Sweet, delicious irony: Republican opponent who accused Ilhan Omar of being a criminal charged with felony theft.

[Broomstick]

Menopause causes hormonal changes, which can affect behavior and mental state, so I don't see why you're saying "be serious" beyond a dim recognition banning menopausal people from holding office is dangerous waters to tread into.

That might make sense.... if a woman being post-menopausal was seen as a negative for public service. If anything, it's the opposite - post-menopausal women are usually "empty-nesters" seen as more able to devote time and energy to public service without the "distraction" of having a family to raise.

(Of course, men also have families but somehow that's not regarded as an obstacle to them working outside the home, but that's a whole 'nother topic)

[Broomstick]

So if a person says "I have cancer, but it is not effecting my ability to act as legislator, and I am undergoing treatment." you think it's a fine response to declare "Nope, don't believe you!"

Except, of course, anyone who tells their employer "I have cancer" is going to face questions about whether or how it will affect their ability to do their job. Some people with cancer can continue to work (I have a friend who is currently going through chemo and radiation who is continuing to run her business) and some really can't, depending on the cancer and/or how they handle the treatment side effects. It is entirely reasonable for an employer to ask "is this going to affect how you do your job? If so, what accommodations are you asking for?" There are circumstances where being ill is incompatible with one's job.

Likewise, IF someone has or is claiming a mental illness or disruption it is entirely appropriate to ask if they can do the job they are applying for - in the case of someone running for public office the "employer" would be the public at large.

Frankly, normally if I heard a candidate for public office had within the prior 10 years been caught shoplifting I'd kick that person to the curb without question. ONLY the fact this person might have a mental illness contributing to their sticky-fingers, something that might be treatable thereby removing their inclination to steal, would make me continue to consider them a candidate. But such a person isn't getting my vote unless they have seen a doctor, an actual professional, who has determined that this is even treatable and they are getting it treated.

[Broomstick]

B. Why is it that normal behaviour is a prerequisite for employment?

Of course not - but it IS reasonable to ask if someone is capable of doing a job.

When I applied to my current I was asked in the interview some pretty up front stuff, like "can you lift 40 pounds" and "can you stand most of an 8 hours shift?" along with "what is your availability?" No one asked "are you disabled" but they did ask "can you do this job?"

People who can not life 40 pounds are not considered for positions that require that. People who can't work certain day and times are likewise not considered for certain positions (for example, someone who couldn't reliably be present at 5 am can not do my present job). That doesn't mean they can't work for my employer, it does mean that positions open to them are limited.

At present I have a co-worker prone to anxiety attacks. Despite that, she is working as a cashier which is considered pretty high-stress due to constant contact with the public and the occasionally unhappy customer. She is able to do that job because management came up with a way for her to signal them if the situation is getting overwhelming and someone will come over immediately to help. Just having that option goes a long way to relieving her anxiety and she's doing fine in her job. They're also accommodating her need to see a psychiatrist by making sure she is not schedule to work at her appointment days/times. But she gets all that ONLY because she communicated the situation to management so they are aware of the problem and can help her perform her job in a non-disruptive manner

We have two people (that I'm aware of - there may be more) currently who can not read at an adult level, in other words, functionally illiterate - that is not a bar to working for my employer even if it is limiting. Knowing that these folks are in that situation help can be provided to them in regards to filling out paperwork, but that can only be done IF management is aware of the problem and the accommodations needed.

C. Yes, people are diagnosing her remotely. PTSD is an incredibly complicated disorder with many many factors about it. It is, at best, poorly understood, highly stigmatized, and deeply layered. So far as we know she went into a Target and had a memory issue. That's it. We don't know what happened at the target, we don't know what triggered her episode, we don't know anything about her treatment and support network.

Frankly, we don't even know if it WAS PTSD. She might have some form of epilepsy causing memory lapses. Which isn't necessarily a bar to holding public office, but IF she did have epilepsy I don't think it's unreasonable to say she needs to be evaluated by a qualified doctor and have satisfactory proof of treatment and condition stability to keep her driver's license. And I'd still ask if it would interfere with her ability to hold public office.

D. All of which is to say that when she says "Hey, I have PTSD and it has effected me in a narrow circumstance." the answer should be "Huh, I respect her as a human being, hope that she has a support network and is getting the attention she deserves. I also hope that the legal system will be able to find out what happened, and render judgment fairly to her."

On the other hand, it's not unreasonable for a potential employer (in this case, the general public) to ask "will your condition affect your ability to do this job?" That's not a lay person evaluating a person's problem, that asking if they can do a job they're applying to do.

[Broomstick]

I wonder if Broomstick's idea of "open it all" applies to other things out of norms? For example, an LGBTQIA+ politician would be open to all sorts of blackmail, especially going back a few years. Should they have been forced to come out in order to let the public judge for themselves?

Whether or not such information "should" be given to the public, anyone running for public office is going to be under unusual scrutiny.

As another example: normally tax information, including tax returns, are considered highly confidential information yet it has become the norm for candidates for public office to release their tax returns to the public. That Trump hasn't done this is a source of contention.

It's no secret that running for public office opens one up to a level of examination private citizens do not experience. No one is forced to run for public office. If you chose to run for public office that extra scrutiny is a consequence of your decision.

[Broomstick]

That still total fugue state.

Nope.

Actually... doing stuff with no memory of doing so is, in fact, a fugue state.

And right below, and above, where you say nobody is saying she can't run for office you quote Broomstick asking why someone with PTSD should be a politician. Are you even reading what you're posting?

Are YOU reading what other people are posting?

I never said PTSD in and of itself disqualifies someone for public office. I said PTSD manifesting as anxiety around crowds and triggering memory loss and stealing MIGHT disqualify someone for public office. PTSD manifesting in a different manner would not.

Inability to deal with crowds, memory lapses, and stealing regardless of cause definitely ARE red flags regarding employment. I wouldn't hire such a person unless said person was under treatment and their condition stabilized. What is unreasonable about that?

And nothing in the article suggests she can't manage anxiety or the stress of meeting people in public, or render judgment and opinion on policy issues.

Except, of course, the actual commission of a crime.

In fact, the article even highlights that she has a direct coping mechanism for dealing with her anxiety which shows it's absolutely treatable.

Then why wasn't she using this coping mechanism at target?

In other words, none of this is about her qualifications and all of this is rampant speculation and medicalization of her disability, which is super fucked up

What speculation?

She was caught committing a crime - this is based on police reports, factual documentation.

The "memory lapse" and "anxiety" stuff comes from Stella's own statements.

[Effie]

I wonder if Broomstick's idea of "open it all" applies to other things out of norms? For example, an LGBTQIA+ politician would be open to all sorts of blackmail, especially going back a few years. Should they have been forced to come out in order to let the public judge for themselves?

Whether or not such information "should" be given to the public, anyone running for public office is going to be under unusual scrutiny.

As another example: normally tax information, including tax returns, are considered highly confidential information yet it has become the norm for candidates for public office to release their tax returns to the public. That Trump hasn't done this is a source of contention.

It's no secret that running for public office opens one up to a level of examination private citizens do not experience. No one is forced to run for public office. If you chose to run for public office that extra scrutiny is a consequence of your decision.

Wow. Usually people don't barrel head-on into "it's OK to forcibly out politicians and to minutely examine their romantic and sexual lives" quite so eagerly.

[Broomstick]

I don't think it's OK, I think it's inevitable. Acknowledging the existence of something is not the same as approving of it. Please try to grasp this notion, it seems to keep slipping through your fingers.

The reality is that anyone running for public office in the US is subjected to a level of scrutiny that would violate privacy laws for anyone else.

Which might be why people like Lori Lightfoot and Pete Buttigieg have been up front about being homosexual - you can't blackmail someone over something already public. Meanwhile, any politician who has anything questionable, controversial, or socially disapproved of in their closet has to spend their term in official worried that somehow it's going to come out into the light of day. Right or wrong, that is the way it is.

[Broomstick]

So, I note that you bring up Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who went to enormous lengths to limit public awareness of his disability, and yet cite this as a positive example of the effects of the general public determining whether someone is too disabled to hold public office or not.

It was no secret at the time that Roosevelt had been crippled by polio, that he worse leg braces, used canes, walked only with extreme difficulty, sometimes used a wheelchair, used cars instead of walking, and so forth. At the time, some even believed that gave him greater empathy with the suffering of others. He was admired by many for triumphing over adversity.

And he won the presidency four times in a row.

So yes, he is an example of the public overlooking his disability and putting him in the job. Subsequent to his presidency many other physically disabled politicians have pointed to his example when questioned as to whether or not they could handle the duties of their office.

Finally, you really are unable to understand that the offense you are committing is in attempting to dictate authority for yourself and by extension all abled people over disabled people, because when confronted about this you insist that you don't have to care about causing offense, that you, a member of the general public, can determine the precise state of a person's mental health from afar. Amazing.

You misunderstand me. I DO, in fact, care that I do not cause inadvertent offense to disabled people.

YOU PERSONALLY I don't give a flying fuck about offending. Stop conflating yourself with everybody else. As I said, you're not special. There is nothing unique about you or whatever problem you may or may not have.

And, once again, no one here "diagnosed" Stella, Stella herself stated she suffered from blackouts, memory problems, and PTSD. No one here had to make that determination because Stella already shared it with the world.

[Effie]

The question that was asked was a matter of "should". I, foolishly, assumed that you understood the question that Gandalf asked you and replied with that assumption in mind. That was in error, but as you have refrained from answering the question asked and only spouted irrelevancies, not just in that post but in your most recent ones, there is really nothing to say.

As you have indicated that 1) you seek to avoid "inadvertent offense to disabled people" (my emphasis) and 2) "YOU PERSONALLY I don't give a flying fuck about offending" (your emphasis) I must conclude that the offense you have given has not been inadvertent but has indeed been deliberate and malicious, which leaves me uninclined to respond to your irrelevancies/inability to answer the questions asked. Indeed, I am inclined to suspect you don't even understand the questions you've been asked.

[Broomstick]

Oh, poor baby - did no one tell you that on this forum it is permissible to insult people who are being stupid? You dance around and around, faking offense... you want to make my dislike for you, personally, a more generalized dislike so you don't have to be responsible for either the stupidity or the offensiveness of your own position.

I prefer not to give inadvertent offense. Deliberate offense to someone I think is being evasive while dishonestly moving goalposts I have no problem with.

The last couple of posts to you I was not replying to Gandalf, I was replying to YOU. You don't like what I have to say that's perfectly alright - you are entitled to your own opinion no matter how wrong headed and stupid it may be. The bullshit dodging you do - trying to make it look like what I direct at you, personally - is directed at someone else is what I find most disgusting, dishonest, and reprehensible about you.

Malicious? No, I don't care enough about you to be malicious. But I am going to call you out on bullshit when I see it.

[Effie]

Oh, poor baby - did no one tell you that on this forum it is permissible to insult people who are being stupid? You dance around and around, faking offense... you want to make my dislike for you, personally, a more generalized dislike so you don't have to be responsible for either the stupidity or the offensiveness of your own position.

I prefer not to give inadvertent offense. Deliberate offense to someone I think is being evasive while dishonestly moving goalposts I have no problem with.

The last couple of posts to you I was not replying to Gandalf, I was replying to YOU. You don't like what I have to say that's perfectly alright - you are entitled to your own opinion no matter how wrong headed and stupid it may be. The bullshit dodging you do - trying to make it look like what I direct at you, personally - is directed at someone else is what I find most disgusting, dishonest, and reprehensible about you.

Malicious? No, I don't care enough about you to be malicious. But I am going to call you out on bullshit when I see it.

You really are incredibly stupid and angry.

Gandalf asked you a question about "should", and you ignored it to babble. I pointed out that using someone who worked to conceal the extent of his disability from the public as an example of how increased scrutiny on disabled people is good is utterly asinine, and you babbled in response. You also declared that you were deliberately being an asshole, so I pointed out that admitting this made me disinclined to play along with your games at all. There's really not much more to say here. You plainly are unwilling or unable to respond to what people say to you, and it's a shame you lack the self-awareness necessary to exit with the frail remnants of gracefulness you might still be able to summon.

[Broomstick]

Gandalf asked you a question about "should", and you ignored it to babble.

First point: you do not speak for Gandalf. If Gandalf has a problem with something I said he's entirely capable of responding to me. He certainly has not hesitated to do so in the past.

Second: the word "babble" does not mean "I don't like what you said". Is English not your first language? That might explain some of the problems you're having.

I pointed out that using someone who worked to conceal the extent of his disability from the public as an example of how increased scrutiny on disabled people is good is utterly asinine, and you babbled in response.

Once again you have mistaken "pointing out something exists" for "approval of thing". It is not. Pointing out that people running for public office in the US are under increased scrutiny is no more approval of it or saying "it's good" than stating "a murder occurred" is approval of murder.

You really, really do have a problem with that, don't you?

You also declared that you were deliberately being an asshole, so I pointed out that admitting this made me disinclined to play along with your games at all.

What about your games of constructing strawmen, continually twisting what I say to mean something I never said, and your conflation of a person dislike of me into a general dislike of broad categories in an attempt to paint me as a bad person and a bigot? Perhaps it does not occur to you, but you have actually given me reason to dislike you on a personal level. You are a contemptible, word-twisting piece of shit attempting to engage in a smear campaign against posters who don't kowtow to your bullshit.

There's really not much more to say here.

And yet... you keep posting...

Do you enjoy getting a verbal tongue-lashing?

[Gandalf]

I couldn't be arsed engaging with this thread again, as Effie was handling it well enough, but this was... something.

Gandalf asked you a question about "should", and you ignored it to babble.

First point: you do not speak for Gandalf.

If Gandalf has a problem with something I said he's entirely capable of responding to me. He certainly has not hesitated to do so in the past.

You ignored my question. I asked if they should reveal an attribute that would be compromising, and you dodged by appealing to the idea of "increased scrutiny." Should the hypothetical person I cited reveal themselves? y/n

[Effie]

Gandalf asked you a question about "should", and you ignored it to babble.

First point: you do not speak for Gandalf. If Gandalf has a problem with something I said he's entirely capable of responding to me. He certainly has not hesitated to do so in the past.

Second: the word "babble" does not mean "I don't like what you said". Is English not your first language? That might explain some of the problems you're having.

I pointed out that using someone who worked to conceal the extent of his disability from the public as an example of how increased scrutiny on disabled people is good is utterly asinine, and you babbled in response.

Once again you have mistaken "pointing out something exists" for "approval of thing". It is not. Pointing out that people running for public office in the US are under increased scrutiny is no more approval of it or saying "it's good" than stating "a murder occurred" is approval of murder.

You really, really do have a problem with that, don't you?

You also declared that you were deliberately being an asshole, so I pointed out that admitting this made me disinclined to play along with your games at all.

What about your games of constructing strawmen, continually twisting what I say to mean something I never said, and your conflation of a person dislike of me into a general dislike of broad categories in an attempt to paint me as a bad person and a bigot? Perhaps it does not occur to you, but you have actually given me reason to dislike you on a personal level. You are a contemptible, word-twisting piece of shit attempting to engage in a smear campaign against posters who don't kowtow to your bullshit.

There's really not much more to say here.

And yet... you keep posting...

Do you enjoy getting a verbal tongue-lashing?

I said you were babbling because your statements were not responses to the posts you were ostensibly responding to, but you acted as though they were. Thus, babbling.

See, what people have been asking is about "should". Should this particular thing be done. Because you are engaging in that very particular kind of thing in this thread, and defending other people engaging in it. So it is a question about your own actions and about broad principles. And you have said that you are simply noting its inevitability while engaging in it yourself. Which is distasteful, because in effect it consists of attempting to excuse your own actions by claiming you bear no responsibility for them. Which is truly a cherry on top given that this thread has been about actions taken under what has been claimed to be a PTSD flashback-induced blackout or fugue, which would genuinely involve lessened responsibilities for actions taken in that state.

What is genuinely revealing is that you're complaining that I am drawing attention towards your personal mistreatment of me as a disabled person in the context of disability and then saying I deserve it because I'm "a contemptible, word-twisting piece of shit attempting to engage in a smear campaign against posters who don't kowtow to [my] bullshit." Imagine if we were discussing LGBTQ issues and you felt free to engage in transphobic or lesbophobic statements because you dislike me personally!

Finally, "verbal tongue-lashing"? Good lord. Good fucking lord.

[Broomstick]

You ignored my question. I asked if they should reveal an attribute that would be compromising, and you dodged by appealing to the idea of "increased scrutiny." Should the hypothetical person I cited reveal themselves? y/n

OK, you meant should they directly confess to problematic traits?

That's up to them. Clearly, if someone confesses to, say, murdering and eating people they're never going to get elected to public office because who would want Jeffrey Dahmer in charge of anything, right? Realistically, anyone that bad isn't going to conceal that sort of shit.

In the more realistic vein - let's say a candidate committed grand theft auto at age 18, served whatever sentence was imposed, and now 20 years later is running for office. Um... yeah, they should bring it up first (presumably in a context like "yeah, I fucked up when I was young but I reformed myself and learned my lesson, haven't broken the law for over two decades) because in this day and age eventually that's going to come out.

Let's see how that plays out in the real world:

Obama didn't conceal his use of cocaine in his younger years - yes, he tried it, he used it. His opponents never got any traction with that.

Lori Lightfoot not only made no effort to hide that she was a lesbian while recently running for mayor of Chicago, she featured her family in campaign ads. As she was elected it clearly didn't hurt her. South Bend, Indiana mayor Pete Buttigieg likewise, and now he's running for PotUS as an openly gay candidate. Yes, some people are going to hate him for it, but I haven't heard much from his opponents regarding that.

Marion Berry was re-elected Mayor of Washington, DC after a drug conviction.

So.. um.. yeah, I'd say a candidate should be up front about shady shit in their past. That way people will be able to make a more informed choice during the election. Negatives are not necessarily a bar to getting elected.

When it comes to health issues - yes, people do have some right to know about the candidate's health. That's why discuss of age comes up with politicians - I remember Ronald Reagan's age being an issue during the 1980 elections. People want the person they elect to be able to serve out their term as sudden absences from a seat are at best disruptive. That's why there are mechanism to either temporarily replace someone via appointment or mechanisms to remove someone from office for health reasons (seldom acted upon, usually the person resigns first).

I view it as no different than being asked to demonstrate you can fulfill the duties of any job. Whatever negative a candidate has, it's going to count against them a hell of a lot more if it's found out by the press than if they're up front about it.

[Broomstick]

What is genuinely revealing is that you're complaining that I am drawing attention towards your personal mistreatment of me as a disabled person in the context of disability and then saying I deserve it because I'm "a contemptible, word-twisting piece of shit attempting to engage in a smear campaign against posters who don't kowtow to [my] bullshit." Imagine if we were discussing LGBTQ issues and you felt free to engage in transphobic or lesbophobic statements because you dislike me personally!

"Disabled" does not mean "untouchable". You don't get to engage in an argument then dance back saying "No-no-no! You can't disagree with me! I'm disabled!"

Being disabled does not give you special privileges. If your disability makes your ego too fragile to engage in debate then remove yourself from it.

You ARE word-twisting, as I have pointed out again and again. Which makes you contemptible and full of shit regardless of whether or not you are disabled.

Again, you are mistaking my personal dislike of you - based on your consistent distortions of my words to your own ends - for some generalized animosity towards a category of people.

[Effie]

What is genuinely revealing is that you're complaining that I am drawing attention towards your personal mistreatment of me as a disabled person in the context of disability and then saying I deserve it because I'm "a contemptible, word-twisting piece of shit attempting to engage in a smear campaign against posters who don't kowtow to [my] bullshit." Imagine if we were discussing LGBTQ issues and you felt free to engage in transphobic or lesbophobic statements because you dislike me personally!

"Disabled" does not mean "untouchable". You don't get to engage in an argument then dance back saying "No-no-no! You can't disagree with me! I'm disabled!"

Being disabled does not give you special privileges. If your disability makes your ego too fragile to engage in debate then remove yourself from it.

You ARE word-twisting, as I have pointed out again and again. Which makes you contemptible and full of shit regardless of whether or not you are disabled.

Again, you are mistaking my personal dislike of you - based on your consistent distortions of my words to your own ends - for some generalized animosity towards a category of people.

You're just straight-up lying here. I said "in the context of disability", which is to say that you decided to say that you had the right to infantilize disabled people, particularly me. That is what I object to. All your bullshit here is just flailing about to cement the fact that you're prejudiced, unwilling to grapple with it, and lashing out against anyone who points it out.

You have also once again misunderstood Gandalf's question.

[Broomstick]

How's this:

If a person has a trait/condition/past/whatever that is "compromising" should they reveal it before running for public office, Y/N?

Is that the question being asked? That's my understanding of it.

If so, YES, THEY SHOULD - because if it's found out later the consequences will be worse than if they were upfront about it. And these days it's a lot harder to keep shit hidden.

Does that mean some people will not be able to be elected? Unfortunately yes. I have no idea how to go about fixing that in a short term. Long-term, you have to change societal attitudes. That is possible, but difficult and not guaranteed. On the other hand, it may turn out not to be the obstacle they originally thought it would be. No one knows until it is tried.

[Broomstick]

I noted it in the other monster thread, but I'll say it again here:

I have an extremely busy week coming up and will be unable to give this forum any significant (or possibly any at all) time and attention. I'll be happy to continue this discussion later, when I have time to actually pay attention. I am doing this as a courtesy to you since you found my prior few days absence annoying or upsetting. Feel free to talk about me while I'm gone, just understand that you won't get a response from me for a bit.

[madd0ct0r]

I am a bit confused here.

In the op the person sharing the information about ptsd is the person claiming she has it.

In this page, people are arguing over wether that type of information Should or even Must be shared by people going for public office. I am not seeing how we got from a to b.

[Gandalf]

I am a bit confused here.

In the op the person sharing the information about ptsd is the person claiming she has it.

In this page, people are arguing over wether that type of information Should or even Must be shared by people going for public office. I am not seeing how we got from a to b.

Check the bottom few posts on the first page.

[madd0ct0r]

I am a bit confused here.

In the op the person sharing the information about ptsd is the person claiming she has it.

In this page, people are arguing over wether that type of information Should or even Must be shared by people going for public office. I am not seeing how we got from a to b.

Check the bottom few posts on the first page.

I'm still confused. Straha and Effie seem to be reading Broomstick's post (near bottom of first page) as saying that all disabled people should be screened out of running for public office. That is not the reading I had of it. The reading I got was "if she is going to claim PTSD of this nature to avoid the theft charges, then part of the consequence is going to be asking if she can perform the public role that she's going for."

[The_Saint]

<snip>

I'm still confused. Straha and Effie seem to be reading Broomstick's post (near bottom of first page) as saying that all disabled people should be screened out of running for public office. That is not the reading I had of it. The reading I got was "if she is going to claim PTSD of this nature to avoid the theft charges, then part of the consequence is going to be asking if she can perform the public role that she's going for."

That's the reading I got as well.

Regarding the question that's been discussed of (paraphrasing) "should candidates release possibly compromising details of themselves", I wonder how many follow a mix of my opinion (which I feel details Broomstick's) that: the candidate can release as much or as little as they want... but by virtue of celebrity status they're more likely to have past sins found out and so early release of information defuses any future furore.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm still confused. Straha and Effie seem to be reading Broomstick's post (near bottom of first page) as saying that all disabled people should be screened out of running for public office. That is not the reading I had of it. The reading I got was "if she is going to claim PTSD of this nature to avoid the theft charges, then part of the consequence is going to be asking if she can perform the public role that she's going for."

Honestly, my view of this entire thread is that Straha and Effie started hyperventilating over a misinterpretation of Broomstick's post, and everyone involved immediately got too upset to successfully clarify their positions to one another so it just sort of devolved into random shouting.

[Ralin]

Honestly, my view of this entire thread is that Straha and Effie started hyperventilating over a misinterpretation of Broomstick's post, and everyone involved immediately got too upset to successfully clarify their positions to one another so it just sort of devolved into random shouting.

Yeah, it's almost like they're trolls trying to rile people up by latching onto any pretext to be as insulting and inflammatory as possible.