Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I would like closure, but I'll take honesty

freddiedeboer.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 211 posts

Re: I would like closure, but I'll take honesty

#11

Post by tptacek »

It is not, in fact, "unambiguously a lie" to relate to others deBoer's grave (and admitted, and unambiguously real) misconduct without the full context of his mental illness.

People are entitled to form their own opinions about deBoer's credibility, and he is not entitled to set conditions on how they do that.

Re: I would like closure, but I'll take honesty

#12

Post by RangerScience »

eBombzor wrote: post #2

Context: https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9kt9dj/fred... Background for people who don't know what this is about like me: > DeBoer is a blogger of what I would call the “dissident Left.” I would describe him as a committed socialist who is also a committed civil libertarian and has often had sharp critiques of the Left as well as the Right. He’s on the SlateStarCodex blog roll and he often pops up as…

FYI, search on the page for Malcom Harris to the get the comment that eBombzor is quoting (so you can get the links).

Re: I would like closure, but I'll take honesty

#13

Post by pasabagi »

wayoutthere wrote: post #4

I feel profound empathy here. Having been on both sides of this situation, it’s just really complicated . You can forgive a person but really once you’ve seen them in manic psychosis you will never fully trust them or their judgment ever again. There are a lot of contradictory emotions at work and they’re all valid. It’s kind of a shit lot in life, but you get good at making new friends. Eventually you can get it und…

I don't know if this is true. I've had a couple of friends go through manic episodes, and while I very much did not enjoy it, there's a world of difference between them in normal-mode, and manic-mode, and I don't think I trust them less as a result. Maybe it would be different if violence was involved - but I don't think that's very common.

Re: I would like closure, but I'll take honesty

#14

Post by joedavison »

pezzana wrote: post #7

> But in fact I had not intended to cancel Harris; I hadn’t intended anything at all. I would have attacked him, physically, had he been present, over a pure delusion, which I say with shame I can’t put into words. But I was not thinking that I would hurt his reputation. I was not thinking of cause and effect in any conventional way. I was not in a mental state where I was capable of understanding long-term consequen…

I think it’s clear that social media (or more broadly, “the internet”), is exacerbating mental health issues. At the very same time, the ability to connect with people around the world is undoubtedly also reducing mental health issues (for some) by building bridges to friendships and social connections they otherwise would not have.

It is a double edged sword. The internet serves to amplify the extremes. At least that is the conclusion I draw.

Re: I would like closure, but I'll take honesty

#15

Post by spadros »

wayoutthere wrote: post #4

I feel profound empathy here. Having been on both sides of this situation, it’s just really complicated . You can forgive a person but really once you’ve seen them in manic psychosis you will never fully trust them or their judgment ever again. There are a lot of contradictory emotions at work and they’re all valid. It’s kind of a shit lot in life, but you get good at making new friends. Eventually you can get it und…

Bipolar is a tragic disease. It's something that's pretty rampant in my family. You eventually get to a point that the author is. You can't excuse your behavior, but you want people to know desperately that those actions aren't the normal you. There's an acceptance that people will cut you off from their lives, and that's fair. Hurts but its the way it is.

Re: I would like closure, but I'll take honesty

#17

Post by mrtranscendence »

tptacek wrote: post #11

It is not, in fact, "unambiguously a lie" to relate to others deBoer's grave (and admitted, and unambiguously real) misconduct without the full context of his mental illness. People are entitled to form their own opinions about deBoer's credibility, and he is not entitled to set conditions on how they do that.

I don't know deBoer from Adam, mind you, so I'm only going off the article as written. That said, while it's not strictly a lie to communicate deBoer's actions without conveying how psychosis played a role, it seems to leave out important context in favor of the presumption that he's simply an asshole. My assignment of credibility to deBoer could be substantially colored by learning of his psychosis and current efforts to remain treated.

Re: I would like closure, but I'll take honesty

#18

Post by googlryas »

tptacek wrote: post #11

It is not, in fact, "unambiguously a lie" to relate to others deBoer's grave (and admitted, and unambiguously real) misconduct without the full context of his mental illness. People are entitled to form their own opinions about deBoer's credibility, and he is not entitled to set conditions on how they do that.

Lies of omission are generally accepted as lies. Of course people are entitled to form their own opinions - the discussion is about others (who already have their opinion formed) trying to form the opinions of even more people, by presenting what the author views as not-the-full-story.

Re: I would like closure, but I'll take honesty

#20

Post by breck »

tptacek wrote: post #11

It is not, in fact, "unambiguously a lie" to relate to others deBoer's grave (and admitted, and unambiguously real) misconduct without the full context of his mental illness. People are entitled to form their own opinions about deBoer's credibility, and he is not entitled to set conditions on how they do that.

I think from the author's shoes it is a lie, but only because the author has a better model of the mind than most. The accurate view of the mind is that there is not just one consciousness in there, but many. The lie is that there is an "I". He seems angry when people oversimplify and say "people have one consciousness and DeBoer's is bad", rather than "people have many consciousnesses, and DeBoer has at least one that is bad".

But I also wouldn't rule out the idea that even if our speaking about people as a single consciousness is a gross over-simplification it might be a better strategy for society at large.

(Disclosure: currently reading A Thousand Brains and Society of Mind and very much under the influence of the many minds idea at present)

Post reply on HN