How do you deal with legitimately like, severely mentally ill people on the left without coming off as a dick?

How do you deal with legitimately like, severely mentally ill people on the left without coming off as a dick?
We all know what I'm talking about, the person that is obviously covering for their severe bipolar or whatever personal issues by lashing out against the world and everyone has to tippie toe around their batshit crazy ass because you don't want to be that one person that finally calls out this persons bullshit and be called Ableist or whatever.
It seems like so much of the way Idpol functions around leftist circles and discussion is letting the absolutely mentally broken set the standards for everything. Should leftist spaces really be a "safe space" for the severely mentally ill to just ramble and lash out against the world instead of getting help?
You can't even call fucking nutjobs like RedKahina crazy anymore without being called ableist.

Amber A'Lee Frost of Chapo Trap House fame talks about it a bit in this article.

thebaffler.com/latest/flakes-alive

It's just getting so annoying we are forced to tippytoe around these nutters in our movement because oh boy don't want to be that person that gets called smeared to fucking shit with oppression olympics nonsense, but we're letting these wackjobs absolute set the standards of discourse, discussion and even goals leftist movements.

Other urls found in this thread:

twitter.com/Jonathan_Br1ght/status/868171301835427845
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Mass euthanasia

honestly if people have problems with langugae like stupid or lame then they usually are more of a hindrance in building any movement so i just tell them that which has had mixed results

Mental illness is the last frontier for idpol, I would go all liberal just to advance the mentally ill in our society.
I really don't know what can you do OP, we still don't haave a clear idea of what is psychologically polite and rude

You should call these cases as you see them. Leftist organizations are not self-help groups for people with mental issues, or frankly anyone else. The purpose of a political party is to seize power, the purpose of a study group is to help the members study theory, and so on. That has to be made clear, even if it makes you look like a cold-hearted ☭TANKIE☭.
Easier said than done, I know.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Some people are just assholes, user. In this case it is usually due to American parenting. If people are calling you "ableist", you aren't in a leftist circle to begin with.
The Oppression Olympics is run by straight white neurologically healthy women.

Stop being a pussy about it and call them out if they're being disruptive. Stop caring so damn much about what people think, telling them to get help will be beneficial for both your organisation and the mentally ill themselves (assuming they're in the position to get help of course, amerifats are pretty much fucked when it comes to this). I should know after all, I'm medicated for bipolar disorder myself.

But RedKahina isn't crazy tbh she just hates Zizek

Racism is refusing to hire a black person even though he is qualified for the job, because you don't like black people. Racism is NOT refusing to hire a black person who is not qualified for the job.

You should want to help the mentally ill and retarded to find a purpose and use in society, or at the very least allow them a modicum of comfort in their physical existence. That doesn't mean you have to let them do whatever the fuck they want.

I'm not against giving disruptive people the boot even if they are handicapped. People use this "They mentally Ill" excuse all the time to smear opponents.
90% of the time in my experience is that it's simply some that thinks the person in charge is full of shit and the person in charge can't come up with effective counterarguments, or won't admit that the options are about equally viable but they think x option is the one to go with.

Of course, it should be stressed that out of line behavior must not be tolerated. However, I think that this stance must be balanced with a level of understanding and solidarity with our mentally ill comrades. We should help them to better integrate without coming off as condescending.

She is, tho.

Is that the definition of idpol now?
Set the bar low enough and yes, even you will pass.

Then what are you are doing on this board.

Guys, you're slippery sloping like a Jamaican bobsled team here. Clearly you can draw a line at real cases where the disruption outweighs any potential contribution. It can even be an evidence based process where you have a commission look at the allegations of disrupting activities, causing splittism and so on. Frankly, you need a party organ to keep an eye on this in all party members.

is afroplasm Cenk?

Isn't this how normies view leftists and activists anyway?

Any and all talk of "ableism" and similar socjus bullshit should be ignored or crushed. But that goes without saying.

As for the actual practical problem, well, a fundamental problem with any debate-based political process, liberal or socialist, is how to encourage intelligent and well-intentioned people to participate while still discouraging the Trump supporters and Twitter users of the world. You can't outright discriminate against them, but obviously it's in everyone's interests to have some manner of filter. Minds far greater than mine are still to crack this nut.

But then again, this will become slowly become moot as these conditions hopefully get cures.

also chapo and their ilk are SJWs LARPing as leftists

Who gives a shit? If a mentally ill
person harms leftist cause he needs to be confronted directly and kicked out of the group/party.

I don't really know how leftist groups separate wheat from chaff, mentally ill or otherwise. I'm guessing they mostly don't, which is why you get your trigglypuffs and other headcases at the front of every failed protest.

All I can really tell you is how right-wing groups dealt with the mentally ill who wandered in to meetings, constituency associations, and so on. There was an escalating ladder of strategies based on how disruptive they were. Of course, there was one exception inherent to the right: the relatives and failsons of large donors, cabinet ministers or other VIPs were given more leeway to hang around and do what they wanted to, within reason. I actually liked talking to the autistic cousin of a Conservative Senator since he usually had no filter and loved to gossip about intra-party drama. The family always stepped in if he got rowdy or drunk. I never met a faildaughter for some reason.

With that being said, here's what happened to headcases based on how bad they were:
A) People with minor issues, ranging from shyness or poor social control to general incompetence at their assigned tasks. These people were never really excluded, but were pushed to take up back-end/support roles in orgs and campaigns: data entry, stuffing envelopes, putting up signs. We never pushed them to do outreach, go door-to-door or man a phone bank. Often times these people straight up asked for these jobs since they were well aware of their own limitations. Any left group should make it clear to people who have issues conversing with strangers and making sales pitches that these roles are available and just as valuable as front-line activism.
B) People who were disruptive but not belligerent or malicious towards others. These are probably people with cluster B disorders and gum up meetings and events with anti-social behaviour. They were silently cut out from meetings if their behaviour didn't change - dropped from mailing lists, frozen out of discussions, etc. Cruel, but it was the best way to kick them out without generating a paper trail the individual could then use to go to the media with a discrimination story. If they stick around, build a list of infractions and eventually confront the person on their behaviour. Issue an ultimatum to shape up and give him the boot if he does not comply.
C) People who were disruptive to the point of malicious behaviour without being violent or threatening. These types of sociopaths are often the hardest to deal with, since they're clever enough to dance around the line of acceptable behaviour. They might come with hangers-on or build a faction once in the party as a deterrent against expulsion. We only had one of these and got rid of her by freezing her out from paid positions. Once she realized she couldn't take over the org she gave up and moved on. God help any org that has a C) type at the helm.
D) Violent or threatening behaviour, which should never be tolerated. The moment it happens, immediately ban the person from the org and file a report with law enforcement. Ironically, these are the easiest people to deal with.

I don't really know how leftist groups separate wheat from chaff, mentally ill or otherwise. I'm guessing they mostly don't, which is why you get your trigglypuffs and other headcases at the front of every failed protest.

All I can really tell you is how right-wing groups dealt with the mentally ill who wandered in to meetings, constituency associations, and so on. There was an escalating ladder of strategies based on how disruptive they were. Of course, there was one exception inherent to the right: the relatives and failsons of large donors, cabinet ministers or other VIPs were given more leeway to hang around and do what they wanted to, within reason. I actually liked talking to the autistic cousin of a Conservative Senator since he usually had no filter and loved to gossip about intra-party drama. The family always stepped in if he got rowdy or drunk. I never met a faildaughter for some reason.

With that being said, here's what happened to headcases based on how bad they were:

A) People with minor issues, ranging from shyness or poor social control to general incompetence at their assigned tasks. These people were never really excluded, but were pushed to take up back-end/support roles in orgs and campaigns: data entry, stuffing envelopes, putting up signs. We never pushed them to do outreach, go door-to-door or man a phone bank. Often times these people straight up asked for these jobs since they were well aware of their own limitations. Any left group should make it clear to people who have issues conversing with strangers and making sales pitches that these roles are available and just as valuable as front-line activism.

B) People who were disruptive but not belligerent or malicious towards others. These are probably people with cluster B disorders and gum up meetings and events with anti-social behaviour. They were silently cut out from meetings if their behaviour didn't change - dropped from mailing lists, frozen out of discussions, etc. Cruel, but it was the best way to kick them out without generating a paper trail the individual could then use to go to the media with a discrimination story. If they stick around, build a list of infractions and eventually confront the person on their behaviour. Issue an ultimatum to shape up and give him the boot if he does not comply.

C) People who were disruptive to the point of malicious behaviour without being violent or threatening. These types of sociopaths are often the hardest to deal with, since they're clever enough to dance around the line of acceptable behaviour. They might come with hangers-on or build a faction once in the party as a deterrent against expulsion. We only had one of these and got rid of her by freezing her out from paid positions. Once she realized she couldn't take over the org she gave up and moved on. God help any org that has a C) type at the helm.

D) Violent or threatening behaviour, which should never be tolerated. The moment it happens, immediately ban the person from the org and file a report with law enforcement. Ironically, these are the easiest people to deal with

Learning and growing. What are you doing here? Chapo are fucking soiled brats soothing the hurt fee fees of their liberal base. Eat a dick.

Yeah, she is great. Look at this: twitter.com/Jonathan_Br1ght/status/868171301835427845 Totally sane. Red Kahina doesn't need to work because of wealth from her dad's porno empire and she can spend all her waking hours shitting on actual leftists on the internet. A great role model for everyone.

Go learn how to hang yourself, goon garbage.

Hmmmm you seem a little salty. You sound like the ignorant dumbasses that can't effectively lead because they have high school level ability to articulate themselves that I was talking about lol.
You should listen to more of your Friends Simulator err I mean Chapo podcast. It will make you feel important.

>Look at this: twitter.com/Jonathan_Br1ght/status/868171301835427845 Totally sane.
There's nothing wrong with what she's saying there. Her art criticism is usually totally on-point, and even when it's wrong, that doesn't discredit her. Art criticism can be very difficult. You are simply whining that she insulted your favorite Hollywood trash. No different than some Gamergate manchild.

This

Socjus poisons evetything. Or capitalism poisons everything via socjus, rather.

The fact that she talk seriously about any of this holywood trash is enough to discredit her, no better than a greasy fat internet reviewing toy unboxer except that she talks in superficially leftist language. Pseud/10.

She isn't She's from the midwest and used to be on food stamps.

Way to reveal yourself

What are you even talking about with this Orwellian tripe? How is that a relevant response?

I’ve only listened to about a dozen episodes and they will not STFU about incels. Are incels a politically significant force uh anywhere? I can practically hear their audiences ego inflating as they confirm yup once again they are better than incels. It’s like listening to children talk about how evil Darth Vader is.

that's chapo for you

Amber is the only one that seems to have it out for incels (and also nerds for some reason.) No idea why. I assume she got pumped and dumped by some nerd douche back in college or something.

Look this self-aggrandizing idiot everyone. This fool thinks his vapid noise-spewing is substitute for inspiring loyalty and admiration in his fellow man.

You mad?

We have a problem.