News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
If you ignore the due process and evidence I guess. This is for when police would have been dispatched to a mental health emergency.
And they often lack the funds because of their severe mental illness that makes them unable to function properly in society. It's hard to hold down a job (or even get one) when you think that everyone is a lizard person who is trying to take over the world and are laying eggs in peoples brains, because of severe mental illness.
And every time you've suggested that and people have asked "but what if they don't take any of the help or suggestions" you've just gone "oh well that's up to them because it's a free country" and wiped your hands of it. That is not good enough, that's why I'm saying that your solution is essentially "let them die in the streets".
There are people that literally cannot take care of themselves due to mental illness. No matter how many services you offer them, it's just more services that they won't use. If the option is commit them and take care of them, or let them die, you're saying let them die.
I didn't characterize them "in general" as being that. It absolutely is a possibility, which is why I said "maybe".
I'll ask again - if a homeless severely, severely mentally ill person refuses all help, what do you suggest the government do?
A first responder is dispatched and kidnaps them. Where is the due process or evidence? Appearing mentally ill or being impoverished is not a crime or evidence of mental illness. A first responder is not a psychiatrist or able to diagnose somebody in such an environment.
And who could blame them for thinking that? These are people that see first-hand the horrors of society and capitalism, of drug abuse and addiction. You can be unemployable in the US for different reasons than severe mental illness, like having a criminal conviction. Should they receive treatment for their delusions if it is imminently harming themselves or others, they are violent, or have committed a crime? Yes, it would likely be appropriate.
If they are a threat to themselves and others, have committed a crime, or are actively violent, they should be given due process and treatment they consent to prior to involuntary treatment.
I've answered this in abundance. Re-read. It is the job of society and everybody in it to create a world that is less traumatizing, that is less exploitative, that nurtures every one of its members and helps them to unleash their potential. For individuals experiencing psychosis who are not violent, they should be given the option of an environment similar to a Soteria House.
This right here is why this is going nowhere. What you think happens and what actually happens are two very different things. This should have been apparent that it was not worth my time when you suggested that people would be locked up in a mental institution permanently simply for missing their rent.
And this new thing that you're arguing in a comments section about aims to change that. This will change the first responders to being unarmed mental health professionals instead of armed police.
Ok cool so your solution is for the entire world to change to be something completely different, and for their mental illness to be just gone. In other words, it's not a solution and you have no actual solution or answer to my question. Not all mental illness is caused by the environment around the person. Most of it isn't.
So I'll ask again but even more narrow in scope - what do you suggest the government do, with society and the world the way it is, with people that are severely mentally ill and homeless who refuse all help?
I didn't suggest that people are locked up for "simply for missing their rent". Never once did I suggest people are locked up permanently.
There are no mental health professionals that arrive on the scene. It could be EMT, firefighters, or police that initiate contact. None of the above are mental health professionals. A little training does not make you qualified.
THIS IS PART OF THE CHANGES THAT THEY ARE GOING TO MAKE lol.
Ah youre right, sorry that's the other delusional person in here making the same arguments as you.
They still aren't mental health professionals. A cop/etc. with a little training is not a replacement for a psychiatrist or other mental health professional. The bar for being even a therapist is very high in the US. There is absolutely no comparison to be made here between their level of education and training.
They are going to be mental health professionals, that’s the point. They’re not going to be “cops with a little training”.
Are they getting a Masters? That's what a therapist needs. A bachelors? An associate degree?
None of the above? Then, they are not mental health professionals, and they are not qualified to identify mental illness.
Cool, and do you know that the ones that this new process is going to use aren't mental health professionals? The change is specifically so untrained police officers with guns aren't being sent in to mental health emergencies because they acknowledge that they are not what is needed.
The article doesn't specify, it only specifies additional training for law enforcement officers, but I highly doubt it will be the case that educated professionals go on the scene. The various mentions of first responders reads as first responders to me.
You can't solve homelessness and crime with involuntary commitment. This is woefully ineffective policy, no matter how you cut it.
This isn't attempting to solve homelessness or crime lol
First responders simply means the first people on the scene. Those people have generally always been police, which critics have long said are not the correct people for this job. This is going to change that.
Damn, here you are with all the gotchas. That's it, I concede the debate. You win. Congratulations to FreedomAdvocate for successfully arguing for involuntary commitment in individuals accused of no crime.
I'll take that as the "Well I have no intelligent response because he's right" that it is.