Re-Linking Post About My Own Panic Attacks

I re-link this occasionally, because it's actually helped a few readers who read this and realized they too had panic disorder.

But I'm posting it today because the lefty bloggers are still having themselves a ball over the fact that Goldstein is on anti-anxiety/panic medication.

To be honest, I hope they make an issue of my delibitating panic episodes. I could use the traffic. And, you know, not to be all concerned and responsible or anything, but it's good to get the word out about a very under-diagnosed, very debilitating, but very curable condition.

I don't get the attacks about this. First of all, they reflect very poorly on the person making an issue of it. Second of all, they reflect not at all on the person so attacked. Really, if someone is publicly announcing he has panic or anxiety and takes a drug to help this condition -- if he's declaring that to thousands of strangers -- do you really imagine he's terribly embarrassed by it?

I met one reader at a bar who praised me for my "courage" in posting about my anxiety. I told him there was no courage in it at all, because I had no embarrassment or shame about it. Posting about my panic was no more difficult to me than, say, complaining about my nearsightedness. I no more worried about being called "Panicky Pete" than I lay in bed at nights fearing people might call me "Four-Eyes," or (when I wear contacts), "A dirty, stinking four-eyes who's trying to 'pass' as someone who doesn't need corrective lenses."

It's "indecent" in one way-- it's the sort of thing decent people just don't do. But it's not "indecent" in the sense that you actually wound the person you're trying to embarrass. So you get all of the downside of making a petty, nasty attack -- exposing yourself as a jagoff -- and none of the upside -- actually hurting the feelings of the object of your ire.

It's just not tactically effective, even barring considerations of decency.

But then, such practicalities don't seem to bother the Frothing Left much these days.

As they haven't bothered them in the past.

The left has always been extremely nasty, personal, and vicious, as Crossed Swords' post points out. One could fill several thick volumes of nasty attacks by the left. And yet they're forever patting themselves on the back, claiming that they try to be "civil" while the right maligns them.

That was always a crock of shit.

But they've decided, collectively, that in the old days, when they were as vicious as all get out, they were actually being too nice and restrained, not "tough" enough, and that the reason Republicans beat them was just because Republicans were so meeeeaaan and they weren't mean enough.

Again, this is complete and utter monkeycrap.

So, they've decided to "get really tough," and throw off just about all standards of decent behavior.

A website attempted to increase on-line civility by asking bloggers to make a pledge not to out personal information about other bloggers or political figures. I didn't realize it, but there was actually a widespread REJECTION of this simple request for decency by the lefty bloggers.

Unbelievable. They can't even agree to those most basic terms of decency.

The left has always allowed for itself a much greater tolerance of nastiness and actual violence than it has for anyone else. But it's worse now, because they've convinced themselves they were actually acting too damn nice before.

And now the gloves are off. They're all real "tough-guys" now.

Yeah. Real bad-asses. They type nasty things into a computer and then publish them.

Do I do that? Sometimes (but not like they do!). But I don't consider myself "tough" for doing it. Quite frankly, it's unmanly.

But for these little sissies, it's the closest they've come to a physical fight in their lives.

Beer muscles encourage all sorts of bad behavior. But blog muscles encourage much worse behavior, as you don't even have to worry about getting socked in your jaw.

posted by Ace at 03:52 PM

| Access Comments