tomndebb has directed that discussions of the mental health of the candidates is not to be considered in the thread on the health of the president.
I don’t understand why. The most important thing the President does is make decisions. If a candidate’s cognitive functions are impaired, surely that fits within the scope of the thread?
For instance, Mondale in 1984 had some reason to think Reagan had memory issues but chose not to make an issue of it. But what if he had, and Reagan’s initial symptoms of Alzheimer’s had become known? Isn’t that something the electorate should know about?
So why is mental health excluded from that thread?
I’m fully behind the mods’ decision to exclude mental health. It’s too easy to ascribe craziness, lying, whatever to mental health issues. The Dope’s purpose is to fight ignorance, not promote it.
I can see where it makes sense due to “Trump is teh total insanity!!!”. Also, the candidates will undergo a physical and reports will be issued against which claims can be evaluated.
But, if it’s a big deal, then why not open a thread dedicated to mental health issues? Good luck keeping it out of the Pit, though!
How are these NOT mental health issues? Whether the behavior is spontaneous and uncontrolled, or calculated to maintain an image or cause a particular outcome, both are mental health issues.
Presidents and candidates for the presidency have been getting physical checkups with the results released to the press for decades.
So far, we have not yet begun getting psych evals for elected officials or candidates.
So, a thread discussing “health” is going to be presumed to be a reference to physical health, particularly when the OP makes no mention of mental health and the thread rolls on for 66 posts before the subject of mental health is even mentioned.
Opening up that thread to discussions of mental health was a clear path to derailment. In addition, the introduction of “mental health” would have opened the thread about historical views, (that was opened in GD, not Elections), to partisan bickering regarding the current election. The new thread regarding mental health is fine and will avoid crossover discussions.
Any assessments of a candidate’s mental health are going to be heavily weighted according to the politics of the assessor. It’s all too easy to say “Anyone who supports policies X, Y, and Z must be crazy”. Opening up any thread to that topic is going to just turn it into General Political Debate #762,539. Which is apparently still interesting to some, given that we’ve already done it 762,538 times before, but it’d still be nice to see a few other topics occasionally.
True, but when one candidate is famous for regularly temporarily halting interviews with reporters so he can watch himself on television that’s a little different.
Being a jackhole or a serial prevaricator (or both at the same time) is not in itself a DSM-5 diagnosis.
Enough physicians have disgraced themselves by highly dubious long-distance diagnoses during this campaign, without amateurs on the Dope contributing their own lurid but evidence-deprived speculations.
That’s the difference. There’s nothing “evidence deprived” about it. Unlike a physical diagnosis, which often requires physical contact, people’s behaviors can be evaluated from afar.
Hell, identifying mental illness in fictional characters is often part of the curriculum.
Obviously everything is weighted according to politics, but not in the same way. Yes, someone might, for example, be more inclined to claim “Clinton has Parkinson’s” because that person is conservative. But nobody would ever say “Clinton has Parkinson’s because she’s a liberal”.
I hate to keep posting because I think splitting threads is NBD. But the rationale that some people will say stupid things strikes me as both bad and always applicable.
Mental illness isn’t inherently more subject to partisan jabs and speculation than physical fitness. If you doubt that, spend some more time on Trump-leaning forums.
“NBD”?