Wild that we let a person cover their vehicle with signs that essentially say “I have severe untreated mental illness and no grip on reality”, and society at large says “sure, keep operating that heavy machinery in public”.
What’s the alternative? Locking up people who haven’t committed a crime if a doctor doesn’t like what they’re saying? This guy probably is schizophrenic but plenty of conspiracy theorists aren’t and people saying something true but unpopular sometimes sound like conspiracy theorists.
I said we shouldn’t let them drive a car, not lock them in prison. Calm down.
Ideally we would provide people like this with mental healthcare, and get them medicated so that they actually can operate a vehicle without being an inherent risk to everyone around them.
My point is that, in America, you can basically be screaming “I am extremely unwell to the point of being an elevated risk to myself and everyone around me”, and our usual response is to act like everything is normal and nothing should be done.
I don’t think this guy would take any pills you tried to give him unless you literally forced them down his throat. (They’re created with computer too.)
One of those signs says please spread this on the Internet. Person has a grasp on that, so it seems to me they’re basically accepting the “risk” to spread the “truth”.
I’m no expert on automobiles, but that truck would need to be 40+ years old to have no computers onboard. It doesn’t look that old to me, though maybe he just kept it in good shape.
It’s honestly hard to tell, because even a brand new equivalent vehicle would look very similar from the side. Pickup trucks haven’t changed visually much over the years.
Mental healthcare is currently unavailable as we wait for a replacement part that is on backorder. In the meantime, please accept these sign boards and this extra large sharpie for the inconvenience.
“I have severe untreated mental illness and no grip on reality”
(Emphasis mine)
That is a vast oversimplification of how people work. It is absolutely plausible to me that someone might believe obvious lies but is otherwise qualified to drive heavy machinery. Analyzing the society you live in is a totally different skill than driving.
For example, if I found out my bus driver literally believes that reptilians run the world, I would still trust them to drive my bus because driving a bus has nothing to do with lizard people. Conversely, I wouldn’t trust a bus driver who agrees with everything I believe in but is currently having a panic attack.
This is important to me because I am mentally ill (treated, but mentally ill nonetheless) and autistic (which is treated like a mental illness), and this is the kind of logic that tyrants use to manufacture popular consent to further marginalize mentally ill people.
Look, I understand the line you are trying to walk here, but encountering a vehicle like this and thinking “this guy just has different ideas than me, but is otherwise trustworthy” is not rational thinking.
There’s a difference between believing in conspiracy theories and covering your van with warnings about the nanochips on your body that give you computer generated diseases.
If I learned that someone suffering extreme paranoid delusions like this were in charge of operating a passenger vehicle, I would be extremely concerned with the safety of those passengers.
This isn’t some unreasonable thing. I have a lot of compassion for those who suffer from mental illness, but I also think that public safety should take precedent when it is clear that someone is mentally incapable of being trusted with things like heavy machinery.
It’s not the ideas expressed on this vehicle that concern me. It’s that every part of this indicates a serious and untreated mental health problem. The only way my opinion could be redeemed is if the owner of the van came forward and said it was a joke, or a prop for a movie or something, because nobody with a connection to reality is going to write those things all over a truck and parade around town trying to spread the word if they aren’t severely dissociated from reality.
And I cannot stress this enough, nothing about this story has anything to do with Autism. Paranoid delusions are not a typical issue for Autistic people.
And I cannot stress this enough, nothing about this story has anything to do with Autism. Paranoid delusions are not a typical issue for Autistic people.
Agreed, but I am autistic and I have had this language used against me to argue why I shouldn’t be allowed to make my own decisions. I.e., it is a popular misconception and form of rhetoric that autistic people have paranoid delusions because we perceive the world differently. I brought it up because I’m arguing from my lived experience as a mentally ill and autistic person, i.e. I’m not just being an internet contrarian.
I did not mean to imply that autistic people typically do suffer from paranoid delusions. However, (at least in my view) we do suffer from neurotypical people believing we suffer from paranoid delusions.
encountering a vehicle like this and thinking “this guy just has different ideas than me, but is otherwise trustworthy” is not rational thinking.
I don’t have to find someone completely trustworthy in order for them to be an acceptable driver. Actually, I typically don’t fully trust the people I get in cars with. I only need to trust them enough to know that they’re not going to veer into traffic, they’re going to drive reasonably, and that they will take me to the place we promised to go. I think that the kinds of decisions that go into driving are completely different from those that drive a person to mark up their car.
Look, I understand the line you are trying to walk here
Yeah, I am trying to “walk a line” here and I think I understand where you’re coming from, so I’m absolutely willing to agree to disagree.
“Where an objection to a belief is made, the assertion of the right to an opinion side-steps the usual steps of discourse of either asserting a justification of that belief, or an argument against the validity of the objection. Such an assertion, however, can also be an assertion of one’s own freedom from, or a refusal to participate in, the rules of argumentation and logic at hand.”
So, unlike you, I am not willing to “agree to disagree”, because this is an intellectually bankrupt position. You are overreacting to concerns regarding schizophrenic people and being irrational because of a personal concern about perceptions of Autistic people, despite nobody saying anything about Autism (but you).
I am also on the spectrum, and I wish you would think before you drag Autism into this conversation, because Autistic people like us don’t do crazy shit like this.
The guy driving this van is probably about as functional as someone in the middle of a panic attack. Very likely erratic and on meth I would not trust to drive.
The guy driving this van is probably about as functional as someone in the middle of a panic attack. Very likely erratic
I would have to talk to them first (or watch them drive if I’m in traffic) to see if that actually is the case, just like I would if the person’s car was clean.
If you’re a crazy enough that this makes sense, I don’t think you should be driving a vehicle even if you’re technically capable of doing so. At least not until you get diagnosed and treated.
I know this is a shitposting sub but this is the exact kind of comment I’m pushing back against. No, I do not deserve to lose my driving privileges because I believe that people with paranoid delusions may be safe to drive.
There’s a big difference between a danger that is tangible and immediate, such as a collision with another vehicle, and something that cannot be seen or interacted with, like electricity or a virus.
There’s nothing about this that tells me this person can’t drive safely.
So where I live if you have a disease, physical or mental, you go to a doctor and they decide if you’re ok to drive or if you need to pass an extra test first where you are judged if you’re able to drive safely with whatever disabilities you have. This is besides the standard driving test and written test. Also everybody has to take lessons with a professional.
It’s however not perfect because the government doesn’t have access to your medical records (which is good). But that means you have to be honest on a form about your disabilities. Plus the doctor visit is not covered by insurance and costs around 200 euros.
Plus if you already have your licence there isn’t really a system in place to prevent you for driving if your health declines.
Does anyone know why they always put “not for hire”? Who/what is not for hire? The car? The plate? The person? And why does it need to be stated on the “license plate”?
They think driving is “travelling” and that if you are travelling for private reasons, not for work, that that means you can’t be bothered by the cops.
Ooh I actually know this one! That’s the logo for Tushy, a company that makes bidet attachments. I bought one in 2020 and this book comes in the box with it. Honestly one of the best purchases I ever made lol
Do Americans enjoy spending lots of money on a nice night out, where you sit in front of a panoramic window and look out at rows of beautifully designed pickup trucks and acres of scenic parking lots?
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I usually go to the restaurant for the food, not the view of the outside.
If you can sit and watch a beautiful vista of the ocean from the top of a cliff while you have your curry and it’s terrible curry, I’d rather see the pickup trucks.
The best Mexican restaurant in town here is in a strip mall and we used to have a great Turkish restaurant in a strip mall. There also used to be a Chinese restaurant here in a strip mall that offered cool and unusual stuff like jellyfish as an appetizer (it’s kind of crunchy).
I’m just not sure what strip malls have to do with anything. You can make the atmosphere inside nice. If you’re super worried about people not enjoying the outside view, you can put curtains in front of the windows.
He says, as if strip malls are a purely american thing rather than a cheap ass suburb thing.
I mean, they’re not “purely” an American thing, but they are substantially due to the influence of American city planning, which is why they’re most prevalent in places like Britain/Canada/Australia/New Zealand (because English-speaking places share ideas more easily with each other) and Okinawa (because of post-WWII American occupation).
It’s pretty clear that writing is not this guy’s strongest suit. Whether that’s a consequence of poor education, learning disorders, or whatever schizophrenic weirdness is going on inside his brain to cause this to barf out of it, I couldn’t tell you.
TV series: You have to skip the first season, it’s a slow start and kinda shit. Go back to it later, except for S01E07 and 08, those are necessary to understand the story arc.
In S02, watch E03,04,05,08,11 and 02 in that order. Still drags on but there are some memorable moments. S03 is great. Except for the ending, skip that. And it all goes downhill starting in S04.
But if you stick with it, S07 is bearable again.
I personally recommend watching all of GoT in order, not because it’s good, but because you won’t appreciate the flawless genius of S8E3 without the other 7 seasons of context. It’s a slow drag through those 7 seasons, but once it picks up in the last 5 episodes, it’ll all be worth it, I swear. There’s so much character development packed into those episodes that they’ll seem like completely different people!
I have no clue. I’ve never watched it but if I did I’d probably just go in whatever order it was put out.
You’d have to know him, though. He gets animated (not angry, just extra) about a lot of little things but big things just roll off his back. I haven’t seen him this angry about anything since we were teenagers a hundred years ago. It’s hilarious because of who he is.
I think one of our old coworkers convinced him of that back when it was on and he was considering getting into it and he’s never let it go.
Yeah. Both can be watched separately, but if you want to watch both, it’s nice to do it in chronological order where episodes of the two series are mixed together, as you get some references to the events in the other series.
Not this extreme, but Always Sunny I couldn’t get past the second episode. Gave up on it until someone told me that I can just completely ignore the first season and start on season two. Actually got into the show like that, never gone back to try and watch the parts I missed
Honestly, if I’m told that I need to watch something in a weird order in order to enjoy it, I just drop it from my watchlist. There’s plenty of good media to watch, I’m not gonna do that stupid shit.
I mean, you can just watch said series in release order as well if optimal order is too much work
(but I do get the sentiment. I’m just thinking of Steins Gate. Watching it and then Steins Gate 0 is a perfectly valid watch order, but since Steins Gate 0 expands on a certain event that just happens in 1 episode in the original into an entire season [and adds a whole bunch of narrative weight by doing so] theres an optimal watch order that has you jump to Steins Gate 0 slightly before ending Steins Gate original and then finishing Steins Gate original after you’ve finished Steins Gate 0)
Yeah, I can get into a series if people say to skip the first couple episodes/seasons because it takes a little to figure itself out (like how you can skip the first season of Parks and Rec and miss nothing of importance), but weird watch order is not something I’ll bother with.
lemmy.world
Oldest