Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

I sincerely hope that you never find yourself having harmed someone as a result of a mental illness.

> What I'd like is to simply not hear from this person in public again

You're perfectly free to wear headphones in public, and stop reading anything authored by them.

>Get a job, like most of the rest of us

Nice ableism. Do you understand that severe mental illness can be a disability? Would you tell a person without legs to walk up the stairs like the rest of us?

How nice it must be atop your pedestal.



view as:

While I’d not put it like GP, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to not want him to have a big platform like the NYT.

We don’t let people with severe mental disorders work with guns because they’re a risk to others. While I would not agree with having the law involved here, if he is really sorry, one would expect him to not place himself in a position where he can cause severe distress to others would he fail again to manage his illness.

> Nice ableism. Do you understand that severe mental illness can be a disability?

We are still talking about someone writing for the NYT, he is probably well able to write professionally in other fields like marketing.


Why does the mental illness part of this matter at all? He is at any time liable to go out of his mind and ruin people's lives, given a platform to do so. It doesn't make any difference about why that happens; he shouldn't have a platform. I don't care what's wrong with his brain, I care what's wrong with his actions and mitigating the effects of them.

A blind person should not be driving, regardless of how "ableist" this opinion makes me. Likewise, a mentally ill man with a history of life altering slander should not be writing for a public platform.


> Why does the mental illness part of this matter at all?

Because as it turns out mental illness is part of a protected class, and that's a big deal in employment law.

The solution here isn't limiting his freedom of speech, it's accommodating with a fact checker of some sort.


I'm not a government, so I don't care about the protected legal classes in whatever country he's in. His employers are morally obligated to come up with whatever fake excuse allows them to legally not hire this guy.

ah, well if you're embracing open bigotry, then yeah, I can see why you'd think that.

Legal | privacy