I would like closure, but I'll take honesty(freddiedeboer.substack.com)
freddiedeboer.substack.com
I would like closure, but I'll take honesty
https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/i-would-like-closure-but-ill-take
210 comments
> To what extent are social media increasing the severity of mental health issues themselves?
As an analogy, I consider photosensitive epilepsy. It is unlikely that the genetic cause of epilepsy is somehow a recent mutation; we can assume that an average human a thousand years ago would have been approximately as susceptible as a human today. But for nearly the full history of humanity it would have been relatively rare for someone to suffer an episode of photosensitive epilepsy, because of the lack of environmental triggers. It's not impossible for a flame from a fire or a candle to trigger an episode, but the irregular frequency of the flickering flame means the risk is much lower. It wasn't until electric lighting, and later television, that the environment was suddenly primed to interact with a condition that had quietly existed in humanity for untold ages. To some degree, the modern prevalence of photosensitive epilepsy was a direct result of technology.
So it may be with social media. I wonder if there was some predisposition to madness that had lain dormant in human brains for thousands of years, and is only now coming to the fore as a direct result of the environment that we have created with our technological advancements.
As an analogy, I consider photosensitive epilepsy. It is unlikely that the genetic cause of epilepsy is somehow a recent mutation; we can assume that an average human a thousand years ago would have been approximately as susceptible as a human today. But for nearly the full history of humanity it would have been relatively rare for someone to suffer an episode of photosensitive epilepsy, because of the lack of environmental triggers. It's not impossible for a flame from a fire or a candle to trigger an episode, but the irregular frequency of the flickering flame means the risk is much lower. It wasn't until electric lighting, and later television, that the environment was suddenly primed to interact with a condition that had quietly existed in humanity for untold ages. To some degree, the modern prevalence of photosensitive epilepsy was a direct result of technology.
So it may be with social media. I wonder if there was some predisposition to madness that had lain dormant in human brains for thousands of years, and is only now coming to the fore as a direct result of the environment that we have created with our technological advancements.
I think there’s another layer that’s not present with the epilepsy case. With epilepsy, it’s an unintentional and tangential side effect of a new technology. Engagement apps instead take advantage of our mental shortcomings as a core part of their business models.
All that’s to say: you’re right, but with social media the problems are exacerbated because the incentives demand it.
All that’s to say: you’re right, but with social media the problems are exacerbated because the incentives demand it.
There is nothing to suggest that the sort of disorder DeBoer has was not present in the past. The consequences would harsher on everyone and there would be no meds.
Note that he nearly got arrested for unrelated conduct. It was not social media issue.
Note that he nearly got arrested for unrelated conduct. It was not social media issue.
In fact, we know for sure that it exists in cultures with no access to media or technology in the recent past, and severe episodes of bipolar (mania) have been explained as the victim being possessed. One case: https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2015.1...
instead of quiet desperation, people can now lead lives of shrieking desperation
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.
It is a double edged sword. The internet serves to amplify the extremes. At least that is the conclusion I draw.
We have two be careful (I have Schiozoaffective Bipolar Disorder) when going on to social media. I cannot use Facebook at all. For some reason it is always a huge trigger for me. On Twitter I go back and forth. Even Hacker News frustrates me when they keep telling me I am "posting too fast". Most times nothing is too fast for me. :)
But in total, I would say some social media platforms are worse than others. I long for the calmness and organization of the old MyBB forums.
But in total, I would say some social media platforms are worse than others. I long for the calmness and organization of the old MyBB forums.
Your account has been rate limited. At some point, you did something wrong, and noone in administration could even be bothered to warn or tell you about it. That cryptic error message is what gets shown to you instead of anything descriptive. The only way to get it lifted is to email them and pinky promise never again to do the thing they didn't tell you you did in the first place. See this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29024255
In that thread, you wrote:
> I'll write something, it will accumulate a couple to several upvotes, and then, those upvotes all go away over the course of a few more hours, sometimes to be replaced by net downvotes.
Maybe your initial upvotes come from one type of user and the later downvotes come from another type?
Starting about six months ago, I noticed that a lot of low-quality comments were getting voted up on HN. I feel disappointed. Previously, I would spend my downvotes on comments that tried to contribute but contained some error of analysis or logic. I would add a reply explaining the problem, or upvote an existing reply that did that. Nowadays, I spend my downvotes on comments that are low-effort: jokes, opinions with no explanation, knee-jerk reactions, ignorant positions, baseless assumptions, and emotional appeals. I dislike reading those kinds of comments.
I looked over some of your recent comments. I think some of them are low-effort. Example:
> Whoever thought not fixing a remote code execution bug just so they could use it to do something as trivial as tell the difference between their client and others should have been fired.
I think you're initially getting upvoted by people who are OK with low-effort comments. These folks spend a lot of time on HN and refresh to see new comments. They vote up your comment because they like reading comments. Then later, busier people read the story and downvote the low-effort comments. I think this is why you're getting initially upvoted and then downvoted.
> I'll write something, it will accumulate a couple to several upvotes, and then, those upvotes all go away over the course of a few more hours, sometimes to be replaced by net downvotes.
Maybe your initial upvotes come from one type of user and the later downvotes come from another type?
Starting about six months ago, I noticed that a lot of low-quality comments were getting voted up on HN. I feel disappointed. Previously, I would spend my downvotes on comments that tried to contribute but contained some error of analysis or logic. I would add a reply explaining the problem, or upvote an existing reply that did that. Nowadays, I spend my downvotes on comments that are low-effort: jokes, opinions with no explanation, knee-jerk reactions, ignorant positions, baseless assumptions, and emotional appeals. I dislike reading those kinds of comments.
I looked over some of your recent comments. I think some of them are low-effort. Example:
> Whoever thought not fixing a remote code execution bug just so they could use it to do something as trivial as tell the difference between their client and others should have been fired.
I think you're initially getting upvoted by people who are OK with low-effort comments. These folks spend a lot of time on HN and refresh to see new comments. They vote up your comment because they like reading comments. Then later, busier people read the story and downvote the low-effort comments. I think this is why you're getting initially upvoted and then downvoted.
"Effort" is not a measure of the magnitude of how much a comment contributes to a discussion. Just because I don't feel like writing a dissertation does not mean my comment doesn't contain a worthy discussion point.
Even if true, it doesn't explain why it suddenly started happening some weeks ago and wasn't happening before.
Even if true, it doesn't explain why it suddenly started happening some weeks ago and wasn't happening before.
Does your reply argue semantics?
"did something wrong" seems to have a strong correlation to the ability to make hard to refute arguments for opinions that are very solidly in the "outgroup wrongthink" category on HN. The people who can only make weak arguments for the wrong sides of issues get thier accounts shadowbanned or banned for flamebait.
I have no desire to converse with certain ideological groups on certain sides of certain issues but to silence (in relative terms) the ones arguing their side effectively endangers the community's ability to think critically.
I have no desire to converse with certain ideological groups on certain sides of certain issues but to silence (in relative terms) the ones arguing their side effectively endangers the community's ability to think critically.
Could it be that I use a VPN frequently?
They don't tell me these things, either. Sorry.
The author should know that this attitude does absolutely nothing for anyone.
Throwing blame back on other people for not understanding your hardships is self-serving and a fundamentally dismissive attitude. Mental issues do not absolve actions. You feel that you are not fully responsible for your actions and that is actually fine - but as a person who caused harm you should own your ACTIONS, full stop.
"I fucked up. I had a mental break and caused hurt to others.I am sorry for those actions and I am working to better handle my mental issues."
Since they ask at the end what people want, it is simply that. Accept that you are the person that did these acts and hurt others. Forgive yourself for doing it, (internally) but don't deny responsibility.
If it helps, blame your Public Self for being an asshole while your True Self can empathize with those hurt by Public Self. Right now you can't empathize because you are so concerned about deflecting blame from yourself. But blame is shitty and doesn't help anything - ignore blame and accept responsibility for your actions.
Things can't improve until you do that first.
Throwing blame back on other people for not understanding your hardships is self-serving and a fundamentally dismissive attitude. Mental issues do not absolve actions. You feel that you are not fully responsible for your actions and that is actually fine - but as a person who caused harm you should own your ACTIONS, full stop.
"I fucked up. I had a mental break and caused hurt to others.I am sorry for those actions and I am working to better handle my mental issues."
Since they ask at the end what people want, it is simply that. Accept that you are the person that did these acts and hurt others. Forgive yourself for doing it, (internally) but don't deny responsibility.
If it helps, blame your Public Self for being an asshole while your True Self can empathize with those hurt by Public Self. Right now you can't empathize because you are so concerned about deflecting blame from yourself. But blame is shitty and doesn't help anything - ignore blame and accept responsibility for your actions.
Things can't improve until you do that first.
> I have asked that people consider that I deserve neither total condemnation nor total exoneration.
This seems to be an admission of responsibility to me.
This seems to be an admission of responsibility to me.
It seems about the weakest one possible, in that it allows accepting either only tiny amounts of responsibility, or almost total responsibility.
Maybe you don't understand how scales work. His description allows _everything between the endpoints_ he stated. How do you arrive at only a binary choice?
I believe the author did in fact say exactly this.
> I did something very wrong, and the complication of my mental disorder should not excuse me entirely from blame for those actions. The degree to which any individual weighs that complication will have to be a matter of their individual ethical sense. Everyone has the right to make up their own mind about whether I should be forgiven or not. These issues are very complex, and I have had to wrestle with my culpability for my actions when manic for a long time. It’s not easy. It’s perfectly legitimate to weigh my mental illness as context and still conclude that I deserve to have social ties severed. I did in fact lose some real friends over what happened, they made their decisions in full light of my condition and history, and I can only respect that stance and hope that one day they might reconsider.
> ...
> I have not asked for absolution; I have asked for forgiveness. I have asked for forgiveness knowing that only guilty people have the right to ask such a thing. I am guilty of doing something terrible, and I know that some will always judge me harshly for it. I cannot ask them to do otherwise if they are moved to do so by their conscience.
> I did something very wrong, and the complication of my mental disorder should not excuse me entirely from blame for those actions. The degree to which any individual weighs that complication will have to be a matter of their individual ethical sense. Everyone has the right to make up their own mind about whether I should be forgiven or not. These issues are very complex, and I have had to wrestle with my culpability for my actions when manic for a long time. It’s not easy. It’s perfectly legitimate to weigh my mental illness as context and still conclude that I deserve to have social ties severed. I did in fact lose some real friends over what happened, they made their decisions in full light of my condition and history, and I can only respect that stance and hope that one day they might reconsider.
> ...
> I have not asked for absolution; I have asked for forgiveness. I have asked for forgiveness knowing that only guilty people have the right to ask such a thing. I am guilty of doing something terrible, and I know that some will always judge me harshly for it. I cannot ask them to do otherwise if they are moved to do so by their conscience.
Amending an apology with an explanation of intent undermines the apology. Stuff like this:
> I am saying that it is a lie to say that I had a particular outcome in mind because I was operating under the antilogic of psychosis. I know because I’m me and I was there. I’m sorry if this is inconvenient for your efforts to develop simplistic moral readings about what happened, but I assure you my psychotic disorder is harder on me than it is on you...You have no idea what was happening in my brain and no right to speak as if you do.
This is the self-serving part that makes the apology meaningless to those who have been affected. It doesn't help that it is full of blaming ("it is a lie", "You have no idea") and condescending language ("I'm sorry if this is inconvenient...") This is a defense response and isn't an attempt to de-escalate the situation, respond with empathy or take any real responsibility.
If I ran over your dog with my car I wouldn't say I'm "a little bit responsible" but "actually your dog shouldn't have been running in the road", right?
> I am saying that it is a lie to say that I had a particular outcome in mind because I was operating under the antilogic of psychosis. I know because I’m me and I was there. I’m sorry if this is inconvenient for your efforts to develop simplistic moral readings about what happened, but I assure you my psychotic disorder is harder on me than it is on you...You have no idea what was happening in my brain and no right to speak as if you do.
This is the self-serving part that makes the apology meaningless to those who have been affected. It doesn't help that it is full of blaming ("it is a lie", "You have no idea") and condescending language ("I'm sorry if this is inconvenient...") This is a defense response and isn't an attempt to de-escalate the situation, respond with empathy or take any real responsibility.
If I ran over your dog with my car I wouldn't say I'm "a little bit responsible" but "actually your dog shouldn't have been running in the road", right?
Did you actually read the article? The author simply asks critics to give the full context (psychological problems) when attacking the author. The author clearly takes full responsibility for their actions.
The main issue, as I see things, is that the average person has been losing their faculties to determine what is genuine online and what isn't. This greatly favors capitalism, which can perform native marketing on Twitter with brand accounts and hired reply-guys, as well as through advertisements and other methods of attention diversion. The final incarnation of this is platforms like Tik-Tok, which behave as perpetual, unfiltered streams of internet that intentionally mixes your wheat and your chaff.
With relation to mental illness, this issue becomes exacerbated. The anomie, or separation from the human race, is almost intolerable on platforms like Twitter and Instagram. All of it feeds into the grinder of selling more widgets and moving more product.
With relation to mental illness, this issue becomes exacerbated. The anomie, or separation from the human race, is almost intolerable on platforms like Twitter and Instagram. All of it feeds into the grinder of selling more widgets and moving more product.
> The main issue, as I see things, is that the average person has been losing their faculties to determine what is genuine online and what isn't.
Is this truly the case, or is it that there we less average people in online communities in the past? Online scams, lying, and deceit have been a thing since online was a thing-- why else would we have nigerian prince, rickrolling, or the term "trolling" otherwise?
Is this truly the case, or is it that there we less average people in online communities in the past? Online scams, lying, and deceit have been a thing since online was a thing-- why else would we have nigerian prince, rickrolling, or the term "trolling" otherwise?
> 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 anybody beyond that.
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 anybody beyond that.
Also, "To those of you who are not people I harmed in my psychotic episode in August 2017… what is it you think I owe you?"
There seems to be this tendency that people who only learned about something 5 minutes ago get outrage and demand retribution. Like it's a reflex.
The mob has vigilante tendencies. Let's go write an email to someone's employer and demand that they fire them. Millions of people band together and demand justice. For what?
There seems to be this tendency that people who only learned about something 5 minutes ago get outrage and demand retribution. Like it's a reflex.
The mob has vigilante tendencies. Let's go write an email to someone's employer and demand that they fire them. Millions of people band together and demand justice. For what?
I think it’s because the offender is perceived to have harmed the group to which the outraged individual belongs or aspires to belong.
And/or for the likes/retweets/upvotes.
And/or for the likes/retweets/upvotes.
The original victim seems to be pissed on author for making himself victim now and for not going away from his life as he promised.
Some of the angry people have been there whole time and are actually the ones having to deal with it.
Some of the angry people have been there whole time and are actually the ones having to deal with it.
Is DeBoer ‘making himself the victim’?
It looks to me as though he is a victim of a bunch of social vigilantes who have nothing to do with the original situation.
The ‘original victim’ would be better off if these vigilantes weren’t involving themselves in the situation.
It looks to me as though he is a victim of a bunch of social vigilantes who have nothing to do with the original situation.
The ‘original victim’ would be better off if these vigilantes weren’t involving themselves in the situation.
https://mobile.twitter.com/BigMeanInternet/status/1372530096...
This is what "original victim" retweeted again, like yesterday.
> who have nothing to do with the original situation.
Speaking about lies, you made that up. It is assumption based on what you want to be true.
This is what "original victim" retweeted again, like yesterday.
> who have nothing to do with the original situation.
Speaking about lies, you made that up. It is assumption based on what you want to be true.
>> who have nothing to do with the original situation.
> Speaking about lies, you made that up. It is assumption based on what you want to be true.
What did I make up? Are you connected to the original situation? If so, please explain your connection. If you are an interested party in this, it would be honest for you to explain that now.
> Speaking about lies, you made that up. It is assumption based on what you want to be true.
What did I make up? Are you connected to the original situation? If so, please explain your connection. If you are an interested party in this, it would be honest for you to explain that now.
> The original victim seems to be pissed
He does? I'm not seeing that in any of the posts by Malcolm Harris that have been referenced in this thread.
He does? I'm not seeing that in any of the posts by Malcolm Harris that have been referenced in this thread.
https://mobile.twitter.com/BigMeanInternet/status/1372530096...
Retweeted recently
Retweeted recently
> 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)_/¯
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)_/¯
Nuance requires more attention and brainspace than most people have for someone they are only tangentially aware of like a NYT author. Such casual thought only leaves room for binary yes-or-no questions.
Is Freddie DeBoer still worthy of condemnation?
As an uninvolved party, I think the wisest answer for me to give is: Meh ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Is Freddie DeBoer still worthy of condemnation?
As an uninvolved party, I think the wisest answer for me to give is: Meh ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
I don't think this is an accurate depiction of bipolar. This is more accurate to the term "splitting" or black/white thinking which is more common in personality disorders.
Yes, unfortunately the vernacular usage of the word bipolar, and actual bipolar disorder, are significantly different. The vernacular usage of 'bipolar' implies sudden mood swings and black/white thinking, whereas bipolar disorder implies episodes of mania or depression that typically last weeks to months. It also doesn't help that people consistently confuse bipolar disorder with BPD because the acronym could work for either.
>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.
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.
People might do good things or bad things, but people aren't good or bad. They're just people. Actions can be good or bad. It's fair to completely condemn the action, not the person. Since you can't get inside someone's head to know their motives, it's dishonest - or at best deluded - to totally condemn anyone. You can't fix a css problem by debugging the server code.
[deleted]
But I do hope people will think deeply, about the nature of forgiveness in our current culture, about mental illness, and about a disorder I did not choose and which has resulted in me setting my life on fire more times than I can count.
I've been on the receiving end of someone with mental health issues slagging me undeservedly who at some point got the help they needed. And part of that was asking 'forgiveness' from those they'd wronged. When they asked me I had to 'think deeply' about it and in the end I couldn't simply say "sure, we're good". Because the mental health thing might have been the 'reason' or 'excuse', possibly even 'mitigation', but it doesn't in any way fix the damage done. It doesn't fix a damaged reputation. It doesn't change the opinions of the people you convinced I'm a bad person in one of your 'episodes'. This whole thing reads like "Hey...I know I burned down your house, killed your dog and stole your car and I own that...but I was going through a rough patch and you're a bad person if you don't just let it go. Oh...and never tell anyone about the arson, theft and the rest, because, you know, couldn't help myself and if you do you're the bad person".
I do want to be sympathetic to someone whose done wrong, has gotten help, and wants to own past transgressions. We all have things we should atone for. I just don't think that's what this article is really asking for.
I've been on the receiving end of someone with mental health issues slagging me undeservedly who at some point got the help they needed. And part of that was asking 'forgiveness' from those they'd wronged. When they asked me I had to 'think deeply' about it and in the end I couldn't simply say "sure, we're good". Because the mental health thing might have been the 'reason' or 'excuse', possibly even 'mitigation', but it doesn't in any way fix the damage done. It doesn't fix a damaged reputation. It doesn't change the opinions of the people you convinced I'm a bad person in one of your 'episodes'. This whole thing reads like "Hey...I know I burned down your house, killed your dog and stole your car and I own that...but I was going through a rough patch and you're a bad person if you don't just let it go. Oh...and never tell anyone about the arson, theft and the rest, because, you know, couldn't help myself and if you do you're the bad person".
I do want to be sympathetic to someone whose done wrong, has gotten help, and wants to own past transgressions. We all have things we should atone for. I just don't think that's what this article is really asking for.
Your "reads like" summary is a mischaracterization of the piece in my opinion. He's addressing those he did not directly harm, not Harris; he does not say people should "just let it go" and certainly does not say they are bad people if they do not; and he does not say people should never tell anyone about his misdeeds.
Everyone has an opinion. I know who he's tacitly 'addressing'. My opinion is it's an indirection; appeal to the mob to not address the actual subject. Like the archive being cleared of evidence (by 'someone'...no proof and all that). Or 'leaving social media', by posting to social media. And after pages of self flagellation mixed with a thick layer of 'but, you know, couldn't be helped', he ends the whole thing with What do you want from me? which certainly reads to me like "let it go". To me, it's a performance piece. But there is certainly room for other readings...we'll have to agree to disagree.
I don't presume to fully understand someone's inner struggles through a mere article online. Nevertheless, my condolences.
What I find curious is the trend to isolate some condition and how it is not part of some self-defined 'normal me,' thereby abating the guilt for the whole of 'me'. Unfortunately, in my view, mental conditions like this are very much part of a person (that's precisely why it is so difficult to get rid of such conditions) and thus there is no reduction of said guilt for the 'me'.
I recall the age-old defense of abusive behaviors: "it's the hormones, not me." No. Those hormones are very much part of you. And they are your moral and physical responsibility.
Nevertheless, my intellectual model of what constitutes a self does not preclude me from extending my sympathy and condolences to the author. I wish him embrace and tame the inner demon. I wish him peace.
What I find curious is the trend to isolate some condition and how it is not part of some self-defined 'normal me,' thereby abating the guilt for the whole of 'me'. Unfortunately, in my view, mental conditions like this are very much part of a person (that's precisely why it is so difficult to get rid of such conditions) and thus there is no reduction of said guilt for the 'me'.
I recall the age-old defense of abusive behaviors: "it's the hormones, not me." No. Those hormones are very much part of you. And they are your moral and physical responsibility.
Nevertheless, my intellectual model of what constitutes a self does not preclude me from extending my sympathy and condolences to the author. I wish him embrace and tame the inner demon. I wish him peace.
Oh Freddie. You'll never get the peace you want from other people, it can only be found within yourself.
People emailing any potential employer he has demanding that he be fired seems to be breaking his peace...
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.
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.
Externalities matter.
Nobody is arguing that externalities don't matter. You have to respond to events that happen in your life.
Inner peace is whether those families can come to terms with what happened and be happy, or whether they will live in emotional turmoil forever.
Inner peace is whether those families can come to terms with what happened and be happy, or whether they will live in emotional turmoil forever.
I think it's extremely hard to come to terms with what happened and be happy, if what happened (or rather, what is happening) is "I'm currently being chased out of my own home because people online want me dead because my child was gunned down in a domestic terrorist attack".
You'd think so, but some of the autobiographies of Holocaust survivors appear to show that it's possible.
I agree, but so what? He makes some very valid points.
People still have a problem relating to others with severe mental illness (and addiction, for that matter.) The script they expect is, "I have learned that what I did wrong, I'm a better person now, and I'm ready to be trusted again."
That's what they expect, what they demand. But this guy can't say "I learned" or "Here's my case for why I am ready to be trusted again." Not honestly.
In my past (thankfully not recently) I've had to do a somewhat dishonest apology where I said I had "learned" that X was wrong and I wouldn't do it again, when really what I had learned was that I needed to manage my depression more carefully so that I wouldn't get into a state where doing X seemed like the only bearable option even though I knew it would disappoint people.
In my case, it was possible for me to insulate people from dealing with my depression directly, by translating my apology into terms that were comfortable for them. I could recite the script they wanted to hear, because I could honestly say the important parts, "I learned, and I'm ready to be trusted again," because the trajectory of my depression is something I understand pretty well and can anticipate and manage. I am fortunate that way. The only way I had to be dishonest was in omitting the true details of what I learned and why I thought I could be trusted in the future, replacing those details with the ones they wanted to hear.
This guy can't really do that, so he can't conform to the script. He can't "learn" that it's bad to have a psychotic episode, he can't "learn" how not to do it, he can only learn not to ignore his psychiatrist and not to go off his meds, and I think deep down he knows that if the effectiveness of his medication drops, because of a change in his underlying condition or some other factor, his judgment may be impaired to the point where he can't be trusted to keep taking it.
I think what probably rubs people the wrong way is that he won't say he's responsible for what he did in the way they want him to say he's responsible. It makes sense to me that he won't say it, because that would be claiming that he is capable of being responsible in a manic state which is a potentially dangerous and damaging lie. I understand him not being willing to say that, even under duress.
That's what they expect, what they demand. But this guy can't say "I learned" or "Here's my case for why I am ready to be trusted again." Not honestly.
In my past (thankfully not recently) I've had to do a somewhat dishonest apology where I said I had "learned" that X was wrong and I wouldn't do it again, when really what I had learned was that I needed to manage my depression more carefully so that I wouldn't get into a state where doing X seemed like the only bearable option even though I knew it would disappoint people.
In my case, it was possible for me to insulate people from dealing with my depression directly, by translating my apology into terms that were comfortable for them. I could recite the script they wanted to hear, because I could honestly say the important parts, "I learned, and I'm ready to be trusted again," because the trajectory of my depression is something I understand pretty well and can anticipate and manage. I am fortunate that way. The only way I had to be dishonest was in omitting the true details of what I learned and why I thought I could be trusted in the future, replacing those details with the ones they wanted to hear.
This guy can't really do that, so he can't conform to the script. He can't "learn" that it's bad to have a psychotic episode, he can't "learn" how not to do it, he can only learn not to ignore his psychiatrist and not to go off his meds, and I think deep down he knows that if the effectiveness of his medication drops, because of a change in his underlying condition or some other factor, his judgment may be impaired to the point where he can't be trusted to keep taking it.
I think what probably rubs people the wrong way is that he won't say he's responsible for what he did in the way they want him to say he's responsible. It makes sense to me that he won't say it, because that would be claiming that he is capable of being responsible in a manic state which is a potentially dangerous and damaging lie. I understand him not being willing to say that, even under duress.
Yes, but then isn't it clear that he isn't to be trusted (or how much he is to be trusted), and that's really what most people care about, they don't care why.
I think that's part of why the mental health acceptance movement is quite tricky, and not super-successful.
I think that's part of why the mental health acceptance movement is quite tricky, and not super-successful.
What does it mean to be "trusted?"
Trusted to have a job? Get invited to dinner parties? Live without surveillance? Be in a position of responsibility over others, or to influence others?
It seems like we profoundly don't have answers to this from diverse groups like former felons, those with some record of prior bigotry/misogyny, mentally ill, those with divergent ideologies and more.
Trusted to have a job? Get invited to dinner parties? Live without surveillance? Be in a position of responsibility over others, or to influence others?
It seems like we profoundly don't have answers to this from diverse groups like former felons, those with some record of prior bigotry/misogyny, mentally ill, those with divergent ideologies and more.
Certainly I'd like to think there's a special place in hell for those who accuse innocent people of sexual abuse; there's not much worse that one can be accused of.
Mental illness or not, there's no excuse for these kinds of false accusations. It's certainly understandable given Freddie's condition. But us understanding why it happened doesn't ethically justify their actions, and it also doesn't relieve the perpetrators from the consequences of their actions.
"To those of you who are not people I harmed in my psychotic episode in August 2017… what is it you think I owe you?" - What I'd like is to simply not hear from this person in public again. I don't want them to have any sort of public social power, given their capability to totally ruin an innocent person's life.
Get a job, like most of the rest of us, and stop being a public figure. That's what I'd like
Mental illness or not, there's no excuse for these kinds of false accusations. It's certainly understandable given Freddie's condition. But us understanding why it happened doesn't ethically justify their actions, and it also doesn't relieve the perpetrators from the consequences of their actions.
"To those of you who are not people I harmed in my psychotic episode in August 2017… what is it you think I owe you?" - What I'd like is to simply not hear from this person in public again. I don't want them to have any sort of public social power, given their capability to totally ruin an innocent person's life.
Get a job, like most of the rest of us, and stop being a public figure. That's what I'd like
> I don't want them to have any sort of public social power, given their capability to totally ruin an innocent person's life
Who are ones that ruin an innncent person's live? It is one who falsely accused, or those who immediatey accept such accusations instead of wait for result of investigation?
In some sense people of sound mind who uncritically accept such accusation and act on that have more responsibility for their actions than a person who did the false accusation during a psychotic break.
Who are ones that ruin an innncent person's live? It is one who falsely accused, or those who immediatey accept such accusations instead of wait for result of investigation?
In some sense people of sound mind who uncritically accept such accusation and act on that have more responsibility for their actions than a person who did the false accusation during a psychotic break.
He's not innocent, by his own admission
[deleted]
Full disclosure: I don't know who this guy is and hadn't heard of him before today.
> Get a job, like most of the rest of us, and stop being a public figure. That's what I'd like
This seems a bit harsh. Are you saying that anyone who has done something wrong should be permanently shunned and no longer deserves a voice in society? Should he also fully isolate himself and stop having friends and just not say anything ever again?
> Get a job, like most of the rest of us, and stop being a public figure. That's what I'd like
This seems a bit harsh. Are you saying that anyone who has done something wrong should be permanently shunned and no longer deserves a voice in society? Should he also fully isolate himself and stop having friends and just not say anything ever again?
I'm saying if someone commits a violent act that ruins someone's life, like murdering someone or accusing someone of rape, that perpetrator should voluntarily choose to not publish thinkpieces, yes. And if that person doesn't voluntarily choose to not publish their words, people should shun that person.
Unfair accusation of murder have people in jail for years. Unfair reputation that you unfairly accused someone of sexual harassment renders you unemplyable forever everywhere.
My point here is that there are many life destroying accusations. And they have been used against variety of people.
My point here is that there are many life destroying accusations. And they have been used against variety of people.
chrsig(2)
I feel bad that Freddie deBoer feels like it is still his responsibility how he behaved because of this illness we share.
Can you imagine being given a drug without you knowing, like meth, which caused you to act bizarre? Everyone would understand that. And it is the same thing with these mental illnesses. But for some reason it is always our fault and we have to apologize. I think Freddie deBoer is self stigmatizing and it is unhealthy.
Can you imagine being given a drug without you knowing, like meth, which caused you to act bizarre? Everyone would understand that. And it is the same thing with these mental illnesses. But for some reason it is always our fault and we have to apologize. I think Freddie deBoer is self stigmatizing and it is unhealthy.
Never knew Freddie DeBoer was mentally ill. I came across a few of his Twitter rants and guessed as much but in an insulting way. To see that he’s out there and open with it makes me a lot more sympathetic. Glad he’s now getting the help he needs.
Makes me wonder how much of the wild conduct we see online is mental illness and if more empathy would help. Or at least calling in a mental health check up.
Makes me wonder how much of the wild conduct we see online is mental illness and if more empathy would help. Or at least calling in a mental health check up.
If you have a mental illness you can't really be held responsible for the things you did when you weren't in control of yourself. Legally speaking this is true. It should be true socially as well. "I screwed up, I was experiencing a paranoid delusion" should be enough.
However, you can be held responsible for failing to manage your known mental illness.
I've worked with several people who have mental illnesses. I don't hold a grudge against them for things they said and did when experiencing a paranoid delusion. I do hold them responsible for managing their illness in the future.
However, you can be held responsible for failing to manage your known mental illness.
I've worked with several people who have mental illnesses. I don't hold a grudge against them for things they said and did when experiencing a paranoid delusion. I do hold them responsible for managing their illness in the future.
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.
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.
I agree completely. As the parent says, people are entitled to form their own opinion of his credibility, but I don't see how you could possibly form an accurate opinion without knowledge of his mental state, and if you don't care to form an accurate opinion, then why bother?
Lies are more than untruth.
A lie is "[leaving] out the important context"
The most effective way to lie is to use facts. Selectively
A lie is "[leaving] out the important context"
The most effective way to lie is to use facts. Selectively
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)
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)
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.
Generally, people are judged based on the "facts of the case". If I stole an iPhone from the Apple Store, you can call me a thief and demand I spend 6 months in jail. But if a single mother stole a loaf of bread from a store because their kids were starving and going to die without food, that same punishment might be considered unjust.
Context matters. The facts matter. Not just, "did you do this or not".
Context matters. The facts matter. Not just, "did you do this or not".
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.
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.
I’m not talking about behavior nor judgment of him as a person, I know morality tends to equate this, but I don’t consider it to be the case. I just mean that I wouldn’t trust somebody who tends to lie because of mental illness, the same way I wouldn’t trust somebody without preparation to talk about theoretical physics.
The lies of a con man or an uninformed person are generally pretty distinguishable from the lies of a psychotic or manic person, especially in long form writing (isolated tweets are another matter). And for the type of writing deBoer does, which is quite well-sourced whenever he is making factual claims, I think dismissing it because he has a mental illness is kind of silly. Honestly I’ll take a bias of disorganized thought that is likely to be easier to detect over an ideologically motivated bias any day, and we certainly don’t prevent anyone from being published for the latter.
Are there medications you can take to make you drastically less likely to try to con people?
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.
Since a claim that he attempted to cancel Harris is a pretty strong claim about his state of mind, it would seem that omitting relevant information about his state of mind would indeed be dishonest with regard to that particular claim. Claiming that he attempted to cancel Harris is a stronger claim than just claiming that he falsely accused Harris; the latter claim does not carry any implications about his state of mind. It's even a stronger claim than claiming that he knew the accusations were false at the time he made them; that's a claim about his state of mind, yes, but it's a state of mind he's admitted to, as you point out. He has not only not admitted to attempting to cancel Harris, he has explicitly denied it and explained why that wasn't his state of mind at the time.
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.
I think you’re woefully uninformed about the nature of psychosis. Schizophrenic people are fully capable of telling intentional lies to combat a perceived threat, even when they are imagining that threat due to psychosis. Even for someone schizophrenic, not all psychosis is so dissociative as to not have a goal-oriented thought process at all.
[deleted]
deBoer isn't schizophrenic. Again: the counterfactual proposed here isn't useful.
Bipolar mania often comes with psychosis. The paranoia the author writes about is a classic symptom of both mania and schizophrenia.
The psychosis that schizophrenic people experience and that of bipolar people is not treated as two separate “kinds” of psychosis by medical professionals. They are treated with exact same medications. We even have a specific disorder name for people whose mental illness includes the overlapping features of both (schizoaffective). So I don’t think you can move the goalposts away from “schizophrenic people can’t intentionally lie due to psychosis” and pretend the counterfactual is totally irrelevant so easily.
I didn't say anything about what people with schizophrenia can or can't do. Please don't put quotes around things I didn't say when responding to me.
Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I think the claims you made were quite clear. In response to the suggestion of the schizophrenia counterfactual, you wrote precisely:
> 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
My understanding of that was that you saw the fact that “ clearly that he knew the accusations he was making were false at the time he made them” as a reason to disregard the counterfactual. Can you explain what you meant by that other than the suggestion that the latter half of that sentence was sufficiently inconsistent with schizophrenia as to render the comparison meaningless?
I apologize for using quotes to distinguish the view I was referring to from the rest of the sentence. I thought it would be clear that I wasn’t quoting you since the comment I responded too was so short.
> 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
My understanding of that was that you saw the fact that “ clearly that he knew the accusations he was making were false at the time he made them” as a reason to disregard the counterfactual. Can you explain what you meant by that other than the suggestion that the latter half of that sentence was sufficiently inconsistent with schizophrenia as to render the comparison meaningless?
I apologize for using quotes to distinguish the view I was referring to from the rest of the sentence. I thought it would be clear that I wasn’t quoting you since the comment I responded too was so short.
I used to get caught up by the same thing with quotation marks here. Not everyone loves the HN norm about it, but I've internalized it.
[deleted]
Thanks a lot for clarifying this. The meds a bipolar will take are identical to the meds a schizophrenic will take for handling psychosis and paranoia.
You're making the assumption that him knowing they were false meant he had a choice in saying them.
When it comes to psychosis, your knowledge and your actions can become completely disconnected. For my manic episodes, I'm fully conscious and aware of what I'm doing, with no ability to stop what I'm doing. I'm in the passenger seat of a car driving off the cliff.
When it comes to psychosis, your knowledge and your actions can become completely disconnected. For my manic episodes, I'm fully conscious and aware of what I'm doing, with no ability to stop what I'm doing. I'm in the passenger seat of a car driving off the cliff.
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.
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.
I'm not sure we read the same article. I didn't get a "you have to know the full contents of my mind" vibe, but I definitely did feel like he's making an appeal to know the full truth of what he did before you decide how bad he is. And asking people who would publicly write about / condemn him for what he did to at least tell the entire story.
Whether or not you want to continue associating with that person is a different matter.
Sometimes you have no choice.
Sometimes you have no choice.
> People are entitled
All of them? Every single one? Wow, harsh.
I kid, of course; my point in taking your words of context is to say that context always matters. People may be "entitled" to form a negative opinion of you based on my misleading out-of-context quotation of your words, but it seems pretty unambiguous that they'd be wrong to do so.
That said, it would be nice if Freddie had been responding to a specific person, whom he quoted, so that we could tell whether he was taking them out of context.
All of them? Every single one? Wow, harsh.
I kid, of course; my point in taking your words of context is to say that context always matters. People may be "entitled" to form a negative opinion of you based on my misleading out-of-context quotation of your words, but it seems pretty unambiguous that they'd be wrong to do so.
That said, it would be nice if Freddie had been responding to a specific person, whom he quoted, so that we could tell whether he was taking them out of context.
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.
I don't know the background, but I do think that saying or implying that he was conniving or strategically malicious would be a lie.
Are you suggesting that he may not even be bipolar?
Are you suggesting that he may not even be bipolar?
"unambiguously" a lie?
>> 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.
Coincidentally I've been discussing this very issue the past week. I asked the question "when is it lying to say something that is true?"
The example I gave someone was this: You sleep in and arrive late to work. When asked "why are you late" you respond with "traffic was terrible, there was a crash and a backup" which is actually true on that day. The statement is true, but it may in fact be a lie. If you overslept so much that you would have been late regardless of traffic then what you've said is "I'm late because of traffic" which is a lie because you would have been late regardless of traffic. Excuses are often this kind of lie. Sometimes a true statement is a partial truth, but not the larger one that is being concealed while saying it.
Another example: A friend is a therapist and someone in his office died and they're sending all the deceased clients (patients) to others in the office. They've been instructed to tell the patients that their therapist no longer works there as a reason for the change. Is that a lie? I think so even though it's technically true. They fear some people will be too upset at the truth. But IMHO therapists lie too much already and when this "lie" comes to light the clients will be even more devastated than just telling them the truth. My recommendation of course is not to follow those instructions - have some integrity.
TLDR: When is it a lie to say something that is true?
Coincidentally I've been discussing this very issue the past week. I asked the question "when is it lying to say something that is true?"
The example I gave someone was this: You sleep in and arrive late to work. When asked "why are you late" you respond with "traffic was terrible, there was a crash and a backup" which is actually true on that day. The statement is true, but it may in fact be a lie. If you overslept so much that you would have been late regardless of traffic then what you've said is "I'm late because of traffic" which is a lie because you would have been late regardless of traffic. Excuses are often this kind of lie. Sometimes a true statement is a partial truth, but not the larger one that is being concealed while saying it.
Another example: A friend is a therapist and someone in his office died and they're sending all the deceased clients (patients) to others in the office. They've been instructed to tell the patients that their therapist no longer works there as a reason for the change. Is that a lie? I think so even though it's technically true. They fear some people will be too upset at the truth. But IMHO therapists lie too much already and when this "lie" comes to light the clients will be even more devastated than just telling them the truth. My recommendation of course is not to follow those instructions - have some integrity.
TLDR: When is it a lie to say something that is true?
When it becomes not true if you explicitly add the words that the speaker knows the listener inferred in the communication context. In your example, those implied words are "The reason I was late is".
The difficulty is in agreeing on or proving what those words were in that specific context, and whether the speaker knew it. It could instead of a case of mismatched assumptions based on different cultural backgrounds, which you see addressed in a lot of advice about working in other countries.
The difficulty is in agreeing on or proving what those words were in that specific context, and whether the speaker knew it. It could instead of a case of mismatched assumptions based on different cultural backgrounds, which you see addressed in a lot of advice about working in other countries.
> 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 what conditions he's set, he's just asking people to include context. Context which completely changes how most people would view that incident.
Maybe "unambiguously a lie" is a too strong and you can't tell a lie by taking an action out of context, but if you can this is it.
I don't know what conditions he's set, he's just asking people to include context. Context which completely changes how most people would view that incident.
Maybe "unambiguously a lie" is a too strong and you can't tell a lie by taking an action out of context, but if you can this is it.
> Maybe "unambiguously a lie" is a too strong
In many cases it is simply a lie - of the exact kind he complains about here.
In many cases it is simply a lie - of the exact kind he complains about here.
His position is that “If you don’t support my extensive writing about race science, you’re a bigot and a liar because of an incident unrelated to my extensive writing about race science, which has singularly made me a victim of the mob - not my actual writing or opinions. Any criticism of me personally is by definition predicated on the thing I said in 2017 and not my body of work since then.”
That’s the condition that he set!
That’s the condition that he set!
You put quotes around that, but I read the article and searched through the article and he never wrote that.
Intentional omissions of relevant facts constitute lies. Do you disagree with that or do you disagree that the facts are relevant? Or what?
[deleted]
A lie is intentional. Regardless of the falsehood, it is not a lie if you believe it when you say it.
But it is certainly misleading to make these claims about deBoer's actions without context. If this is intentional, then it is intentionally misleading. I wonder if there's a word for that.
But it is certainly misleading to make these claims about deBoer's actions without context. If this is intentional, then it is intentionally misleading. I wonder if there's a word for that.
Whatever it is, we should all be able to agree that it's not "unambiguous".
If someone suffers from a psychotic episode, and you accuse him of something he does during that psychotic episode without mentioning anything about the fact that he was suffering from a psychotic episode, then that is unambiguously a lie by omission.
People who suffer from psychosis do not behave in a reasonable manner. A psychosis is a medical emergency. It's like complaining that someone caused a traffic accident without mentioning they had a heart attack.
(Disclaimer: I have never heard of deBoer before, and for the sake of discusion I am going to assume he did in fact suffer from a psychotic episode)
People who suffer from psychosis do not behave in a reasonable manner. A psychosis is a medical emergency. It's like complaining that someone caused a traffic accident without mentioning they had a heart attack.
(Disclaimer: I have never heard of deBoer before, and for the sake of discusion I am going to assume he did in fact suffer from a psychotic episode)
No, it's not unambiguously a lie by omission. You're just restating deBoer's premise. I don't agree with him; he doesn't get to set these terms. He's entitled to try to persuade people in a different direction; he's not entitled to call people who state basic facts about his past conduct "liars".
In my opinion people are absolutely entitled to call other people who state basic facts about their past while knowingly omitting relevant context a liar.
Is it unambiguously a lie if I were to say “Based off what I’ve read of this guy’s writing, this guy is a piece of shit racist who has openly admitted to being randomly abusive to strangers.”?
Or am I morally obligated to say “He also appears from my perspective to leverage the language of mental illness to excuse himself and attack his critics.”?
What if I don’t believe his narrative _AT ALL_? Am I a liar then? All I’ve read here is a guy insisting that it’s unfair to dislike him. I certainly don’t trust his intellectual honesty, why on earth would I be compelled to believe his narrative simply because he insists that it’s hurting him that I don’t?
What if I don’t believe his narrative _AT ALL_? Am I a liar then? All I’ve read here is a guy insisting that it’s unfair to dislike him. I certainly don’t trust his intellectual honesty, why on earth would I be compelled to believe his narrative simply because he insists that it’s hurting him that I don’t?
Love how nobody has interacted with this post at all.
What DeBoer describes is unambiguously a lie.
Whether some individual is actually doing what he describes has a lot more room for ambiguity.
Whether some individual is actually doing what he describes has a lot more room for ambiguity.
Are you agreeing or disagreeing that someone who knowingly omits the context in this situation is being intentionally misleading?
>we should all be able to agree
If we were all able to agree, this conversation wouldn't be here.
>we should all be able to agree
If we were all able to agree, this conversation wouldn't be here.
No, if one does not know the full context, it is not lying to omit it. If they do know it, then leaving out known relevant information is pretty unambiguously a lie of omission. As you said yourself:
> People are ..not entitled to... do that.
> People are ..not entitled to... do that.
A lie of omission is still a lie.
You softened "condemn" to "relate misconduct."
I'm going to rankly speculate you did this because, "I am a Hacker News and I can condemn anyone for any reason I goddamned please," while a valid counterargument, would have been a bad look.
I'm going to rankly speculate you did this because, "I am a Hacker News and I can condemn anyone for any reason I goddamned please," while a valid counterargument, would have been a bad look.
I can and will condemn deBoer for any reason I goddamned please. I don't feel like that's a "look" of any sort. I don't need his permission to find him odious.
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 under control enough to build a life that works. But it’s a messy process to get there.
It’s kind of a shit lot in life, but you get good at making new friends. Eventually you can get it under control enough to build a life that works. But it’s a messy process to get there.
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.
Freddie doesn't have to be a public figure. He could become a web developer and go by his middle name and quietly cruise out the rest of his years like the drummer for Flock of Seagulls or something.
He could, but it would be a shame. He's an excellent writer. I am well to his right politically, but I've followed him for years because I enjoy reading his work and find his analysis a valuable counterpoint to stuff I would more normally read.
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.
The critical thing is that you're aware that your friend in normal-mode will do different things than your friend in manic-mode. The default assumption is that people have various levels of predictability and trustworthiness in normal mode; learning that someone made a terrible choice once means that their morality and wisdom is not what you thought it was, or at least the variance is extremely high.
People with bipolar disorders are essentially two very different people. You'd be foolish to trust someone in the middle of a manic episode, but and they can be great friends and very trustworthy when in normal-mode.
The problem is that you have to know which mode they're operating in.
People with bipolar disorders are essentially two very different people. You'd be foolish to trust someone in the middle of a manic episode, but and they can be great friends and very trustworthy when in normal-mode.
The problem is that you have to know which mode they're operating in.
I think the first time around, mania kind of creeped in - everybody got sort of frog-boiled by a set of progressively more weird ideas and behaviours that all built up on eachother so it wasn't totally obvious that it was all nuts, until it got really extreme. Now, though, I like to think I'd see it coming a mile off.
In general, I think trust is the wrong rubric for living with humans. It's better to have faith. In reality, people make horrible decisions and do monstrous things all the time, especially neurotypical people, and if you can only trust people who will not make terrible choices, you should trust no-one. History proves that the vast majority of people, in the right circumstances, will do astonishing and awful things.
It makes more sense to treat it as a moral good in and of itself to trust other people, no matter if they let you down or not. That's the key insight of having faith in the people around you. Maybe they will let you down, maybe they won't, but suffering for an overabundance of faith is a worthwhile kind of suffering.
In general, I think trust is the wrong rubric for living with humans. It's better to have faith. In reality, people make horrible decisions and do monstrous things all the time, especially neurotypical people, and if you can only trust people who will not make terrible choices, you should trust no-one. History proves that the vast majority of people, in the right circumstances, will do astonishing and awful things.
It makes more sense to treat it as a moral good in and of itself to trust other people, no matter if they let you down or not. That's the key insight of having faith in the people around you. Maybe they will let you down, maybe they won't, but suffering for an overabundance of faith is a worthwhile kind of suffering.
All true, but the problem seems to be people who don't know him are screwing him over and preventing him from making new friends so to speak.
Yeah, I’m really glad I wasn’t a public figure when I was going through that. But his career as a public figure is likely over due to the trust issue. It sucks, but sometimes you can’t be anything you want.
I think he denies his own agency and is angry about it, but also he is angry that someone else tried to assign a particular agency to him.
Fair enough. I revoke my opinion that he had any agency. Further, I revoke the my notion that at any moment he had agency over his actions, including the drafting of this particular article.
It is a horrible disease that takes away the I-ness of I. I am in relationships with the deeply mentally diseased. It takes all I have.
In the case of Mr. deBoer, the most energy I can muster henceforth is to actively ignore everything so that I do not have to unwind everything later. I will save my willingness to unwind my trust for the people in my life who truly need it from me. Mr. deBoer certainly has enough attention without mine.
Fair enough. I revoke my opinion that he had any agency. Further, I revoke the my notion that at any moment he had agency over his actions, including the drafting of this particular article.
It is a horrible disease that takes away the I-ness of I. I am in relationships with the deeply mentally diseased. It takes all I have.
In the case of Mr. deBoer, the most energy I can muster henceforth is to actively ignore everything so that I do not have to unwind everything later. I will save my willingness to unwind my trust for the people in my life who truly need it from me. Mr. deBoer certainly has enough attention without mine.
He is explicitly admiting that he has agency and culpability. How did you come to the exact opposite conclusion?
Nope, he's admitting something in one sentence, denying it in another sentence, and using twisted wordplay to convey the impression of repentance without any of its substance.
As the GP indicated and other commenters pointed out, he's trying to play on our sympathies for mental illness in an incoherent attempt at regaining social status.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29270427
As the GP indicated and other commenters pointed out, he's trying to play on our sympathies for mental illness in an incoherent attempt at regaining social status.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29270427
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 a point of discussion (or even as a commenter in the replies) on SSC.
> About a year ago (after the accusations) he announced he was leaving writing for a while, as we discussed on this subreddit.
> Finally, Malcom Harris, the man he falsely accused, has responded here.
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 a point of discussion (or even as a commenter in the replies) on SSC.
> About a year ago (after the accusations) he announced he was leaving writing for a while, as we discussed on this subreddit.
> Finally, Malcom Harris, the man he falsely accused, has responded here.
FYI, search on the page for Malcom Harris to the get the comment that eBombzor is quoting (so you can get the links).
For context, here's Freddie's contemporaneous apology, which he has not only deleted from his website but from the Wayback Machine as well (sorry for the weird site, only copy I could find): https://www.falserapetimeline.org/false-rape-5950.pdf
Some excerpts: "Crucially, despite my mental state at the time, I knew when I sent those tweets that they were untrue. I am responsible for having made those false allegations, and that makes me a liar, it makes me guilty of slander, and it makes me someone who undermined the profound seriousness of rape allegations."
". I have abandoned all social media permanently. I have stopped freelance writing. I have in general tried to permanently remove myself from online life and from the world of political writing in which Malcolm resides and I once resided. These changes are not attempts to make up for what I’ve done, really; they are just matters of self-preservation as I try to build a life where I do not cause harm to people anymore. I have fully committed to constant treatment, and I have fully committed to going away. I am so profoundly sorry"
I remember reading this at the time and feeling the pain through the screen. He seemed genuinely ashamed.
Here's Freddie's more recent explanation for why he tried to remove his apology from the internet: https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/statement
He says he doesn't care if we find it on the wayback machine, but someone had to go out of their way to exclude it (https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://fredrikdeboer.com/2018...)
Here's Harris' contemporaneous reaction: https://twitter.com/bigmeaninternet/status/10471296316970475...
My feeling is that the initial apology has been undermined by a) trying to memory hole it and b) writing all these blog posts quasi-defending himself. Would be nice if Freddie and his IDW friends displayed such forbearance and grace for the college students and journalists they make their living attacking. Perhaps those people are going through some mental issues as well.
The good news is, Freddie seems to be doing better than ever. He got a fat advance from Substack and even just had an op-ed published in the liberal New York Times.
Some excerpts: "Crucially, despite my mental state at the time, I knew when I sent those tweets that they were untrue. I am responsible for having made those false allegations, and that makes me a liar, it makes me guilty of slander, and it makes me someone who undermined the profound seriousness of rape allegations."
". I have abandoned all social media permanently. I have stopped freelance writing. I have in general tried to permanently remove myself from online life and from the world of political writing in which Malcolm resides and I once resided. These changes are not attempts to make up for what I’ve done, really; they are just matters of self-preservation as I try to build a life where I do not cause harm to people anymore. I have fully committed to constant treatment, and I have fully committed to going away. I am so profoundly sorry"
I remember reading this at the time and feeling the pain through the screen. He seemed genuinely ashamed.
Here's Freddie's more recent explanation for why he tried to remove his apology from the internet: https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/statement
He says he doesn't care if we find it on the wayback machine, but someone had to go out of their way to exclude it (https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://fredrikdeboer.com/2018...)
Here's Harris' contemporaneous reaction: https://twitter.com/bigmeaninternet/status/10471296316970475...
My feeling is that the initial apology has been undermined by a) trying to memory hole it and b) writing all these blog posts quasi-defending himself. Would be nice if Freddie and his IDW friends displayed such forbearance and grace for the college students and journalists they make their living attacking. Perhaps those people are going through some mental issues as well.
The good news is, Freddie seems to be doing better than ever. He got a fat advance from Substack and even just had an op-ed published in the liberal New York Times.
I love deBoers writing when it's about _something_, but the navel-gazing gets old really quick. Yikes!
If he truly feels sorry, he just needs to move on. He seems to understand what he did was foul. Well then, move forward, be a good man to all the new people in your life. Instead, he craves absolution (and, reading between the lines, acceptance). No human being can be cajoled into extending that. It's truly foolish to expect people can be argued into extending that.
In fact, what he really needs to do, is that he himself needs to forgive the people being mean to him, who have rejected him. When he can do that, only then he can free himself from this burden.
Good luck Freddie!
If he truly feels sorry, he just needs to move on. He seems to understand what he did was foul. Well then, move forward, be a good man to all the new people in your life. Instead, he craves absolution (and, reading between the lines, acceptance). No human being can be cajoled into extending that. It's truly foolish to expect people can be argued into extending that.
In fact, what he really needs to do, is that he himself needs to forgive the people being mean to him, who have rejected him. When he can do that, only then he can free himself from this burden.
Good luck Freddie!
Can you hit me up with your favorite examples? I'm just hearing about the guy now and the first article of his that I found was kind of a pseudosciencey wall-o-text that I won't be finishing.
He's pretty passionate about education policy; this article is one of his better ones on that topic, IMHO: https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/you-arent-actually-mad-... The discussion of Robertson et. al.'s 2010 paper is worth reading the article just for that.
But it's true that his writing seems to drift between extremes -- some sober, well-researched and very interesting, and others almost as if a different person was writing it.
But it's true that his writing seems to drift between extremes -- some sober, well-researched and very interesting, and others almost as if a different person was writing it.
> But it's true that his writing seems to drift between extremes -- some sober, well-researched and very interesting, and others almost as if a different person was writing it.
The article you linked is bizarre. He's actually arguing against himself in places. Interesting, and thanks for the link.
The article you linked is bizarre. He's actually arguing against himself in places. Interesting, and thanks for the link.
> Would be nice if Freddie and his IDW friends
You're wide of the mark there. De Boer was never part of the IDW. He might criticize some of the things they do, but he's coming from a different starting point entirely.
You're wide of the mark there. De Boer was never part of the IDW. He might criticize some of the things they do, but he's coming from a different starting point entirely.
Fair enough, maybe anti-PC is a better label?
And here is Malcolm Harris now - he retweeted that recently.
https://mobile.twitter.com/BigMeanInternet/status/1372530096...
He is not appreciating what DeBoer does now and don't think he follows amends he promised.
https://mobile.twitter.com/BigMeanInternet/status/1372530096...
He is not appreciating what DeBoer does now and don't think he follows amends he promised.
Malcolm Harris doesn’t say what commitments DeBoer is breaking. He would be more credible if he did.
The linked Twitter thread includes Harris saying,
> I would def settle for never having to think about it again, but clearly Freddie isn't going to "go away" like he first promised he would, so I'm sorta stuck here with that while he cashes in on self-pity.
And, if you click on the 2018 link, Harris quotes DeBoer writing
> I have abandoned all social media permanently. I have stopped freelance writing. I have in general tried to permanently remove myself from online life and from the world of political writing in which Malcolm resides and I once resided. [...] I have fully committed to constant treatment, and I have fully committed to going away.
So, I mean, yes, Harris absolutely says what commitments deBoer is breaking. That you had to take the extra 60 seconds to follow the links is not a failure on Harris's part. :)
Now, there are all sorts of questions this raises about "how long of 'going away' is enough" and "is expecting permanent exile from public life reasonable." As near as I can tell, though, deBoer decided that the correct answer to "how long is enough" is "about 12 months." It doesn't seem unreasonable to me for Harris to be looking at that a bit askance.
> I would def settle for never having to think about it again, but clearly Freddie isn't going to "go away" like he first promised he would, so I'm sorta stuck here with that while he cashes in on self-pity.
And, if you click on the 2018 link, Harris quotes DeBoer writing
> I have abandoned all social media permanently. I have stopped freelance writing. I have in general tried to permanently remove myself from online life and from the world of political writing in which Malcolm resides and I once resided. [...] I have fully committed to constant treatment, and I have fully committed to going away.
So, I mean, yes, Harris absolutely says what commitments deBoer is breaking. That you had to take the extra 60 seconds to follow the links is not a failure on Harris's part. :)
Now, there are all sorts of questions this raises about "how long of 'going away' is enough" and "is expecting permanent exile from public life reasonable." As near as I can tell, though, deBoer decided that the correct answer to "how long is enough" is "about 12 months." It doesn't seem unreasonable to me for Harris to be looking at that a bit askance.
It's worth emphasizing the specific commitment to "permanently remove myself from online life." Rather than live up to that commitment and allow Harris to move on, Freddie has decided not only to remain Extremely Online but to keep re-hashing the situation over and over again. It certainly undermines the original apology, and make Harris look like a chump for being so graceful about it.
> Rather than live up to that commitment
This is an unreasonable commitment for deboer to have made. Yes, he made it. No, that doesn’t make it realistic.
> make Harris look like a chump for being so graceful about it
There is nothing graceful about Harris expecting DeBoer to do this unreasonable thing.
It was a bad agreement. DeBoer should never have made it, and Harris should never have accepted it.
This is an unreasonable commitment for deboer to have made. Yes, he made it. No, that doesn’t make it realistic.
> make Harris look like a chump for being so graceful about it
There is nothing graceful about Harris expecting DeBoer to do this unreasonable thing.
It was a bad agreement. DeBoer should never have made it, and Harris should never have accepted it.
It’s absolutely a failure on Harris part.
It’s fairly obvious that expecting someone to exile themselves from public view for the rest of their life is absurd and unreasonable.
Even if DeBoer said he would do that, it doesn’t mean it’s reasonable for Harris to expect it.
If Harris thinks 12 months is not enough, he can say that.
It’s fairly obvious that expecting someone to exile themselves from public view for the rest of their life is absurd and unreasonable.
Even if DeBoer said he would do that, it doesn’t mean it’s reasonable for Harris to expect it.
If Harris thinks 12 months is not enough, he can say that.
That is what DeBoer promised back when he felt guilty and did not wanted Harris to sue him. Which he in fact could do. And maybe should do.
Now DeBoer is actively repeatedly bringing Harris thing up, doing opposite of getting away from Harris life.
Now DeBoer is actively repeatedly bringing Harris thing up, doing opposite of getting away from Harris life.
DeBoer says he’s bringing the Harris thing up because other people keep using it to attack him.
He can’t control what other people do, and if they keep bringing it up, it’s not unreasonable for him to respond.
He can’t control what other people do, and if they keep bringing it up, it’s not unreasonable for him to respond.
>> That you had to take the extra 60 seconds to follow the links is not a failure on Harris's part.
> It's absolutely a failure on Harris's part.
Let me be clearer: Harris stated exactly what you said he didn't state. You either failed to click the link or dismissed it. That you do not agree with what Harris said does not mean he didn't say it.
> If Harris thinks 12 months is not enough, he can say that.
It's obvious he thinks that, and I'm pretty sure you know that, even if he didn't use those literal words. You're implicitly criticizing Harris for an ungenerous reading of deBoer's commitment ("obviously it's absurd and unreasonable to expect he really meant 'permanently' when he wrote 'permanently'"), which I don't object to -- but I do object to you not in turn extending the same generosity to Harris.
For whatever it's worth, I doubt "permanent exile" is reasonable, either. But barely a year later deBoer was writing for the Washington Post and the New York Times, publishing a best-selling book, and starting a newsletter that now brings in a six-figure income. Barely two years on and deBoer is writing, in so many words, "I've already apologized, why won't all you cancel-culture jerks leave me alone".
So, yeah, sorry: if I was Harris, I would probably be tempted to make a few tweets questioning just how sincere deBoer was about the whole apology thing.
> It's absolutely a failure on Harris's part.
Let me be clearer: Harris stated exactly what you said he didn't state. You either failed to click the link or dismissed it. That you do not agree with what Harris said does not mean he didn't say it.
> If Harris thinks 12 months is not enough, he can say that.
It's obvious he thinks that, and I'm pretty sure you know that, even if he didn't use those literal words. You're implicitly criticizing Harris for an ungenerous reading of deBoer's commitment ("obviously it's absurd and unreasonable to expect he really meant 'permanently' when he wrote 'permanently'"), which I don't object to -- but I do object to you not in turn extending the same generosity to Harris.
For whatever it's worth, I doubt "permanent exile" is reasonable, either. But barely a year later deBoer was writing for the Washington Post and the New York Times, publishing a best-selling book, and starting a newsletter that now brings in a six-figure income. Barely two years on and deBoer is writing, in so many words, "I've already apologized, why won't all you cancel-culture jerks leave me alone".
So, yeah, sorry: if I was Harris, I would probably be tempted to make a few tweets questioning just how sincere deBoer was about the whole apology thing.
Deboer deleted his apology from the internet and then wrote this mealy mouthed drek of an article indicates that he hasn’t lived up to his commitment to move on.
He means to fool small minds with meandering language, confusing the herd so they let him regain the status he desperately craves.
He means to fool small minds with meandering language, confusing the herd so they let him regain the status he desperately craves.
> He means to fool small minds with meandering language, confusing the herd so they let him regain the status he desperately craves.
Believing you can read someone else’s mind is a diagnostic criterion for psychosis.
Believing you can read someone else’s mind is a diagnostic criterion for psychosis.
[deleted]
All these intellectual dark web people always expect a kind of empathy they themselves don't extend to others.
1. He's not IDW
2. He does extend empathy to others. Have you read his writing?
3. Freddie is repentent of his sins, whereas many in the PC/woke crowd are not. There can be no real forgiveness where there is not first repentance.
2. He does extend empathy to others. Have you read his writing?
3. Freddie is repentent of his sins, whereas many in the PC/woke crowd are not. There can be no real forgiveness where there is not first repentance.
So what did he do wrong? I couldn't tell from the article, it only hinted that he did something wrong but did not disclose what it was
"In August of 2017 I made totally baseless accusations of sexual misconduct against the writer Malcolm Harris on social media. "
Can anyone provide more (specific) context
"In August of 2017 I made totally baseless accusations of sexual misconduct against the writer Malcolm Harris on social media. "
Can anyone provide more (specific) context
He did disclose it, what you quoted is what he did wrong. Making baseless accusations of sexual misconduct is a pretty widely understood "wrong" behavior. He then went into treatment for his condition and has stayed medicated since (per the article).
> I couldn't tell from the article, it only hinted that he did something wrong but did not disclose what it was
I also have zero background knowledge here. Maybe this article just doesn't target us.
In a stand alone 2.5K word article I would expect more than 20 words detailing the transgression.
It's fine to write articles that require knowledge of a controversy. Though, in such cases, I won't have much to say if I don't have that prior knowledge. It does seems a bit odd to have such an article hit the front page.
I also have zero background knowledge here. Maybe this article just doesn't target us.
In a stand alone 2.5K word article I would expect more than 20 words detailing the transgression.
It's fine to write articles that require knowledge of a controversy. Though, in such cases, I won't have much to say if I don't have that prior knowledge. It does seems a bit odd to have such an article hit the front page.
> But I was not thinking that I would hurt his reputation. I was not thinking of cause and effect in any conventional way.
Tell what were you thinking, and people will judge for themselves.
Tell what were you thinking, and people will judge for themselves.
Freddie DeBoer on Hacker News, that's nice. Found out about him after frequenting /r/stupidpol/, one of the few sub-reddits that still has genuine left-wing discussions focused on the actual material condition of the working classes (even though they're getting rarer and rarer lately).
DeBoer doesn't actually state what criticism he's responding to, implying that all of it is attacking him for his previous shitty behavior (with mitigating circumstances, but ironic given his position against cancel culture) and just hating success. However, the only reason the NYT published him is because they're anti-communist and his piece is basically "here's why socialism is unpopular with americans" posing as being on the side of the left without offering any useful adjustments or acknowledging the popularity of numerous issues such as medicare for all in opinion polling.
Of course, my brain read the word in the headline as "Clojure", and so I was expecting "Honesty" to be the name of a new Lisp dialect. I think I need to get out more...
Same here. My first thought was: another post about someone who tried Clojure and at some point realized it was not apt for their project so now decided to criticize it in an article.
same
Legitimate question to the folks on here that are defending this guy: What are your thoughts on this guy’s (thoroughly spelled out) views regarding race and intelligence?
I’ll start: I think his opinions are wrong and bad, and I sincerely doubt that the people that take issue with him do so explicitly because of what to place in 2017. This strikes me as a deliberate misdirect to enable his victimhood.
And to answer his question: “What do you want from me?”
Answer:
“Nothing. I want nothing at all from you. I want to stop hearing racist dogwhistle bullshit from big publications (even if the racist dog whistle bullshit is written by somebody that suffers from mental health issues.) My issue isn’t with you, it’s with the folks that pay you.
Will I go out of my way to undermine your career? No. I will probably not think of the Poor Abused Race Scientist ever again after today, but should I somehow come across your writings on the future, I’ll decline to read it. It’s kind of sad that you view this opinion as some sort of hate crime, but that’s not my problem.”
I’ll start: I think his opinions are wrong and bad, and I sincerely doubt that the people that take issue with him do so explicitly because of what to place in 2017. This strikes me as a deliberate misdirect to enable his victimhood.
And to answer his question: “What do you want from me?”
Answer:
“Nothing. I want nothing at all from you. I want to stop hearing racist dogwhistle bullshit from big publications (even if the racist dog whistle bullshit is written by somebody that suffers from mental health issues.) My issue isn’t with you, it’s with the folks that pay you.
Will I go out of my way to undermine your career? No. I will probably not think of the Poor Abused Race Scientist ever again after today, but should I somehow come across your writings on the future, I’ll decline to read it. It’s kind of sad that you view this opinion as some sort of hate crime, but that’s not my problem.”
My thoughts on the whole race/IQ debate: it's more or less a perma-banned topic on most forums where constructive debate takes place, and your comment is an excellent example of why.
Sorry, I’m genuinely confused here.
I asked his defenders if they support his views on race science, and brought up the possibility that people dislike him for reasons other than the 2017 event.
Your position is that it’s impolite to bring up a writer’s body of work because… why?
Edit: It’s kind of hard not to interpret your post as “I believe in race science and it makes me uncomfortable to be asked a question like that so plainly, so I will fall back on calling you rude.”
I asked his defenders if they support his views on race science, and brought up the possibility that people dislike him for reasons other than the 2017 event.
Your position is that it’s impolite to bring up a writer’s body of work because… why?
Edit: It’s kind of hard not to interpret your post as “I believe in race science and it makes me uncomfortable to be asked a question like that so plainly, so I will fall back on calling you rude.”
> Your position is that it’s impolite to bring up a writer’s body of work
No, just that one topic. It has this uncanny ability to produce unconstructive discussions where people talk past each other and accuse each other of all manner of things they didn't say...
No, just that one topic. It has this uncanny ability to produce unconstructive discussions where people talk past each other and accuse each other of all manner of things they didn't say...
Rather than answering the question about your opinion about “the whole race/IQ debate” (your words), you’re going out of your way to… what? Admonish me for being rude for bringing up the literal topic at hand (a public writer and possible reasons why he would have negative attention)?
Also, I don’t think “the whole race/IQ debate” is a real thing that people engage in for germane reasons, so you didn’t do a stellar job not answering the question :)
Also, I don’t think “the whole race/IQ debate” is a real thing that people engage in for germane reasons, so you didn’t do a stellar job not answering the question :)
I could not disagree with his opinions more. I think it's perfectly reasonable for him not to want people to pass around stories of what he did when psychotic, I also think that plenty of people may not take issue with him because of this bipolar episode, but that they are willing to use it in an effort to discredit him.
I also think that you are unreasonably dismissing the possibility that people take issues with him for reasons other than his opinions. Your contributions in this thread seem to argue that one can either think his mental illness is a cunning distraction and irrelevant because he is such a bad person OR his opinions are good. It is a bad argument.
I also think that you are unreasonably dismissing the possibility that people take issues with him for reasons other than his opinions. Your contributions in this thread seem to argue that one can either think his mental illness is a cunning distraction and irrelevant because he is such a bad person OR his opinions are good. It is a bad argument.
Wait. What?
He publicly holds very polarizing (and ridiculous) views on issues that directly affect people’s day to day lives, but I’m not thinking straight because I don’t immediately buy the idea that he’s _just_ being bullied for other reasons?
Maybe folks that he victimized during his psychotic break could also hate him for his opinions, but that’s not really a possibility that he mentions. The tone of good article is such that he implies that the main thing that contributes to people not wanting to consume his writing is a singular event 4 years ago. People seem really averse to admitting that maybe, as a human being, he’s not only a victim of bullying from an old event, but also just experiencing the predictable professional fallout from having ghoulish ideals and peddling truly harmful nonsense.
Or am I supposed to care more about the arbitrary, possibly imagined bullying than the plain-as-day “yeah I can see why folks would hate this guy” thought that occurred to me as soon as I read his stuff?
This whole blog post is a petulant child stamping his feet and crying out that it’s unfair that he’s not as well liked as he feels entitled to be. Sorry if that’s not something that I feel overwhelmed with the urge to capitulate to.
He publicly holds very polarizing (and ridiculous) views on issues that directly affect people’s day to day lives, but I’m not thinking straight because I don’t immediately buy the idea that he’s _just_ being bullied for other reasons?
Maybe folks that he victimized during his psychotic break could also hate him for his opinions, but that’s not really a possibility that he mentions. The tone of good article is such that he implies that the main thing that contributes to people not wanting to consume his writing is a singular event 4 years ago. People seem really averse to admitting that maybe, as a human being, he’s not only a victim of bullying from an old event, but also just experiencing the predictable professional fallout from having ghoulish ideals and peddling truly harmful nonsense.
Or am I supposed to care more about the arbitrary, possibly imagined bullying than the plain-as-day “yeah I can see why folks would hate this guy” thought that occurred to me as soon as I read his stuff?
This whole blog post is a petulant child stamping his feet and crying out that it’s unfair that he’s not as well liked as he feels entitled to be. Sorry if that’s not something that I feel overwhelmed with the urge to capitulate to.
> This whole blog post is a petulant child stamping his feet and crying out that it’s unfair that he’s not as well liked as he feels entitled to be.
Did we read the same post? I see someone acknowledging that there are real and valid reasons to dislike him. The main thrust is a request for accuracy when spreading information about those reasons.
Did we read the same post? I see someone acknowledging that there are real and valid reasons to dislike him. The main thrust is a request for accuracy when spreading information about those reasons.
Ah yes, the hallmark of somebody acknowledging wrongdoing: saying that criticism of him is “unambiguous lies”
No. It doesn't matter if you believe him or not. You're not thinking straight because you do immediately start selling the idea that anybody who believes it could be happening is probably an "enthusiastic lackey" for racism.
newbie789(2)
I like Freddie despite his mental problems/communism. His heart usually seems in right place even if his brain isn’t working right.
But when he say his “psychotic disorder is harder on me than it is on you” it sounds a bit like the guy who beats his wife while saying “it hurts me more than it hurts you.”
Destigmatization should not be a license for communism/cancel culture.
But when he say his “psychotic disorder is harder on me than it is on you” it sounds a bit like the guy who beats his wife while saying “it hurts me more than it hurts you.”
Destigmatization should not be a license for communism/cancel culture.
I think he argues quite harshly against himself and says that his actions cannot be excused. He seems to harbour quite a bit of guilt and shame around this topic.
For context, bipolar is one of the highest suicide risk diseases due to this. When you come out of a manic episode you tend to feel intense shame and guilt for your actions. For reference, 1 in 2 bipolar will attempt suicide in their life. 1 in 5 will successfully end their life in the long run. So it is important to take his real admission of guilt and request for forgiveness into account.
For context, bipolar is one of the highest suicide risk diseases due to this. When you come out of a manic episode you tend to feel intense shame and guilt for your actions. For reference, 1 in 2 bipolar will attempt suicide in their life. 1 in 5 will successfully end their life in the long run. So it is important to take his real admission of guilt and request for forgiveness into account.
Excellent point. I would delete my comment but I don’t have enough karma or whatever. I guess we all do things we regret.
Social media are clearly magnifying the negative consequences of mental health issues. The problems the author describes are compounded by the fact that many other people know what happened.
What I'm curious about, though, is the opposite. To what extent are social media increasing the severity of mental health issues themselves? I can imagine a kind of positive feedback loop, with social media triggering aspects of an illness, and acting out through social media amplifying the damage caused.