Sweet, delicious irony: Republican opponent who accused Ilhan Omar of being a criminal charged with felony theft.

[Straha]

Words cannot express how little interest I have in your personal anecdotes.

Your entire argument here is built around the idea that disabled people don't know what's best for ourselves and thus cannot be trusted to take on tasks within our abilities and thus it is entirely legitimate for our lives to be under scrutiny if we become public figures lest we prove "too disabled" to be a legislator. This is infantilizing, because it renders us less than fully adult humans. I can only really speak for myself, but it is infuriating to see people engage in, and a substantial number of other disabled people seem to agree with me.

It is not infantilizing, at least for the reason you state. There are a lot of fully adult humans who I consider to be unfit for public office (like Trump), and I have no idea if they have legitimate disabilities. It's beside the point. You say that the argument is "built around the idea that disabled people don't know what's best for ourselves", but I'd say that it is you that don't know what is best for everyone else if you think the question cannot be asked of someone seeking public office. It is "entirely legitimate" for the life of ANYONE seeking public office to be under scrutiny.

Why do you think you are in a place to pass informed judgment on someone you've never met's mental health?

[Effie]

Words cannot express how little interest I have in your personal anecdotes.

Your entire argument here is built around the idea that disabled people don't know what's best for ourselves and thus cannot be trusted to take on tasks within our abilities and thus it is entirely legitimate for our lives to be under scrutiny if we become public figures lest we prove "too disabled" to be a legislator. This is infantilizing, because it renders us less than fully adult humans. I can only really speak for myself, but it is infuriating to see people engage in, and a substantial number of other disabled people seem to agree with me.

It is not infantilizing, at least for the reason you state. There are a lot of fully adult humans who I consider to be unfit for public office (like Trump), and I have no idea if they have legitimate disabilities. It's beside the point. You say that the argument is "built around the idea that disabled people don't know what's best for ourselves", but I'd say that it is you that don't know what is best for everyone else if you think the question cannot be asked of someone seeking public office. It is "entirely legitimate" for the life of ANYONE seeking public office to be under scrutiny.

Are you really gonna compare Donald Trump's fascism to having PTSD flashbacks? Fucking seriously?

[Broomstick]

It's entirely legitimate for anyone seeking a job to be asked for proof they meet qualifications for that job. Effie is not asking for equality for the disabled, Effie is asking for special consideration.

[Broomstick]

Words cannot express how little interest I have in your personal anecdotes.

Actually, it's my spouse's personal ancedote, that of someone who faced a lifetime of disability and struggle but a self-centered twit such as yourself apparently is incapable of empathy with other peoples' struggles.

Your entire argument here is built around the idea that disabled people don't know what's best for ourselves and thus cannot be trusted to take on tasks within our abilities and thus it is entirely legitimate for our lives to be under scrutiny if we become public figures lest we prove "too disabled" to be a legislator.

EVERY person who runs for public office WITHOUT EXCEPTION is under scrutiny. Every. Single. One. Being disabled in and of itself is NOT disqualifying for public office in the US and we certainly have had a wide variety of people in that role, from local roles to a wheelchair-using PotUS. If you don't want scrutiny don't run for public office.

But do, please, tell me how someone claiming to be intolerant of crowds is going to be able to sit in a room with 400+ other people to do business, because that's what the House of Representatives IS - a room with 400+ people in it. Maybe that person can cope with a specific medication. Maybe that person can cope if they bring their Emotional Support Chihuahua with them. And if that works more power to them. But it is entirely reasonable to ask how they're going to deal with a situation built into the job. That is not only required to know if that person is capable of doing the job, but also to know what accommodations are required for them to do the job under the Americans with Disability Act.

I care not one wit that you are somehow "offended" by all this.

This is infantilizing, because it renders us less than fully adult humans.

Go fuck yourself.

I live 30 years with someone disabled by choice. Both my mother and one of my sisters suffered from severe clinical depression. I am not unfamilar with the problems of both mental and physical disability.

And you know what? Sometimes the person DOESN'T know their limitations, sometimes the person DOESN'T know what's good for them - that's why we have court hearings to determine competency sometimes. If they individual is lucky it's only a temporary situation and they can be restored to independence. Sometimes they can't.

I submit that if a person is claiming PTSD drives them to commit crimes then that person is NOT qualified to hold public office until such time their illness/disorder is treated so they are no longer experiencing such compulsions. It's not dissimilar to someone with a history of alcoholism applying for a job as a bus driver - it's not at all unreasonable to ask such a person to submit proof their alcoholism is in remission and they're capable of remaining sober on the job. That's not "infantalizing" them, or oppressing them.

I can only really speak for myself, but it is infuriating to see people engage in, and a substantial number of other disabled people seem to agree with me.

How cute - you dis anyone else's personal anecdotes but we're supposed to swallow yours without complaint.

[Broomstick]

Why do you think you are in a place to pass informed judgment on someone you've never met's mental health?

Do you have something new to contribute or are you going to keep this on repeat for the rest of this thread?

[Effie]

Words cannot express how little interest I have in your personal anecdotes.

Actually, it's my spouse's personal ancedote, that of someone who faced a lifetime of disability and struggle but a self-centered twit such as yourself apparently is incapable of empathy with other peoples' struggles.

Your entire argument here is built around the idea that disabled people don't know what's best for ourselves and thus cannot be trusted to take on tasks within our abilities and thus it is entirely legitimate for our lives to be under scrutiny if we become public figures lest we prove "too disabled" to be a legislator.

EVERY person who runs for public office WITHOUT EXCEPTION is under scrutiny. Every. Single. One. Being disabled in and of itself is NOT disqualifying for public office in the US and we certainly have had a wide variety of people in that role, from local roles to a wheelchair-using PotUS. If you don't want scrutiny don't run for public office.

But do, please, tell me how someone claiming to be intolerant of crowds is going to be able to sit in a room with 400+ other people to do business, because that's what the House of Representatives IS - a room with 400+ people in it. Maybe that person can cope with a specific medication. Maybe that person can cope if they bring their Emotional Support Chihuahua with them. And if that works more power to them. But it is entirely reasonable to ask how they're going to deal with a situation built into the job. That is not only required to know if that person is capable of doing the job, but also to know what accommodations are required for them to do the job under the Americans with Disability Act.

I care not one wit that you are somehow "offended" by all this.

This is infantilizing, because it renders us less than fully adult humans.

Go fuck yourself.

I live 30 years with someone disabled by choice. Both my mother and one of my sisters suffered from severe clinical depression. I am not unfamilar with the problems of both mental and physical disability.

And you know what? Sometimes the person DOESN'T know their limitations, sometimes the person DOESN'T know what's good for them - that's why we have court hearings to determine competency sometimes. If they individual is lucky it's only a temporary situation and they can be restored to independence. Sometimes they can't.

I submit that if a person is claiming PTSD drives them to commit crimes then that person is NOT qualified to hold public office until such time their illness/disorder is treated so they are no longer experiencing such compulsions. It's not dissimilar to someone with a history of alcoholism applying for a job as a bus driver - it's not at all unreasonable to ask such a person to submit proof their alcoholism is in remission and they're capable of remaining sober on the job. That's not "infantalizing" them, or oppressing them.

I can only really speak for myself, but it is infuriating to see people engage in, and a substantial number of other disabled people seem to agree with me.

How cute - you dis anyone else's personal anecdotes but we're supposed to swallow yours without complaint.

So, I note that you bring up Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who went to enormous lengths to limit public awareness of his disability, and yet cite this as a positive example of the effects of the general public determining whether someone is too disabled to hold public office or not. The irony is tangible.

You also don't understand that there's a difference between using anecdotes as if they were compelling evidence (and indeed compelling evidence being presented on behalf of another person by yourself) and indicating an anecdote is anecdotal.

Finally, you really are unable to understand that the offense you are committing is in attempting to dictate authority for yourself and by extension all abled people over disabled people, because when confronted about this you insist that you don't have to care about causing offense, that you, a member of the general public, can determine the precise state of a person's mental health from afar. Amazing.

[houser2112]

It is not infantilizing, at least for the reason you state. There are a lot of fully adult humans who I consider to be unfit for public office (like Trump), and I have no idea if they have legitimate disabilities. It's beside the point. You say that the argument is "built around the idea that disabled people don't know what's best for ourselves", but I'd say that it is you that don't know what is best for everyone else if you think the question cannot be asked of someone seeking public office. It is "entirely legitimate" for the life of ANYONE seeking public office to be under scrutiny.

Are you really gonna compare Donald Trump's fascism to having PTSD flashbacks? Fucking seriously?

Why do you think you are in a place to pass informed judgment on someone you've never met's mental health?

I wasn't comparing Trump's fascism to PTSD, I just mentioned him as someone who I consider unfit for office for reasons besides mental health. The point I'm making is that I don't need to be a mental health professional to evaluate someone's mental health. Being a voter in the consituency of the candidate is all I need to be, and it is my job to put the best person into office as I see fit. I will use all of the data available to me to make that consideration.

If you want privacy from people passing uninformed judgement on you for your mental health, that's fine and I support you, but not if you're going to run for public office.

[Straha]

Why do you think you are in a place to pass informed judgment on someone you've never met's mental health?

Do you have something new to contribute or are you going to keep this on repeat for the rest of this thread?

When someone answers the questions, I'll stop asking it.

Because, as it stands, you've painted yourself as a complete lay-person who both has no training to render judgment and no experience with these people. Which means you have no fucking way of passing anything even remotely close to an informed judgment on this question. And if you can't pass informed judgment on this, your opinion really shouldn't matter.

Moreover the idea that disabled people should parade their disability in front of you like some sort of carnival sideshow to be gawked and talked about isn't just stigmatizing, it justifies all sorts of other instances where lay people who have no fucking clue what they're doing judge that disabled people aren't disabled enough to actually claim the title. This ranges from the macro scale of disability benefits down to people being harassed for using disabled parking placards. All of which is fucked up.

So, and I say this with all kindness, go stuff your uninformed opinion back up the asshole from which it emerged.

[Straha]

If you want privacy from people passing uninformed judgement on you for your mental health, that's fine and I support you, but not if you're going to run for public office.

Would you feel the same way about people using the same rubrics of uninformed judgment about cancer? About menopause? About psychology?

[houser2112]

If you want privacy from people passing uninformed judgement on you for your mental health, that's fine and I support you, but not if you're going to run for public office.

Would you feel the same way about people using the same rubrics of uninformed judgment about cancer?

Considering that people have not-unreasonable issues voting for candidates that are merely old out of fear that they'll die in office, having an actual disease known for its tendency to kill is within bounds.

About menopause?

Be serious.

About psychology?

WTF are you even trying to say here? Someone could suffer from psychology?

[Effie]

If you want privacy from people passing uninformed judgement on you for your mental health, that's fine and I support you, but not if you're going to run for public office.

Would you feel the same way about people using the same rubrics of uninformed judgment about cancer?

Considering that people have not-unreasonable issues voting for candidates that are merely old out of fear that they'll die in office, having an actual disease known for its tendency to kill is within bounds.

About menopause?

Be serious.

About psychology?

WTF are you even trying to say here? Someone could suffer from psychology?

Menopause causes hormonal changes, which can affect behavior and mental state, so I don't see why you're saying "be serious" beyond a dim recognition banning menopausal people from holding office is dangerous waters to tread into.

[Straha]

If you want privacy from people passing uninformed judgement on you for your mental health, that's fine and I support you, but not if you're going to run for public office.

Would you feel the same way about people using the same rubrics of uninformed judgment about cancer?

Considering that people have not-unreasonable issues voting for candidates that are merely old out of fear that they'll die in office, having an actual disease known for its tendency to kill is within bounds.

So if a person says "I have cancer, but it is not effecting my ability to act as legislator, and I am undergoing treatment." you think it's a fine response to declare "Nope, don't believe you!"

I call bullshit.

About menopause?

Be serious.

I'm not going to link to the massive piles of sexist bullshit flung at women across many fields about their periods, but suffice to say it's a thing. See, notably, discussions of Hillary and Menopause in '08 and '16. If you're going to say uninformed passers-by can render judgment on people then women and their periods are absolutely going to be made fair game.

See, also: "Blood out of her whatever." which, if you're going to defend random lay-people passing opinions about medical and psychological topics with no grounding, becomes a perfectly acceptable statement because, y'know, she was a public figure and he had thoughts on her performance in public.

About psychology?

WTF are you even trying to say here? Someone could suffer from psychology?

Are you okay with random people passing judgment on the psychological motivations and drives of people they've met? Are you okay being psychoanalyzed by people who do not know you, do not care about you, and have only had the most fleeting of interactions with you? These are real questions that effect people on a daily basis, the fact that you don't get what's going here speaks volumes.

[PainRack]

Wait.....


Are we seriously saying that we cant question whether a person, who explicitly said she has memory blackouts with no impulse control due to anxiety, with a trigger factor being crowds is suitable for office ????

Note, I not saying her PTSD disqualifies her from office . But I AM saying that citizens have the right to ask whether she can do the job as well as Omar, and that includes whether her PTSD makes her a worse candidate compared to Omar.

[Ziggy Stardust]

When someone answers the questions, I'll stop asking it.

Because, as it stands, you've painted yourself as a complete lay-person who both has no training to render judgment and no experience with these people. Which means you have no fucking way of passing anything even remotely close to an informed judgment on this question. And if you can't pass informed judgment on this, your opinion really shouldn't matter.

Moreover the idea that disabled people should parade their disability in front of you like some sort of carnival sideshow to be gawked and talked about isn't just stigmatizing, it justifies all sorts of other instances where lay people who have no fucking clue what they're doing judge that disabled people aren't disabled enough to actually claim the title. This ranges from the macro scale of disability benefits down to people being harassed for using disabled parking placards. All of which is fucked up.

So, and I say this with all kindness, go stuff your uninformed opinion back up the asshole from which it emerged.

Dude, what the hell are you talking about? The candidate in question is the one that claimed she has PTSD, and said PTSD makes it difficult for her to function normally. SHE is the one that said that! You are acting like people on this thread are diagnosing her remotely, which just isn't the case. When a candidate for public office openly admits that they have a condition that makes it difficult for them to function normally, it isn't exactly outrageous to expect people to question what the ramifications of that are for said public office. I feel like you are utterly ignoring all the context of what people are saying just to clutch your pearls and screech about how nobody understands disabled people.

[Straha]

Are we seriously saying that we cant question whether a person, who explicitly said she has memory blackouts with no impulse control due to anxiety, with a trigger factor being crowds is suitable for office ????

Where did she say she has no impulse control due to anxiety?

I am saying that we should not diagnose and judge someone for a disclosed disability, and we should not assume our judgment of their capability is somehow more accurate than their own when you are a lay-person with no direct knowledge of the person in question.

Dude, what the hell are you talking about? The candidate in question is the one that claimed she has PTSD, and said PTSD makes it difficult for her to function normally. SHE is the one that said that! You are acting like people on this thread are diagnosing her remotely, which just isn't the case. When a candidate for public office openly admits that they have a condition that makes it difficult for them to function normally, it isn't exactly outrageous to expect people to question what the ramifications of that are for said public office. I feel like you are utterly ignoring all the context of what people are saying just to clutch your pearls and screech about how nobody understands disabled people.

A. What's sufficiently 'normal' in your book? How do I recognize 'normal behaviour'? And who is qualified to make judgments on what is or isn't sufficiently normal?

B. Why is it that normal behaviour is a prerequisite for employment? Can only normal people hold jobs? Can only 'normal' people pass judgment on legislation and weigh decisions about the country? What other things should only be restricted to 'normal' people? The world wonders.

C. Yes, people are diagnosing her remotely. PTSD is an incredibly complicated disorder with many many factors about it. It is, at best, poorly understood, highly stigmatized, and deeply layered. So far as we know she went into a Target and had a memory issue. That's it. We don't know what happened at the target, we don't know what triggered her episode, we don't know anything about her treatment and support network. (Nor, for that matter, should we.) To be able to pass judgment on what else her PTSD effects is to render judgment on her with no evidence, no direct experience, and no expertise to back it up. That's not judgment, that's bullshitting.

D. All of which is to say that when she says "Hey, I have PTSD and it has effected me in a narrow circumstance." the answer should be "Huh, I respect her as a human being, hope that she has a support network and is getting the attention she deserves. I also hope that the legal system will be able to find out what happened, and render judgment fairly to her." It should not be to then turn around and say "Well, if she has PTSD in a target she's probably a fundamentally broken person who can't operate in society. What the fuck is she thinking trying to get a job/represent normal people?"

E. I mean in the most straight up way, but it speaks a lot to how disability is stigmatized in this society that her outright bigotry and conspiracy laden beliefs are, somehow, not the focus of people's response but her PTSD is.

[PainRack]

Are we seriously saying that we cant question whether a person, who explicitly said she has memory blackouts with no impulse control due to anxiety, with a trigger factor being crowds is suitable for office ????

Where did she say she has no impulse control due to anxiety?

I am saying that we should not diagnose and judge someone for a disclosed disability, and we should not assume our judgment of their capability is somehow more accurate than their own when you are a lay-person with no direct knowledge of the person in question.

She said it herself . She has no memory of stealing said items. That no impulse control AND memory blackout.

. I mean in the most straight up way, but it speaks a lot to how disability is stigmatized in this society that her outright bigotry and conspiracy laden beliefs are, somehow, not the focus of people's response but her PTSD is.

Thread title is about how she said criminals shouldn't be in office, oops, turn out that she committed a crime which she said was the fault of her PTSD. And you wonder WHY we discussing the PTSD???

[Gandalf]

Why do you think you are in a place to pass informed judgment on someone you've never met's mental health?

Do you have something new to contribute or are you going to keep this on repeat for the rest of this thread?

When someone answers the questions, I'll stop asking it.

Because, as it stands, you've painted yourself as a complete lay-person who both has no training to render judgment and no experience with these people. Which means you have no fucking way of passing anything even remotely close to an informed judgment on this question. And if you can't pass informed judgment on this, your opinion really shouldn't matter.

Moreover the idea that disabled people should parade their disability in front of you like some sort of carnival sideshow to be gawked and talked about isn't just stigmatizing, it justifies all sorts of other instances where lay people who have no fucking clue what they're doing judge that disabled people aren't disabled enough to actually claim the title. This ranges from the macro scale of disability benefits down to people being harassed for using disabled parking placards. All of which is fucked up.

So, and I say this with all kindness, go stuff your uninformed opinion back up the asshole from which it emerged.

I wonder if Broomstick's idea of "open it all" applies to other things out of norms? For example, an LGBTQIA+ politician would be open to all sorts of blackmail, especially going back a few years. Should they have been forced to come out in order to let the public judge for themselves?

[houser2112]

Considering that people have not-unreasonable issues voting for candidates that are merely old out of fear that they'll die in office, having an actual disease known for its tendency to kill is within bounds.

So if a person says "I have cancer, but it is not effecting my ability to act as legislator, and I am undergoing treatment." you think it's a fine response to declare "Nope, don't believe you!" I call bullshit.

I'm not saying it's a question of believing whether it's true, because I think most people would take that a candidate has cancer at face value. What I'm saying is that people are hesitant to vote people into office that are likely to die, and cancer increases the chances of death considerably.

Be serious.

I'm not going to link to the massive piles of sexist bullshit flung at women across many fields about their periods, but suffice to say it's a thing. See, notably, discussions of Hillary and Menopause in '08 and '16. If you're going to say uninformed passers-by can render judgment on people then women and their periods are absolutely going to be made fair game.

See, also: "Blood out of her whatever." which, if you're going to defend random lay-people passing opinions about medical and psychological topics with no grounding, becomes a perfectly acceptable statement because, y'know, she was a public figure and he had thoughts on her performance in public.

I said "Be serious" because I don't think people legitimately believe menopause is debilitating, I think criticism on those grounds could be more rightly blamed on misogyny,

WTF are you even trying to say here? Someone could suffer from psychology?

Are you okay with random people passing judgment on the psychological motivations and drives of people they've met? Are you okay being psychoanalyzed by people who do not know you, do not care about you, and have only had the most fleeting of interactions with you? These are real questions that effect people on a daily basis, the fact that you don't get what's going here speaks volumes.

As I said before, when you throw your hat in the ring, all bets are off. Your skeletons better be well-hidden, and your motivations for everything become subject to scrutiny. This is not a private citizen we're talking about.

[Effie]

Considering that people have not-unreasonable issues voting for candidates that are merely old out of fear that they'll die in office, having an actual disease known for its tendency to kill is within bounds.

So if a person says "I have cancer, but it is not effecting my ability to act as legislator, and I am undergoing treatment." you think it's a fine response to declare "Nope, don't believe you!" I call bullshit.

I'm not saying it's a question of believing whether it's true, because I think most people would take that a candidate has cancer at face value. What I'm saying is that people are hesitant to vote people into office that are likely to die, and cancer increases the chances of death considerably.

Be serious.

I'm not going to link to the massive piles of sexist bullshit flung at women across many fields about their periods, but suffice to say it's a thing. See, notably, discussions of Hillary and Menopause in '08 and '16. If you're going to say uninformed passers-by can render judgment on people then women and their periods are absolutely going to be made fair game.

See, also: "Blood out of her whatever." which, if you're going to defend random lay-people passing opinions about medical and psychological topics with no grounding, becomes a perfectly acceptable statement because, y'know, she was a public figure and he had thoughts on her performance in public.

I said "Be serious" because I don't think people legitimately believe menopause is debilitating, I think criticism on those grounds could be more rightly blamed on misogyny,

WTF are you even trying to say here? Someone could suffer from psychology?

Are you okay with random people passing judgment on the psychological motivations and drives of people they've met? Are you okay being psychoanalyzed by people who do not know you, do not care about you, and have only had the most fleeting of interactions with you? These are real questions that effect people on a daily basis, the fact that you don't get what's going here speaks volumes.

As I said before, when you throw your hat in the ring, all bets are off. Your skeletons better be well-hidden, and your motivations for everything become subject to scrutiny. This is not a private citizen we're talking about.

I can assure you that believing menopause is debilitating is by no means incompatible with misogyny, just like genuinely believing PSTD is disqualifying is by no means incompatible with ableism.

[Straha]

She said it herself . She has no memory of stealing said items. That no impulse control AND memory blackout.

Factually incorrect. This is the entirety of what's said about her PTSD:

'Stella told police in a statement she “remembers arriving at Target to purchase items but nothing else” due to post-traumatic stress disorder, and that she “normally she goes to Target with someone because of anxiety around people”.'

At no point is impulse control mentioned in the article. She said she does not remember anything else of her time in the target but discusses nothing about her PTSD, what triggers her, or what happened at the Target. To imply or say otherwise is not just factually incorrect but stigmatizing and harmful.

Thread title is about how she said criminals shouldn't be in office, oops, turn out that she committed a crime which she said was the fault of her PTSD. And you wonder WHY we discussing the PTSD???

If this was about the hypocrisy of "Hey, you said criminals shouldn't be in office and yet you've been charged with a crime. Racist hypocrite!" that would be fucking fine. She is a hypocrite. Her statements paint a pretty clear picture of racism. She is a bad person.

If this was to say "Hey, you said criminals shouldn't be in office as a blanket statement, yet you expect leniency and understanding when you commit a crime because of disabilities. This leniency and understanding being specially applied to you and not to others is pretty fucked up and heartless." that too would be fine. She is expecting leniency and not giving it to others. She is, despite being a victim of ableism, expressing a structural ableism that should be challenged.

To say "Hey, you have PTSD. Why the fuck do you think you should be running for office?" is fucked up. Especially when people are diagnosing her and ascribing symptoms to her (see above) without any fucking ability to do so.

[Straha]

So if a person says "I have cancer, but it is not effecting my ability to act as legislator, and I am undergoing treatment." you think it's a fine response to declare "Nope, don't believe you!" I call bullshit.

I'm not saying it's a question of believing whether it's true, because I think most people would take that a candidate has cancer at face value. What I'm saying is that people are hesitant to vote people into office that are likely to die, and cancer increases the chances of death considerably.

The question isn't whether people are shitty. The question is if people should be shitty. If a person has cancer but it won't effect their job performance why should they be disqualified from holding the job? If the answer is "The cancer is concerning to me" and you're not A. them or B. their doctor talking in consultation with them then you're a pretty shitty person.

Be serious.

I'm not going to link to the massive piles of sexist bullshit flung at women across many fields about their periods, but suffice to say it's a thing. See, notably, discussions of Hillary and Menopause in '08 and '16. If you're going to say uninformed passers-by can render judgment on people then women and their periods are absolutely going to be made fair game.

See, also: "Blood out of her whatever." which, if you're going to defend random lay-people passing opinions about medical and psychological topics with no grounding, becomes a perfectly acceptable statement because, y'know, she was a public figure and he had thoughts on her performance in public.

I said "Be serious" because I don't think people legitimately believe menopause is debilitating, I think criticism on those grounds could be more rightly blamed on misogyny,

Shocking fact about misogyny. People who are misogynists don't believe that women are equal in capabilities to men and then say untruthful insulting things to hurt them. People who are misogynists believe insulting things to be true.

If you believe random lay opinion about people's medical conditions should be valued and weighed in elections then those fucking opinions are valid and useful for rendering decisions. I think that's fucked up.

As I said before, when you throw your hat in the ring, all bets are off. Your skeletons better be well-hidden, and your motivations for everything become subject to scrutiny. This is not a private citizen we're talking about.

You keep saying that, you don't explain why random lay-people medicalizing and diagnosing complete strangers jumps from 'horrifyingly insulting and deeply problematic' to 'fine and dandy' just because the complete stranger is running for office.

[PainRack]

She said it herself . She has no memory of stealing said items. That no impulse control AND memory blackout.

Factually incorrect. This is the entirety of what's said about her PTSD:

'Stella told police in a statement she “remembers arriving at Target to purchase items but nothing else” due to post-traumatic stress disorder, and that she “normally she goes to Target with someone because of anxiety around people”.'

At no point is impulse control mentioned in the article. She said she does not remember anything else of her time in the target but discusses nothing about her PTSD, what triggers her, or what happened at the Target. To imply or say otherwise is not just factually incorrect but stigmatizing and harmful.

And the police report of her stealing items ? Including hiding them in the purse?

You are aware that kleptomania is lack of impulse control, right ?
But OK. Let's consider that she isn't diagnosed with kleptomania, rather, she using PTSD to excuse her stealing items.

That still total fugue state.

To say "Hey, you have PTSD. Why the fuck do you think you should be running for office?" is fucked up. Especially when people are diagnosing her and ascribing symptoms to her (see above) without any fucking ability to do so.

Ahem. I didn't ascribe symptoms to her. She USED it explicitly to explain why she stole stuff, aka, kleptomania. An impulse control disorder. She's not diagnosed with it, but she WAS saying her mental disorder is responsible for her stealing stuff.

And note that NONE of us are saying that hey, PTSD means you can't run for office. What we all say is that if you unable to manage anxiety and the stress of meeting people, reverting to a fugue state explicitly, that means you not as qualified as Omar .


Just a reminder. RR says she a criminal and drunk driver who resist arrest.

Broomstick says wow, her PTSD has blackout caused by anxiety meeting people and she wants to be a politician?

Just where is this mysterious ALL PTSD can't run for office coming from ?

[Straha]

And the police report of her stealing items ? Including hiding them in the purse?

You are aware that kleptomania is lack of impulse control, right ?
But OK. Let's consider that she isn't diagnosed with kleptomania, rather, she using PTSD to excuse her stealing items.

A. Nowhere, anywhere, does it mention that she deals with Kleptomania. Kleptomania and PTSD are vastly different sets issues typified by vastly different symptoms and triggers. This sort of amateur diagnosing is exactly what I'm criticizing.

B. Kleptomania is also a condition that is recognized, treatable, and indeed fully functioning. I have met an actual factual kleptomaniac who held a county elected position. We talked about it briefly when I did an interview with him and he mentioned how the only way it actually manifested in his daily routine was when he visited other offices he had the urge to steal their pens. He also didn't steal their pens, because (gasp!) Kleptomania with the right therapies can be completely controllable.

C. Yes, her using this to excuse herself while not offering that same understanding to others is fucked up. That is a legitimate problem. That is absolutely fair game.

That still total fugue state.

Nope.

Ahem. I didn't ascribe symptoms to her. She USED it explicitly to explain why she stole stuff, aka, kleptomania. An impulse control disorder. She's not diagnosed with it, but she WAS saying her mental disorder is responsible for her stealing stuff.

In the same paragraph that you say you didn't diagnose her with anything you recognize that you have, in fact, diagnosed her with Kleptomania. Truly, you are the master of posting self-judo.

And note that NONE of us are saying that hey, PTSD means you can't run for office. What we all say is that if you unable to manage anxiety and the stress of meeting people, reverting to a fugue state explicitly, that means you not as qualified as Omar .


Just a reminder. RR says she a criminal and drunk driver who resist arrest.

Broomstick says wow, her PTSD has blackout caused by anxiety meeting people and she wants to be a politician?

Just where is this mysterious ALL PTSD can't run for office coming from ?

And right below, and above, where you say nobody is saying she can't run for office you quote Broomstick asking why someone with PTSD should be a politician. Are you even reading what you're posting?

And nothing in the article suggests she can't manage anxiety or the stress of meeting people in public, or render judgment and opinion on policy issues. In fact, the article even highlights that she has a direct coping mechanism for dealing with her anxiety which shows it's absolutely treatable. In other words, none of this is about her qualifications and all of this is rampant speculation and medicalization of her disability, which is super fucked up.

[Broomstick]

Finally, you really are unable to understand that the offense you are committing is in attempting to dictate authority for yourself and by extension all abled people over disabled people, because when confronted about this you insist that you don't have to care about causing offense, that you, a member of the general public, can determine the precise state of a person's mental health from afar. Amazing.

A really important point here is that I am NOT "diagnosing" Stella, I'm stating that IF someone has PTSD to the point it's prompting them to break the law they should not hold public office. Does that accurately describe Stella's mental state? I don't know. I'm just saying IF it did she should not hold public office. I'll leave it to a professional to determine that.

On top of that - asking if someone is able to fulfill the duties of a public office is not at all unreasonable. Disability alone does not bar one from public office in this nation, as demonstrated by a lot of people in Congress both now and in the past being disabled. Disability that interferes with doing the duties of one's job is a different matter. IF someone's mental state makes it difficult or impossible to refrain from breaking the law then I don't think they should be in a position involved in making or modifying law.

[Broomstick]

Why do you think you are in a place to pass informed judgment on someone you've never met's mental health?

Do you have something new to contribute or are you going to keep this on repeat for the rest of this thread?

When someone answers the questions, I'll stop asking it.

Because, as it stands, you've painted yourself as a complete lay-person who both has no training to render judgment and no experience with these people. Which means you have no fucking way of passing anything even remotely close to an informed judgment on this question. And if you can't pass informed judgment on this, your opinion really shouldn't matter.

I have already stated that I'm entirely fine with professionals evaluating someone who's mental state is under question. In the case of this Stella person we have a person who is committing theft and is also running for public office. Sorry, she doesn't get a free pass on that - if her "mental state" is being used as either an excuse or mitigating circumstance then I question if she is fit to hold public office. Doesn't mean I have to perform a psychological evaluation on her personally - I'm perfectly fine with a psychiatrist doing that. I do want to know that if elected she won't continue to break the law.

Moreover the idea that disabled people should parade their disability in front of you like some sort of carnival sideshow to be gawked and talked about isn't just stigmatizing, it justifies all sorts of other instances where lay people who have no fucking clue what they're doing judge that disabled people aren't disabled enough to actually claim the title. This ranges from the macro scale of disability benefits down to people being harassed for using disabled parking placards. All of which is fucked up.

Yes, I'm aware of that shit disabled people go through because my family directly experienced it. Nonetheless, asking if politicians are mentally capable of doing their jobs is no more different than asking if pilots can see well enough to safely fly airplanes, or asking if someone with a history of alcohol or drug abuse has been sufficiently sober and stable long enough to be allowed to drive a public bus for a living. Determination of adequacy of pilot eyesight or bus driver sobriety is properly done by professionals - but it is entirely within the bounds of non-professionals to ask whether such determination has been made or request it if a problem arises.

I'm all for the disabled earning a living, but sometimes a disability really does mean a person is unfit for a job. We don't allow the blind to drive trucks for a living, and we don't allow epileptics to fly airplanes because it would be unfair to the people the airplane might fall on. People with no hands can not be concert pianists. It would be a wonderful world if we had ways to mitigate those disabilities and enable those folks the freedom to do those things but at this point we do not.

Your constant repeat of "Why do you think you are in a place to pass informed judgment on someone you've never met's mental health?" clearly shows that you are unable or unwilling to understand that.