A Mental Health Message From Santa Claus 

And well read.

It's Vincent d'onofrio. I would not be surprised if he wrote it.

It's an actor named Greg Hildreth.

@@pandah1346 I stand corrected. Thanks! musebycl.io/index.php/health/santa-rethinks-naughty-or-nice-wks-remarkable-mental-health-ad

LOL.

I was going to write this same comment, almost verbatim. YES. Nice, or terrified to reveal their true feelings? Nice, or hiding terrible secrets they know they'd be blamed for if they told? Nice, or stuck in predetermined family and societal roles?

I would have said the same thing. Is a 'nice' person someone who's obedient (like a dog) and does everything they're told without question? Hide terrible secrets or trauma? Stuck in 1950s gender roles and expectations of them? The 'children should be seen and not heard' mentality of the past? Afraid to get the help and support they need and turn into struggling adults?

Yes, thank you

Truuuuue...

True

Same!!

It gets better.

What about it makes you think it's so fantastic?

@Geo Y Hi, thanks for your response. This is a PSA for NAMI. In my opinion it has nothing to do with Western societies' view of children growing into adulthood (this is another discussion entirely). Rather, its focus is on behavior that society deems naughty--and shouldn't--if the child is NOT mentally healthy. There is a danger that ALL childhood behavior is rooted in some disorder vs. healthy childhood behavior that needs to be corrected (yes, kids are naughty; got no problem saying that). The pathologizing of everything is a concern--this is already happening. Read "Saving Normal" in which the author discusses this very thing: take normal behavior and make it abnormal, then medicate it. Look into it - it's disturbing and threads together psychology, psychiatry, the DSM, and big pharma. The DSM grows and grows, medication gets pumped into people, including kids whose lives can be negatively altered forever. Thanks!!

@Geo Y You do make some very good points. I'd like to apply the concepts you presented to a friend who is a Tibetan Buddhist Monk. He lived--and studied--at a monastery in India for most of his childhood and teenage years. I believe he was part of a tribal culture--one that minimized individualism and certainly did not embrace Western capitalism (in fact, this was a rather foreign concept in direct opposition to his culture). His teachings--and all surroundings--involved an intense social dependency; they worked together in unity, rotating roles and did so for the common good. No TV, no electricity--they lived by the "natural clock" (as you put it). Now linking this to mental illness is rather fascinating and not surprising: Until he came to the U.S. he had never heard of mental illness, nor therapy, nor antidepressants, etc. He grew up among 3,000 other monks and said he never heard nor saw any evidence that anyone suffered from poor mental heath. Now, was it hidden? Did Monks--who exhibited signs of mental illness--get kicked out of the monastery? Possibly. Or, was it due to meditation that we know alters the brain (perhaps stabilizes it; helps harness it). Science has studied this and psychiatrists are even recommending meditation (Even NAMI). I showed him the DSM and he said, "What, what is this?!" "Why?" So here enters the machine: Capitalism and its pharmaceutical companies making billions and spreading drugs around the world. It's legal (unlike other countries) for them to show ads on TV, and sneak their way into other parts of our lives. It's insidious. Western civilization (that birthed Western psychology) cannot be separated from capitalism (big pharma) and the two have created the DSM and its growth is evidence of this. It'll just get bigger and bigger as those in power create more illnesses; they do create them, and big pharma (who helped) sits and salivates. Oh, and NAMI takes pharma $$; nothing is truly in the best interest of the mentally ill. They keep quiet when a drug -who sponsors them--causes a child to commit suicide. No announcement is sent out; we hear nothing because they are shackled.

However, there are kids who are acting out due to being "kids," not mentally unstable. We must learn to distinguish what is what; not make every behavior an issue of mental suffering.

Megan Taylor Megan Taylor Agree! Does not have to be a mental or behavioral health issue. It could just be part of their journey growing and experiencing life on life’s terms.. Either way, we love the message of simply not labeling any child naughty or nice and want to make sure every parent or guardian feels supported and loved as they navigate parenthood. And if they do have a child that is struggling at least they know there is help out there and they are not alone.

How is are terms like this toxic?

amen

Yes, there is right and wrong, but let's only love the nice ones....right?

@@ceciliaharris82 Of course not. We love our children despite all. This isn't about love, it's about recognizing behavior that is coming from--as I said "mental fragility" vs. "kid" behavior. If we start labeling ALL "healthy" naughtiness (yes, kids are naughty) then we're in trouble as a society. It's already heading in that direction--make all behavior a pathology, seek counseling, label the behavior as "ill" and then medicate. Another thing to take note of is the lack of the discussion of root causes of mental illness about the youth (and adults). Like other Illnesses the ROOT causes are silent; rather, the focus is on awareness, destigmatization and so forth. These are massively important but the root cause of youth mental illness and suicide (some as young as 9) is where the discussion needs to be. Being aware, yes, it's important but it doesn't solve it. Unless this is addressed, things will only get worse and the data supports this.

Ok boomer.

@@megantaylor3471 The message from NAMI was NOT to label. Look at behavior and check for signs. That's all. Usually, when a child is crying out or acting out, they are asking for something. Maybe just attention from adults or peers, but still, there is an intent conscious or not conscious. Disciplining them would not be to call them brats or naughty or exclude them from what other children get, but to teach (i.e. "discipline" them) by helping them find healthy ways to get their emotional needs met.

Yes, we are complex but there are social norms that do guide human behavior - I believe naughty and nice do belong in our language and we should award "good" moral behavior and condone bad behavior. I believe there is a "black and white" to human behavior otherwise society would be full of chaos; it would cease to exist as a society. All cohesion would be lost. So, how does this apply to children? If there is a child who is truly suffering from a mental health issue, then proper care should be given. For the rest of them, there's no reason to NOT build resiliency in them by giving consequences - tough ones. To learn social norms (which are very clearly defined) we do need to be taught at children.