[peterwwillis]

If you deal with the mentally ill you begin to see the differences between intentionally abusive behavior and behavior that's just highly erratic or unusual. Sometimes the mentally ill are dicks. But also, sometimes they just say or do things that are culturally insensitive without intending to hurt anyone's feelings, or understanding how they could do so.

While I think the above comment is offensive, it also appears to not be directed at any one person, and seems to be a facet of his mental illness. I therefore reason that this person is not trying to be abusive or racist, but is in fact suffering from a disease, and this is a symptom of it. So I don't think he should be held to the same standard everyone else is.

For example, we have flagkilling for comments in addition to downvotes that can be used to remove offensive remarks. Why wouldn't we merely let the crowd downvote his negative comments, and upvote the good ones? Positive reinforcement would actually be a useful to instruct him how to behave in a social environment such as this.

Or we could just hellban all the mentally challenged users.

[seabee]

Internet eugenics^W^W Hellbanning is a lot easier to justify when pseudonymity makes it easy to pretend everyone is a healthy WASP male like you are.

That said, signal-to-noise still needs to be maintained. I think the ability to resurrect a comment from the dead when the quality is verified by others would help people like Terry Davis feel less ostracized by hellbans.

[Steko]

"So I don't think he should be held to the same standard everyone else is."

I think you're misunderstanding how standards work. It doesn't matter if he believes it or means it to be abusive or if it's just trolling/performance art or if it's because of mental illness. Racist speech is offensive to the community and the people who repeatedly use it will be moderated.

There are people with mental illness that expose themselves or defocate in public. There nothing inherently wrong with nudity or defocation (hygiene yes but we're ok with dog poop as long as you clean it up) but these acts cross a line society has drawn. And most people will insist that such behavior not be permitted in things they take part in.

[peterwwillis]

In the cases you cite, the way to deal with problem behavior usually involves medication, treatment, care, etc, but they still get to be participatory members of society.

The solution you're proposing would just lock them up in a high tower where the public could remain blissfully unaware that the mentally ill even exist, and never have to deal with them. I'd rather have to deal with somebody shitting on a bus once in a while than ostracize them and force them into a minimum security prison.

Standards are a guideline for how something should normally be. If someone is, by no fault of their own, radically outside this standard, they may require a separate standard to determine how they can be 'normal', and then find and receive treatment in order to live as close to normal as possible. Using the same standard for everyone would result in people being thrown into insane asylums for everything from anxiety to stress-induced nervous breakdown, bipolar disorder, OCD, schizophrenia, etc.

In 2012, there were an estimated 9.6 million adults aged 18 or older in the U.S. with a serious mental illness in the past year. This represented 4.1 percent of all U.S. adults. There were an estimated 43.7 million adults with any mental illness ; 18.6 percent of all U.S. adults. So yeah, I still don't think everyone should be held to the same standard, and I think treatment options should exist other than "hiding or banning from society".