Hacker News Reader

Comment by logicalmonster | Hacker News Reader

How could an average outside observer distinguish between another's mental illness and a guy who's just a real out of the box thinker who might be wrong about many ideas but might also add value to the world by perceiving reality in an atypical way?

A lot of posters are claiming Kanye is mentally ill and unable to manage his own affairs. What is the direct evidence of this? And I don't simply mean "provide examples of opinions he's said that I don't understand or care for".

I think it's pretty dangerous to be labeling people involved in the national dialogue as mentally ill without a diagnosis, or at least some substantial and direct evidence. This label could be weaponized by an authoritarian political movement in a very dangerous way if that's the precedent we're using.

View on HN

>Kanye is mentally ill and unable to manage his own affairs. What is the direct evidence of this?

One such was, according to him, an occasion when "they handcuffed him, drugged him, put him on the bed".

Now despite this, I also don't agree with just handwaving the discussions then, like, oh he's mad, so everything strange thing he does must be because of that. I think that it's perfectly valid to be mentally ill on one hand, and a huge asshole on the other. A strong motivator for sure, but illness is not a character trait, mental or not.

https://people.com/music/kanye-west-opens-up-about-bipolar-d...

On a second thought, I'd also like to add that the human psyche is not a solved problem. An average outside observer absolutely can't tell if an out of place thing is because of illness, or something other than that. Even the "standard" way to recognize and classify mental disorders, the DSM-5, changes from one edition to the other.

> Even the "standard" way to recognize and classify mental disorders, the DSM-5, changes from one edition to the other.

Meaning, the definition of mental illness is within some social context or norm. Historically, homosexuality was deemed a mental illness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_DSM

Absolutely, and also the field itself is constantly developing.

> One such was, according to him, an occasion when "they handcuffed him, drugged him, put him on the bed".

This doesn't seem like good evidence. It assumes that whenever someone is forcibly restrained and medicated, it was justified. It also assumes that he wasn't exaggerating when he said this. You have also not provided a source of him saying this.

The link is the source, but he used the "you" pronoun and I rephrased it as "him". Sorry for the confusion, I probably need to do better on a public forum like this.

Wikipedia also has a paragraph about it, if you'd like to dig into this topic further.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanye_West#Mental_health

Also I reject the assumption that I assumed that "whenever someone is forcibly restrained and medicated, it was justified". I haven't said this, and I only reported on his account on the happenings, because OP wanted evidence for mental illness, and I think that him recollecting that occurrence, while admitting that he was diagnosed bipolar, is good enough evidence.

It's not evidence for "unable to manage his own affairs" in the present instance.

It's not. I should have been clear about referring only to the mental issues part.

He has personally admitted to being diagnosed with bipolar disorder.

I never want to be engaged in mind-reading, but it seems to me that the people who are shouting about him being mentally ill the loudest are doing so in a way to justify stifling everything he says, as if saying "he's mentally ill" ends any conceivable discussion about any of his ideas.

I think my general question remains. "How could an average outside observer distinguish between another's mental illness and a guy who's just a real out of the box thinker who might be wrong about many ideas but might also add value to the world by perceiving reality in an atypical way?"

In my opinion there's no real discussion to be had on the things he is saying recently, so dismissing them as the rantings of a mentally ill man is the most charitable thing to do. If he's not mentally ill, then he's an extremely ill-informed anti-Semite who either believes outlandish things or pretends to for engagement.

Even if he’s known to be mentally ill, his ideas can still stand. Take Ted Kaczynski for example. His actions were inexcusable but his ideas and writings on technology and its relationship to society have value.

Do you think Kanye's claims that Hollywood Jews have placed child actors in his home to sexualize his children will stand the test of time and be shown to have value?

Whether or not some or all of Kanye's claims are the most ridiculous things, cherry-picking and presenting one piece of bait and trying to associate everything Kanye has ever said with the same brush feels like a hell of a disingenuous way to argue. You can't just dismiss everything somebody said just because they were very wrong other stuff.

PS: I'm not going to say what's true or false about any of Kanye's claims here, but who the hell knows what goes on in the highest levels of Hollywood? This is a circle of people who felt zero shame publicly disparaging critics of Roman Polanski. And apparently the Harvey Weinstein stuff was common knowledge in Hollywood crowds for decades. If you think Kanye has little credibility, well, think about how Hollywood's credibility ought to be perceived.

No one is accusing Candace Owens, for instance, as being mentally ill for her beliefs, and Bi-polar has some very specific tells.

It seems like consensus is able to make that distinction without too many problems.

Kanye's mental illness is well documented.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanye_West#Mental_health

You can't. More often than not, mental illness goes hand in hand with unorthodox thinking that breaks the mold and causes unexpected progress.

We could even say that mental illness is defined by falling significantly out of alignment with the median mind of society. A mentally healthy person in our modern society might be seen as completely insane and unwell in a hunter gatherer tribe.

But we generally don't get to work out who was just mentally ill with no value and who was a value add until well after their death.

"Society honors its living conformists and its dead troublemakers."

[Ignore my reply. I parsed the comment wrong.]

Why ignore the second half of that sentence in your response?

I directly implied that many mentally ill people contribute huge value.

> I think it's pretty dangerous to be labeling people involved in the national dialogue as mentally ill without a diagnosis, or at least some substantial and direct evidence.

I think this is a lot less dangerous than you think. When people throw around terms like "groomer", "nazi", and "abuser" with reckless abandon, labelling someone as "bipolar" hardly compares. Ultimately anyone that agrees with what Kanye is saying will not be swayed by the label, neither will those who disagree with him by the lack thereof.

A lot of the commentary about his mental illness seems to be focused on trying to find an explanation for why his ideas and positions seem to have radically shifted in the last few years. Honestly, it kind of gives him an "out". If he was not afflicted by some kind of mental illness when he called for "Death con 5", his actions are even more morally suspect.

There are specific reasons to be wary of the way psychiatric diagnosis is used vs. other insults: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry

By that token, the same wariness should be applied to calling someone a "Communist" thanks to McCarthyism.

I think this might be a valid point if US government officials were calling Kanye mentally ill, but a bunch of people on the internet?

Strictly speaking nothing matters cuz we're all just rando's typing on the internet. But since we were having a discussion I thought I'd chime in with some vaguely relevant points...

Btw I think it would've been quite dangerous indeed to call someone a communist during mccarthy era, and indeed one should've been wary of that back then.

I think the parallel stands. A lot of the egregious political abuse of mental illness in the US dates back to 50-100 years ago[1]. You don't hear about public figures being involuntarily committed over accusations of mental illness in recent years. The worst you get is accusations of senility against some of America's older politicians.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry#...

I'm seeing the mental illness label used to defend him more than stigmatize him. The tone is "he's not really responsible for the antisemitism, he just can't help it."

I think we should also realize there's not much difference between mental illness and having incorrect basic beliefs, except treatment options are different.

Just take a look at parler (https://parler.com/breckyunits) — there are barely any ads, clear sign of mental illness.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com