I would like closure, but I'll take honesty • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by spadros » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 9:13 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #48

spadros wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As somebody in a family with bipolar I have to disagree. Someone's schizophrenic episodes should be taken into account in judging their actions, just as one's manic episodes should be as well. This in no way excuses their behavior. Whether or not you want to continue associating with that person is a different matter.

He's entitled to share his mitigating context. It may well be persuasively exculpatory for a lot of reasonable people. He goes far beyond that in this argument, suggesting that he would find dishonest any description of his misconduct that doesn't capture his full state of mind; for instance, any claim that he attempted to "cancel" Malcolm Harris.

I would agree that any description of his misconduct not including reference to his literal bipolar manic state to be not painting the true picture. If we swapped “bipolar” for “schizophrenic” would you have the same opinion?

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

#52

Post by whatshisface » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 9:17 PM UTC

worik wrote: post #33

> I have asked that people consider that I deserve neither total condemnation nor total exoneration. This. In a lot of circles I move there is a tendency to "total condemnation". We can be better to each other. When we do not deserve it is when we need it the most. Peace, love, respect foster peace, love and respect. "Total condemnation" might make the condemner have some temporary good feelings, but does no good for…

>I have asked that people consider that I deserve neither total condemnation nor total exoneration.

The basic irony of the intellectual community responding to the symptoms of bipolar disorder by carrying out the behavior that is the most characteristic feature of bipolar disorder can't be lost on anyone.

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

#53

Post by irishloop » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 9:18 PM UTC

treebot wrote: post #34

ogogmad wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless he's being harassed. Then there can't be inner peace.

That's quite a pessimistic outlook. You can find inner peace even though you're being harassed.

I don't know, if you hear about the accounts of the parents of children killed in Sandy Hook, I don't think inner peace was available. Many had to move or go into hiding. Imagine, after losing a child in such a horrific way, that you also need to somehow start an entirely new life in a strange place because strangers think you're a crisis actor and threaten your life.

Externalities matter.

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

#54

Post by ilamont » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 9:19 PM UTC

spadros wrote: post #24

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.

As somebody in a family with bipolar I have to disagree. Someone's schizophrenic episodes should be taken into account in judging their actions, just as one's manic episodes should be as well. This in no way excuses their behavior. Whether or not you want to continue associating with that person is a different matter.

Whether or not you want to continue associating with that person is a different matter.

Sometimes you have no choice.

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

#55

Post by johncolanduoni » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 9:19 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #48

spadros wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As somebody in a family with bipolar I have to disagree. Someone's schizophrenic episodes should be taken into account in judging their actions, just as one's manic episodes should be as well. This in no way excuses their behavior. Whether or not you want to continue associating with that person is a different matter.

He's entitled to share his mitigating context. It may well be persuasively exculpatory for a lot of reasonable people. He goes far beyond that in this argument, suggesting that he would find dishonest any description of his misconduct that doesn't capture his full state of mind; for instance, any claim that he attempted to "cancel" Malcolm Harris.

Claiming he attempted to “cancel” Malcom Harris doesn’t just not “capture his full state of mind”, it ignores material facts to allege he was in a different state of mind.

And I have to admit I’m curious about what line you’d draw with other situations of omitting information to make one’s argument more persuasive. Do you feel writers are honest when they emphasize the increased rate of myocarditis cases in teens who take the COVID vaccine, while not including the fact that teens who get infected with COVID have even higher rates? I think you’re setting a pretty high bar for considering something misinformation in a way that is highly detrimental for forming accurate world views.

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

#56

Post by kempbellt » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 9:20 PM UTC

worik wrote: post #33

> I have asked that people consider that I deserve neither total condemnation nor total exoneration. This. In a lot of circles I move there is a tendency to "total condemnation". We can be better to each other. When we do not deserve it is when we need it the most. Peace, love, respect foster peace, love and respect. "Total condemnation" might make the condemner have some temporary good feelings, but does no good for…

> This. In a lot of circles I move there is a tendency to "total condemnation".

Which, ironically feels more like a bipolar approach to resolving a problem. Are they good, or are they bad? Is it legal, or is it illegal? Are they right, or are they wrong? Do we punish, or do we praise?

There seems to be this strange generalized assumption that people are bipolar, and they are the problem. Completely ignoring the fact that society itself demonstrates some seriously bipolar tendencies. Many times, suggesting "either/or" solutions to problems that would really benefit from more nuance.

Sometimes the best answer is: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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

#57

Post by dahfizz » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 9:20 PM UTC

ogogmad wrote: post #25

exolymph wrote: post #16

Oh Freddie. You'll never get the peace you want from other people, it can only be found within yourself.

Unless he's being harassed. Then there can't be inner peace.

Inner peace can exist regardless of your circumstances. That's why its called "inner" peace.

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

#58

Post by chrsig » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 9:20 PM UTC

licebmi__at__ wrote: post #41

spadros wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As somebody in a family with bipolar I have to disagree. Someone's schizophrenic episodes should be taken into account in judging their actions, just as one's manic episodes should be as well. This in no way excuses their behavior. Whether or not you want to continue associating with that person is a different matter.

Why should it matter? I mean, if somebody tells me that they are intimate with the president, if they want to con me, or are troubled with mental illness, shouldn’t make a difference on the judgment of how trustable are their statements.

Because we as a society have determined that intent matters -- which is why we have the concept of manslaughter vs murder.

It's a hard thing to accept, but if you're wronged by someone in a state of psychosis, there is no true malice.

Does it change everything? Certainly not.

Change in trust in particular is a hard thing to determine here. You should trust that they're experiencing what they say they are. You should not trust that their statements are factual.

Change in response? It's the difference between if you should seek to get them help or muster some compassion versus whatever you might do if it was a healthy person acting out of malice.

That being said, mentally ill people can still be assholes, and can still act out of malice. So there's that. And that makes situations even more difficult to figure out.

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

#59

Post by tptacek » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 9:20 PM UTC

spadros wrote: post #51

tptacek wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's entitled to share his mitigating context. It may well be persuasively exculpatory for a lot of reasonable people. He goes far beyond that in this argument, suggesting that he would find dishonest any description of his misconduct that doesn't capture his full state of mind; for instance, any claim that he attempted to "cancel" Malcolm Harris.

I would agree that any description of his misconduct not including reference to his literal bipolar manic state to be not painting the true picture. If we swapped “bipolar” for “schizophrenic” would you have the same opinion?

I don't have to consider that counterfactual, since deBoer himself stated clearly that he knew the accusations he was making were false at the time he made them.

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

#60

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Nov 18, 2021, 9:21 PM UTC

worik wrote: post #33

> I have asked that people consider that I deserve neither total condemnation nor total exoneration. This. In a lot of circles I move there is a tendency to "total condemnation". We can be better to each other. When we do not deserve it is when we need it the most. Peace, love, respect foster peace, love and respect. "Total condemnation" might make the condemner have some temporary good feelings, but does no good for…

[deleted]