens of 'illness' where Jane's actions are outside of her control. James attitude sounds the most judgmental, but it is the only scenario where someone does think of Jane as a human being with agency, and some level of control over her life.

The tension I am facing after thinking on this topic, is how our culture wish to promote mental health as a right, but somehow, the attitude of Therapeutic Ethics itself has a tendency to make someone with a diagnosis believe they will not have agency (or less agency) over their own actions.

Therapeutic jargons are now inflated into everyday use of language. Trauma and abuse are now something almost every individual who are into Therapy Culture claimed to possess. And I think it escalated to the point that some experts even claim that "almost everyone carries unresolved trauma" (Gabor Mate, for example), while they fail to define the term in accurate ways, and trauma ended up being correlated with all sorts of physical conditions such as migraine, hypertension, and so on.

And I began to look at this with awe. Now it's a common belief that almost everyone has unresolved trauma. Now it's common to think of a person with diagnosis as someone who shouldn't be seen as a moral agent. And now we somehow buy into a culture of seeing ourselves as a passive victim of a pre-determined condition.

As much as experts try to maintain an apologetic stance by saying "many mental health conditions are normal human reactions" to combat stigma, there has been a real observable social change from the early 2000s to now in the 2020s, that slowly reduced the role of moral ethicsin favor of Therapeutic Ethics.

As the title suggested. The question here is "Are we replacing classic morality with therapeutic ethics?" and if we are, at what cost?

Disclaimer : I am not talking about clinical consensus on diagnosis here in this post. This thread is more about public discourses and social change.

I've been thinking about how public discourses surrounding mental health now push us as a society to favor Therapeutic Ethics instead of legal and moral framework of ethics.

An argument by Martin (2006) that Therapy Culture (therapeutic ethics was the term he used), overtime, slowly psychologizing virtues and pathologizing vices. I started to reflect about the implication of 'mental healthiness' becoming a new virtue, since before therapeutic ethics gain dominance, we used to rely on sin system which is a spiritual economy (where sin and bad karma are a form of debt). The sin system worked for awhile in theocratic society. We went through a pretty big change after secular moral philosophy gain dominance.

I also think of a paper by Hallett (2025) when he proposed that legal process should made it clear that insanity defence should be valid only if a person clearly lack the ability to control himself, and other 3 criterias (such as lack of knowledge, and inability to reason, and so on).

We also have Thomas Szasz himself in 2011 criticizing insanity defence. Szasz thought that insanity defence take away the human dignity to be judged as a moral agent, and it take away a person to be taken accountable for their misbehaviors.

Although some might think of Szasz's argument here as ableism, I think it could also be anti-determinism. Szasz thought that we should not remove human agency from someone with a mental health diagnosis.

With more and more research trying to connect psychiatric diagnosis with genetics, it makes sense how more diagnosed people start to see how their behaviors and feelings are out of their control. This also extends how diagnosed individuals using the deterministic argument that their behaviors are outside of their control, and misbehaviors (in a case that there is some self-control) are to be categorized as the inevitable results of their diagnosis.

If you read to this point, yeah, I think this is an extension of insanity defence, but now it is also outside of courtroom, while the criteria gets less strict about agency.

Take for example, gossiping. In the sin system, gossiping is an unacceptable behavior. And now we get frustrated people feeling OK with destroying someone's reputation and livelihood while justifying it as a harmless venting, and some might argue that gossiping is a tool by the marginalized to fight authority (which is an ok Anthropological perspective), but a simple fact now is that Therapeutic Ethics might be more dominant in terms of moral claims that other form of ethics.

Take a case of Jason Arday, for example, which is highly politicized to the point that we couldn't possibly know the truth. There is this argument by a group of mental health professionals that claimed that Arday should be immuned to criticism of dishonesty since neurodivergent brains recall timeline and facts differently. While what happened to Arday by the hands of media outlets was truly terrible, to claim that factual integrity should not be expected from someone because they are neurodivergent, stretch the 'extended insanity defence' further. But if we are to look at the situation again without making an assumption based on this deterministic view, it might be rational to judge fairly and finding the truth about the plagiarism claim, and it might be easier to look at behaviors and facts without assuming underlying therapeutic causes.

I take this sort of argument seriously and think about them. What if we as a society is now stretching it too far? People are now more confused about accountability. The moment a criminal was revealved to be bullied, somehow, many would quickly feel sympathetic and express that the criminal in question are a passive victim of circumstances (again, this not to victim blame, but to highlight how misbehaviors and unethical behaviors could now be explained away by this framework).

Therapeutic Ethics also work against someone with a diagnosis who can control themselves (despite protecting those who 'have no control'). Let's say that Jane is in a bad mood 40% of the time she's at work, and she received a diagnosis that fit well with mood-related disorder. But if Jane has some self-control left, that same extended insanity defence effect would not be applicable on her. Jane might be labeled 'toxic' or 'mentally unhealthy' and so on.

Let's think of 3 scenarios for Jane here.

1. John takes Jane's diagnosis at face value and believe that Jane should be immuned to both criticism and demands for accountability.

2. James takes the moral route and think Jane still has self-control enough to be held accountable. James see Jane as an adult who can make her own choices, and Jane has a potential of improvement or to feel less suffering.

3. Jake takes Jane's diagnosis as a stigma. Even when Jane is in a good mood, Jake would assume her to be in a bad mood. Jake interprets Jane's normal human fallable acts as a sign of illness. But Jake thinks Jane should be immuned to both criticism and demands for accountability.

Out if these 3 scenarios, John and Jake might look at Jane through a lens of 'illness' where Jane's actions are outside of her control. James attitude sounds the most judgmental, but it is the only scenario where someone does think of Jane as a human being with agency, and some level of control over her life.

The tension I am facing after thinking on this topic, is how our culture wish to promote mental health as a right, but somehow, the attitude of Therapeutic Ethics itself has a tendency to make someone with a diagnosis believe they will not have agency (or less agency) over their own actions.

Therapeutic jargons are now inflated into everyday use of language. Trauma and abuse are now something almost every individual who are into Therapy Culture claimed to possess. And I think it escalated to the point that some experts even claim that "almost everyone carries unresolved trauma" (Gabor Mate, for example), while they fail to define the term in accurate ways, and trauma ended up being correlated with all sorts of physical conditions such as migraine, hypertension, and so on.

And I began to look at this with awe. Now it's a common belief that almost everyone has unresolved trauma. Now it's common to think of a person with diagnosis as someone who shouldn't be seen as a moral agent. And now we somehow buy into a culture of seeing ourselves as a passive victim of a pre-determined condition.

As much as experts try to maintain an apologetic stance by saying "many mental health conditions are normal human reactions" to combat stigma, there has been a real observable social change from the early 2000s to now in the 2020s, that slowly reduced the role of moral ethicsin favor of Therapeutic Ethics.

As the title suggested. The question here is "Are we replacing classic morality with therapeutic ethics?" and if we are, at what cost?

Ok, everyone. It's been 2 months for community care center for the church, and 1 month of community care at the university. Here's how it goes.

Good news... We f**king did it. Both centers had overwhelming positive feedbacks. All feedback from TherapyCritical was taken into consideration seriously.

As one mod requested me not to give too much details, so we wouldn't be doxxed. I'm going to analyse why feedbacks of these 2 centers were great based on the data now.

1. Feedback system: We didn't get people to rate the helper, but rate the process based on these criterias as the following: 1) Rate from 0-10 base on how much the points of discussion of today match the help you are here for, and how helpful these conversations are to the goal 2) What does this number mean for you, and how do I as your helper adapt better during our next talk to increase it?

While it's scary at first when we tried it out. Counselees generally didn't mind providing direct feedback. We'll keep an eye out if someone prefer not to do it.

2. Neurodivergent Aware Care: We don't look at a diagnosis and assume that clients were there to manage ASD or ADHD. We talk to them with respect and look for goals they personally wish to work on.

3. Research and Manuals: If we have a skill training that clearly could help, we do it by the book (for example, this anxiety treatment manual written by sleep medicine doctors for psycholigists and nurses to conduct), or if some need to read manuals, we read it with them or summerize what's neccessary. => If they ask for summarized version, or how tos, we only provide research information and examples from case studies in published materials for them.

4. Avoid Confusion of Languages: No mention of any metaphorical terms, such as inner child, unconscious, defense mechanism, none of that. We did it like Item No. 3 to make sure that folks understand what their previous diagnosis means first and foremost, and make sure they are on the same page when they talk about specific emotions or feelings. If their experience did not match the research, we ask them to provide personal anecdotes for more context.

5. No expectation of being "cured" : Both centers allow people to come and go as they please. If they want to follow-up, it's entirely their choice. We give them a clear answer about the current science and limitations. No taking hope away, but no over promises. Just be respectful, listening as accurate as possible, and provide the knowledge.

6. Egalitarian Relationship & Clarity Over Mystery: While it's a concern to some helpers that counselees might not understand boundaries at first. Both centers do well because of it. People find walking in a room with someone who behave like a normal human being pretty easy. Sure, some anxiety during the first 2 minutes is normal when talking to a stranger, but that's all we observed.

No mystery is to be solved in the process. Counselees get what they exactly ask for (or the closest thing we could find). We avoid ambiguity as much as possible and keep checking if counselees and us are on the same page.

No counselee breaks boundaries when they're being treated like an equal. No one contacts any staff personally so far. It's clear in the consent form enough so people know that they need to seek emergency help during emergencies, and staffs might already fall asleep.

7. Pastors and Professors as Allies: We did it this way. Pastors and professiors can't push someone to the process. They can only make a recommendation to someone who they find to be struggling and be clear that it's entirely up to them.

8. Motto Against Assumption: Both organizations had staffs trained in the mindset that we can't assume anything to be the case for anyone. It's an agreement to remember that no one knows the truth of anyone regardless of their behaviors or diagnosis, we work only to reduce unnecessary suffering, or provide them with knowledge to do so.

"Only God knows what this person is experiencing regardless of their behaviors and diagnosis" for a church. "The process is limited by languages and human fallability." for a university. We have these mottos to remind ourselves to remain humble in the face of the unknown, and to counter cognitive biases.

There is a possibility for me to set up more centers like this for other organization. It won't negate the harm I might have done in the past when I was in this profession, but I'm trying to repent from those.

Sometimes, I wish I could call clients I saw during my internship and apologize to them of how I might treated them poorly. The feeling of guilt is still there. I felt responsible for the damages these treatments caused. The more I saw how these centers receive positive feedbacks, the more remoreful I am about past mistakes, but I'm also grateful that our teams are able to "earn" trust of the counselees.

Some nights, I pray to G-d and ask for forgiveness about the harm I might done foolishly when I was an arrogant prick (early career therapist). And it doesn't make me feel good about myself to see these feedbacks flooding in for the past 2 months. It reinforces the weight of responsibility these centers have to maintain this level of standard.

Another good news is, although it's a free service. We do receive enough budgets to pay helpers (the credits were all to pastors and professors who supported my idea, I had no brain to deal with bureaucracy at all).

One professor asked me honestly about what I think about the mental health field, and I replied "I think the field now has too much institutional power to prohibit regular people to help each other. Mental health care can do good, but I also see how harmful it could be if practitioners were led by misguided personal agenda.", and I was anxious that the professor would find me a threat. But no, she smiled and disclosed that it's tough for lecturers to care for students now because they could be attacked for being unqualified. And the uni staffs wanted to help students when they face crisis, but they just couldn't know at all which case they could help without the need to refer them to "professional help".

Hanging out with church staffs and church members also taught me a great deal. It turns out that there are kind people in these organizations who wanna help so bad but they don't want to be shamed. Oh, you people will get lectures I handcraft for you personally for sure.

The obsession of shaming lay people for helping each other might play a role in turning a potential helper into a bystander, so I'll keep learning, not going to conclude anything right now.

And I hope that our humble centers could inspire larger organizations to change their ways. Ironic that we are doing this at a church and a university. Neither are clinical setting.

Hey guys, it's me again. That guy who rage quitted therapist job. I need your thoughts and feedback to the policy we're cooking in our 2 community care centers. Please be honest and criticize it, because we'll receive the feedbacks you provide and take them seriously. Praising is ok, but I want your critical feedback so 2 teams I'm working with now could design a better policy (it will soon be 3 teams in August).

Now that I'm involved with 2 community care centers (one of a university, one at a church) as their lecturer & secular pastoral support, I recently proposed that their volunteer therapists would need to make sure that every counselee (I refuse to use the term client and patient, just counselee, meaning "some guy who receive counseling", we wanna keep the term extremely boring) would need to be aware of how Talk Therapy and Pastoral Support might not work for everyone, and they have every rights to drop out or provide feedbacks directly to their listeners (either it's a pastor, a psych, and anyone in the listener's role).

The church care center is a bit complicated. We (psych team, me, and pastor team) found a sweet spot by having 3 services, which are 1) secular support by MH counselors and clinical psychologist 2) Christian based support my MH counselors and clinical psychologists 3) Biblical based pastoral support by pastors/priests. I (a Reform Jew who's a lecturer, I'm a theist but hold many agnostic views) proposed that atheists will feel that they're being scammed if they apply to the free mental health program only to find someone quoting John 3:16 to their face. And we're so lucky that the head pastor there agreed that the center should be there for people of all faith (or no faith, lol). Folks who apply to either program will have the choice to leave any time according to their free will. The head pastor is a cool old man. I stopped by to have coffee with him a lot and talk about the Bible even before they open the care center (I partied with people in their community sometimes because my parents house is not far from their church, lol).

If the helping process is unsuccessful and they decide to dropout, the church will remain open to them to play board games or do activities there on Saturday and Sunday, or they could join the book club.

The policy I proposed also include 15-20 minute video call to get counselees to know their listener and get every neccessary information about the style of that listener (including strength and weakness of their approach), and if they find that they don't find the helper's personality fitting or don't find the helper's attitude any good, they can decide not to book at all, and we won't take away their hope. We'll write a guideline for helpers (whether they're a pastor, a mental health counselor, clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, etc.) to be transparent enough to tell people that even this treatment does not fit them, it doesn't mean that they have no hope. We want to build centers that can be honest that the treatment will not work for everyone, and counselees should stop if they feel worse, and we'll have a responsibility to tell them to not lose hope and keep looking (we'll stack up some resources to lead them to other alternatives).

We discussed today about the sensitivity of providing care for the youth. And I proposed that if parents insist to refer to us, even if the parents say that their child consent, we will need to meet a child remotely to check first if they truly consent to be in the process. And we will not, on any occasion, assume that working on-site is better for everyone, so we provide options to receive both online and on-site support. We also will not rush to believe if parents suggest that the child will benefit from being on-site without checking with the child first remotely.

Neurodivergent adults will be separated from these regular programs and they'll be refer to me. And the program I design for them will be mainly educational where they learn about managing sensory overload, how ADHD and ASD brain work, and allow them to help design their own programs. I think I'll hunt research and books written by neurodivergent authors to increase a chance of success.

With neurodivergent service at church, I'm not that worried. Because they have church members who have ASD and ADHD who are both educated on the subject. The staff of our care center team could seek their counsel if we need to understand mental health research in context (I'm worried about the one at university because I have no neurodivergent team members to ask).

We'll incorporate David Burn (a psychiatrist) rating system where he would ask his clients to rate the helpers' understanding of their main concern from 0 to 10 at the end of the session. Since Burn's research suggested that letting clients give the feedback to the helper's face often improve the next session dramatically. And it won't be just numbers, since counselees would need to reflect what that number means, for example, "I gave you 7 because you are a good listener, but I find that you focused on my wife too much and what would be really helpful for me is to drink less alcohol".

Also, we do not make sessions compulsory. They book and receive the service, and they can tell us in our faces if the service sucks, and tell us how to improve, and we'll record how to improve.

With the university program, I designed it with their staff and professor to be a mental healthcare program that would not intrude students' privacy. They'll come to get resources and normal conversation. We make it pretty chill, so there is no pressure to explore anything unpleasant or "deep'" (which is BS in my opinion).

The way I design the program for the university is pretty simple. I asked the staffs which support students complained to be lacking, and I make the program to compensate that painpoint (juniors who couldn't adapt to uni life, seniors who're stressed out about thesis, weird sleep schedule in students who party too much, neurodivergent pastoral support etc.)

The university program have similar policy to the church program, but I struggle to find a sense of community within this hyper individualistic environment. But nevertheless, I'm working with an admin who is passionate enough to receive feedbacks from students, and I would say that I trust the team to be as skeptical with therapy as me. But somehow, people ask for healing space, and we only have current research and humility to guide us. I consulted a president of our small Jewish community in the country here about it (it's very small, and only have folks who've been here for ages) about it, and he is supportive of the idea and the comminity had a green light about me working with christian church and the university. Maybe the idea of providing people with options might do a little good to society.

I thought that I won't be able to use my knowledge for anything. Turned out, well, there is a way to apply psychotherapy knowledge in non-therapist role, we just cut out power imbalance entirely from the equation. And make the people choose freely if they prefer to be in the process or not. And we could even create a service that adapts to each individual's needs.

We launched both care centers last week. What I truly hope for them would be that counselees complain about the service. And we'd take that seriously enough to reachout to the complainers and ask them to guide us to make the service better.

I have no idea about how all this would play out. There is a risk of harming people. But I wanna try atleast one more time. It sounds like a good opportunity to be able to design the policy, and I took it. That's why I need your feedback. And I need an hoest one.

If you want something positive, skip to the latter part of this post. I understand that it's not pleasant to read through these experiences.

I've stopped participating in this sub for a long time, after many here suggested that my position of being critical of the field while working as "one of them" was hypocritical. It hurt like hell, I have to admit. So I took sometime off Reddit to handle both professional and health concerns.

I gave up therapist role 4 months ago, and this time it's for good. Being a hypocrite was truly painful for my conscience, and I wanna thank the people in this sub for that.

I wanna thank both groups of people here who criticized and encouraged me back then. Although it hurt, working in other role opens my eyes to all sorts of new perspectives, including how I was also victimized by the system both as a client and a trainee.

For those who are curious how do I make a living with this scam of a degree? I'm in education now, which is not perfect, but at least doing secular pastoral care, peer-support, teaching Ethics and Anthropology classes aren't as hopeless as being in an unearned, yet powerful position such as being a therapist.

The damages that were done back then by therapy and psychiatry are still there, but I find the pain to be more tolerable each day I do not have to participate as one of the "professional". I finally feel free. No more thinking about outdated, over-simplified theories. No more trying to help anyone find "the good one".

The "co-workers" who framed me as mentally-ill after all these years, got away with it. The therapist who sexually abused a client also got away with it, and I was the one who got the instruction to stop working for talking about it publicly. After returning to work for other organizations (yep, I went through 2 of them since last time you saw me), the hope to find "good co-workers" who are different that professionals who harmed me, was a foolish hope. I ended up with the same internal conflict. I was only better at pretending to ignore how they think about or behave toward clients.

Being in this position in 2023 used to make me angry, you know? Searching for justice in a space incapable of providing it threw me into a loop of anger and hopelessness for awhile.

I am one of those idiots who still believe in an invisible God. And each day, I find the accumulated pain that has been there for 7 years, be more at peace. I still struggle to forgive those who harmed me. It's not easy, but I still hope that they learn similar lessons to mine (minus the pain...).

My hope now is in simple things like what I choose to teach. They might want me to teach junior university students about emotions through comparative religion lens (it's an anthropology class), and we might teach Ethics of listening to church volunteers (so those people don't overreach and respect vulnerable group's boundaries).

I am a bit more hopeful that 3 years ago, but sadly, to see how much suffering there is in those therapy survivors & psychiatric survivors, still breaks my heart.

I took a loser's way out. Get a job that pay less, work in areas I find ethically acceptable in the current system.

It's a better life that what I've had before though.

I had two lessons I've learned. The first lesson was to stop using the language of therapy and psychiatry entirely. I've noticed that the less I use their vocabularies, the interesting this world around me appear to be. I can just see anger as anger, sadness as sadness, grief as grief, and so on. It's liberating. There is no assumption any hidden issues I need to look for within me. There is little explanation for my own anxiety, and I love it. I can be accountable for my own actions without the need to overexplain, and I can expect the same from those around me without shame.

Playing these language games would put you in a vulnerable position. For example, if someone said that you behave like a victim. That requires an interpretation of your reaction and putting it in a relationship between transgressor-victim dynamic. and they could drag you into a game of "did you project it or was it real?". Just refuse to play politely, that's what liberated me... since a slight hint of aggression on your end could make them drag you into another game.

Sorry that I keep on going. I guess the last lesson I've learned from months of reflection was that choosing peaceful brokenness over anger, saved my life. Somehow it's peaceful to see betrayals, gossiping, envy, and other evil we humans are capable of, as completely natural. I find that "Therapy Culture" has a flavor of both humanism and idealism, which make it disappointing to live in our modern time.

I don't know how to end this post... I guess I'll say to all of you to stay safe. I hope you don't get dragged into someone's Therapy Language games, and I pray that the next generation would have a less primitive form of psycho-social intervention.

Love you all.