Current Events > Andrew Yang speaks out against mentally ill people.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/knownothingtv/status/1405345359703035905?s=21

I remember when I thought he was a good candidate.

---

Will the institutionalized get $1000 a month?

---

he was a great meme candidate, anyone who took him seriously needs their head examined...

---

i mean really, i'm mentally ill and no one gives me any extra money. I have to work for mine. :(

Shutting down the nuthouses in the 50s and 60s is the disaster that keeps disastering.

100% we need to bring back institutions.

---

Ardbert posted...

i'm mentally ill and no one gives me any extra money

we're screwed :(.
---

What did he say there that's wrong?

NYC is in need of a strongman to clean up the city like they have in the past. The question is have New Yorkers had enough of living in filth and crime?

---

Tenlaar posted...

What did he say there that's wrong?

Saying mentally ill people are the problem and to be feared, rather than helping and preventing the issues from happening to begin with. Essentially sounds like he wants to push for punishment and continue no efforts to help.

---

I see nothing wrong with that clip
---

where are the honest people who recognize nuance?
---

Funkydog posted...

Saying mentally ill people are the problem and to be feared, rather than helping and preventing the issues from happening to begin with. Essentially sounds like he wants to push for punishment and continue no efforts to help.

He did not at all say what you just said in that clip.

Funkydog posted...

Saying mentally ill people are the problem and to be feared, rather than helping and preventing the issues from happening to begin with. Essentially sounds like he wants to push for punishment and continue no efforts to help.

That is essentially the status quo. Which is wrong but it doesn't surprise me that he'd say it. He's said a lot of OOC shit that seems clearly designed towards political popularity.

---

So what's his idea on how to deal with them kill them, jail them, torture them, lock them up forever on tax payer dime or just say shit and then proceed to do nothing about it once he's in power?

---

Ive got to be reading this wrong

---

Tenlaar posted...

He did not at all say what you just said in that clip.

What do you think "We need to protect people from the mentally ill" when discussing them means?

Just because a tiny fraction then go onto commit violence, doesn't mean all of them are the problem.

---

Is he talking about mass shootings or something? Whats the context of the quote?

---

Funkydog posted...

What do you think "We need to protect people from the mentally ill" when discussing them means?

Just because a tiny fraction then go onto commit violence, doesn't mean all of them are the problem.

What he said is "we have the right to walk the streets and not fear for our safety because a mentally ill person is going to lash out at us." What part of that statement is wrong? I'm not really interested in you going far beyond what he actually said and responding about things he didn't say.

it's like people can't tell when somebody is referring to people more like the Joker and less like Rain Man.

reminds me of those "not all gun owners" arguments even though they know damn well about the demographic you're referring to, lmao.

intellectual dishonesty is a non-partisan trait.
---

The mentally ill have had it too good for too long

---

For future reference this is what we mean when say that Yang is a shitty candidate.

---

divot1338 posted...

For future reference this is what we mean when say that Yang is a shitty candidate.

You mean,"I judge people off an 11 second clip with no context"?

I'll keep that in mind.

---

Lost_All_Senses posted...

You mean,"I judge people off an 11 second clip with no context"?

I'll keep that in mind.

I mean he repeatedly makes unforced stupid errors. Hes a terrible campaigner.

Just awful.

His policies may be stupid but that doesnt even matter when you continually do dumb shit like he does.

---

I don't understand what he's saying in the context of an 11 second clip.

Lost_All_Senses posted...

You mean,"I judge people off an 11 second clip with no context"?

I'll keep that in mind.

Well its more than just this tbh.

---

JimmyFraska posted...

I don't understand what he's saying in the context of an 11 second clip.

"Just because mentally people have rights doesn't mean they get to attack you or otherwise infringe on your rights" which, I would think is pretty uncontroversial
But twitter, hey
I haven't watched the whole thing either but I assume it's in response to this
https://www.thebalance.com/deinstitutionalization-3306067
---

Trump, Biden, Yang and Sanders all say things that are easily spun. there's a reason why Obama did his best to make sure his words matched his intent, and they still tried him. when people don't fuck with you, they turn into the types of people they pretend to be better than lol.
---

Tenlaar posted...

What he said is "we have the right to walk the streets and not fear for our safety because a mentally ill person is going to lash out at us." What part of that statement is wrong? I'm not really interested in you going far beyond what he actually said and responding about things he didn't say.

statements like that still contribute to stigmatization pertaining to mental health.

for example: people with mental illnesses are not more likely than the general population to perpetrate violent crimes, but they are significantly more likely to be victims of violent crimes.

---

So he's doubling down on his imprisoning the mentally ill instead of helping treat them statements.

Therapy doesnt work when people choose not to go through with it

---

PC-Builder_Pony posted...

Therapy doesnt work when people choose not to go through with it

Well he's running as a democrat which has proponents of unbundling the police. It's fair he's being criticized for saying law enforcement would handle the mentally ill.

PC-Builder_Pony posted...

Therapy doesnt work when people choose not to go through with it

therapy also will not solve the systemic problems that cause so many people to have poor mental health

---

averagejoel posted...

therapy also will not solve the systemic problems that cause so many people to have poor mental health

Well you can't fault Yang there since he supported UBI.

Yangbux

ButteryMales posted...

Well you can't fault Yang there since he supported UBI.

We can since thats not actually a thing. Mayors in particular have to govern in reality not fantasy.

---

ButteryMales posted...

Well you can't fault Yang there since he supported UBI.

best-case scenario, UBI is a band-aid on a bullet hole. it would also not solve the systemic problems that lead to so many people having poor mental health.

---

averagejoel posted...

statements like that still contribute to stigmatization pertaining to mental health.

I disagree and believe that you are dismissing a legitimate issue and needed discussion by acting like acknowledging that mental illness only means so much when it comes to the rights of people butting up against each other is fundamentally unacceptable.

How do we define who is mentally ill?

Tenlaar posted...

I disagree and believe that you are dismissing a legitimate issue and needed discussion by acting like acknowledging that mental illness only means so much when it comes to the rights of people butting up against each other is fundamentally unacceptable.

he is speaking as though the general population has legitimate reason to be afraid of violence from mentally ill people, despite mentally ill people not being more violent than the general population

that is reinforcing the stigma surrounding mental illness regardless of whether or not you disagree with what I said

---

Idgi what's wrong with what he said

---

averagejoel posted...

he is speaking as though the general population has legitimate reason to be afraid of violence from mentally ill people, despite mentally ill people not being more violent than the general population

that is reinforcing the stigma surrounding mental illness regardless of whether or not you disagree with what I said

Again, you are acting as if any discussion of the specific issue of mentally ill homeless people accosting people on the street is a broad strokes comment about the mentally ill as a whole. It is not and your acting like it is only serves to shut down discussion.

It's possibly just clumsily worded and not his intention, but he's essentially "othering" mentally ill people and pitting them against everyone else. There are the "people and families of the city" on one side, and the mentally on the other, in opposition to regular people, as if the former doesn't include the latter. It also implies that most or all mentally people are prone to violence, and that regular people can't be violent themselves.

divot1338 posted...

We can since thats not actually a thing. Mayors in particular have to govern in reality not fantasy.

Nothing at all is preventing municipal UBI.
...other than, you know, the same simple mathematics that makes UBI an infeasible fantasy anyway.

Tenlaar posted...

Again, you are acting as if any discussion of the specific issue of mentally ill homeless people accosting people on the street is a broad strokes comment about the mentally ill as a whole.

no I'm not. I'm contextualizing his comment within the broader societal narrative around mental illness.

---

averagejoel posted...

best-case scenario, UBI is a band-aid on a bullet hole. it would also not solve the systemic problems that lead to so many people having poor mental health.

That is not the best case scenario by far. Google has a lot of these

https://theconversation.com/universal-basic-income-could-improve-the-nations-mental-health-123816

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/short-history-mental-health/201911/universal-basic-income-and-mental-health

https://frontiersmag.wustl.edu/2020/11/20/can-money-buy-happiness-a-look-at-ubi-and-mental-health/

luigi13579 posted...

It's possibly just clumsily worded and not his intention, but he's essentially "othering" mentally ill people and pitting them against everyone else. There are the "people and families of the city" on one side, and the mentally on the other, in opposition to regular people, as if the former doesn't include the latter. It also implies that most or all mentally people are prone to violence, and that regular people can't be violent themselves.

yes. very much all of this. except I don't care about his intent

---

ButteryMales posted...

That is not the best case scenario by far. Google has a lot of these

https://theconversation.com/universal-basic-income-could-improve-the-nations-mental-health-123816

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/short-history-mental-health/201911/universal-basic-income-and-mental-health

https://frontiersmag.wustl.edu/2020/11/20/can-money-buy-happiness-a-look-at-ubi-and-mental-health/

do any of those articles recognize that providing housing/food/other services directly, rather than giving individuals money for those services, would be a superior option? if so, I'll read that article

---