3 ms·

> . Fortunately, others are speaking up as well. In online magazines and on NPR, medical students who have lived through suicide attempts, depression and other

by rifung 10y ago

> . Fortunately, others are speaking up as well. In online magazines and on NPR, medical students who have lived through suicide attempts, depression and other mental-health issues are standing up against this stigma. Medical schools are now training faculty to recognize risk factors for suicide and assuring students that seeking help isn’t a sign of weakness. I wonder whether and hope that mental illness will end up like homosexuality in the sense that people will no longer have to hide who they are. On the other hand, I suspect that would be a more difficult battle, especially when it comes to employment discrimination.

cloudjacker 10y ago
San Francisco is a sanctuary city for counterculture. As more counterculture becomes acceptable outside of sanctuary cities, more marginalized people remain or come to the sanctuary cities partly due the history of catering to marginalized people. I think that would be a decent way for you to see a possible outcome in that field too in order to create a conclusion.
- Swizec 10y ago
  > San Francisco is a sanctuary city for counterculture. As long as your type of counterculture doesn't involve the perceived potential of underperforming. Then you're out. Because meritocracy and stuff. Mental illness is almost always perceived as "Oh shit, this person isn't gonna be a top performer"
wyager 10y ago
> especially when it comes to employment discrimination I mean, a lot of mental illnesses actually have a legitimate negative effect on one's ability to be a productive worker. It wouldn't really make sense to make it illegal to discriminate against people with e.g. severe learning disabilities who can't read or write.
- rifung 10y ago
  > I mean, a lot of mental illnesses actually have a legitimate negative effect on one's ability to be a productive worker. Yes I completely agree. However, if a mentally ill person can perform their duties with reasonable accommodations as well as a person who isn't mentally ill , then that person shouldn't be discriminated against. Indeed, the Americans with Disabilities Act already covers people with depression and bipolar. If you could discriminate against people because they have something which legitimately negatively affects one's ability to be a productive worker, then companies would probably discriminate against hiring women too, because they might get pregnant and have to take time off. This is also illegal because while it's true that it might be less efficient for the company, it's still unethical.
  - wyager 10y ago
    > it's still unethical Not sure I agree with you there. Personally, I think all business interactions should be voluntary; anything else is slavery with a few palliative layers of abstraction thrown in. In the particular example you gave, that's just foisting part of the cost of reproduction (risk of productivity loss) onto some innocent third parties. I see both sides of the argument, and I see why protecting the convenience of reproduction is important from a practical genetic/memetic standpoint, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it "ethical".
    - rifung 10y ago
      > I see both sides of the argument, and I see why protecting the convenience of reproduction is important from a practical genetic/memetic standpoint, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it "ethical". Hey I appreciate the alternative perspective. However, at least from what you just said, I'm not convinced you do see both sides. Or maybe there's a third side..? I actually personally do not care whatsoever about the cost of reproduction. If anything I would be happy if we reproduced less. Still, I support not being able to discriminate against women because doing otherwise supports gender inequality. It's unethical to punish a person just because they are female.
      - wyager 10y ago

by rifung 10y ago

cloudjacker 10y ago

San Francisco is a sanctuary city for counterculture. As more counterculture becomes acceptable outside of sanctuary cities, more marginalized people remain or come to the sanctuary cities partly due the history of catering to marginalized people. I think that would be a decent way for you to see a possible outcome in that field too in order to create a conclusion.

Swizec 10y ago
> San Francisco is a sanctuary city for counterculture. As long as your type of counterculture doesn't involve the perceived potential of underperforming. Then you're out. Because meritocracy and stuff. Mental illness is almost always perceived as "Oh shit, this person isn't gonna be a top performer"

wyager 10y ago

> especially when it comes to employment discrimination I mean, a lot of mental illnesses actually have a legitimate negative effect on one's ability to be a productive worker. It wouldn't really make sense to make it illegal to discriminate against people with e.g. severe learning disabilities who can't read or write.

rifung 10y ago
> I mean, a lot of mental illnesses actually have a legitimate negative effect on one's ability to be a productive worker. Yes I completely agree. However, if a mentally ill person can perform their duties with reasonable accommodations as well as a person who isn't mentally ill , then that person shouldn't be discriminated against. Indeed, the Americans with Disabilities Act already covers people with depression and bipolar. If you could discriminate against people because they have something which legitimately negatively affects one's ability to be a productive worker, then companies would probably discriminate against hiring women too, because they might get pregnant and have to take time off. This is also illegal because while it's true that it might be less efficient for the company, it's still unethical.
- wyager 10y ago
  > it's still unethical Not sure I agree with you there. Personally, I think all business interactions should be voluntary; anything else is slavery with a few palliative layers of abstraction thrown in. In the particular example you gave, that's just foisting part of the cost of reproduction (risk of productivity loss) onto some innocent third parties. I see both sides of the argument, and I see why protecting the convenience of reproduction is important from a practical genetic/memetic standpoint, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it "ethical".
  - rifung 10y ago
    > I see both sides of the argument, and I see why protecting the convenience of reproduction is important from a practical genetic/memetic standpoint, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it "ethical". Hey I appreciate the alternative perspective. However, at least from what you just said, I'm not convinced you do see both sides. Or maybe there's a third side..? I actually personally do not care whatsoever about the cost of reproduction. If anything I would be happy if we reproduced less. Still, I support not being able to discriminate against women because doing otherwise supports gender inequality. It's unethical to punish a person just because they are female.
    - wyager 10y ago