I’ve come under criticism for an unapologetic slash-n-burn publication history here at Thoughtcrimes. In particular, it’s been rumored I’m “unstable”, “untrustworthy”, “unpredictable”, “uncouth”, “unintelligent” (really, this is the one that makes me giggle the heartiest), “un-(insert whatever the bum-bugger you want to put here)”. There are letters of note, there is open criticism, there is documentation of my state of mind during crisis. Guess what?
As stated from the get go, Thoughtcrimes is an archive of my recovery journey. It is telling of my life and my recovery. This includes the gorgeous and hideous. It is to let other peers know:
The comments I receive that “get it” are those stating how brave I am to be so transparent with my highs and lows. It is a never-ceasing surprise how those who work with peers, such as some folks at Disability Rights New Mexico, NMCAL, NAMI, The Rock, APD, and BHSD who dedicate their lives to making peer lives successful and happy (thank you, as always) really don’t seem to take to heart what peers openly share. There is a stigma that peer advisement is only worthy when coming from a peer that is either “stable” or a willing “pet peer.”
I have been advised to delete those “disturbing” or “unprofessional” posts on Thoughtcrimes that are at issue. Guess what?
This is my recovery journey. I look at those “disturbing” or “unprofessional” posts as those milestones in my recovery journey that I might unwittingly gloss over is retroactive softening of when I was struggling the most. Every peer feels this.
Is there shame in the struggle?
You see, aside from being a role model to peers (don’t pardon the conceit, because this is my wish and it is what I am told by those who “get it”), it’s also a reminder that I must ALWAYS stay alert . . . because I have the same social contract as anyone else.
Peer and proud of it. No deleting.