politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
If this isn't sarcasm, what is that based on?
Maybe people on the right are less likely to seek out help from mental health professionals. People on the left have less reservations about it, and therefore see more diagnoses.
That where my mind went as well, selection bias.
I'd bet they assume anything they don't like is mental illness. Probably anyone LGBTQ is mentally ill by their definition. Anything they agree with is mental prowess though. People can hold whatever opinions they want, but some are more valid than others, and this one is not valid.
if you try "leftists (or liberals) more likely to be mentally ill" in a search engine you see things like:
https://magazine.columbia.edu/article/why-depression-rates-are-higher-among-liberals
Actually, he's right. A quick Startpage search offers this.
Have you considered that the mentally ill are treated like shit by right leaning people hence they deconstruct the abuse and learn a thing or two about the abuse and it's causes in addition to naturally gravitating to people who are more compassionate? Have you considered that scapegoating is causing mental illness in the first place? Sure, it's not an inherent trait of right political views, it is, however, a trait of the majority of republicans in the us. In addition to that have you considered the stigma around mental health, perpetuated by the republicans, that forces people to not seek psychological help and consider all struggles "normal" and "everyone experiences/feels that"?
It's the truth as shown by research. If you don't like it, take it up with academia, not me.
I'm not a right-winger nor do I ascribe to their way of thinking.
In this case, they unfortunately do have facts backing up their assertion that there is greater prevalence of mental illness among the left.
Other people using it to scapegoat the left for whatever reason doesn't change that.
"Take it up with academia" while you're the one here misinterpreting the research. Great job.
You didn't even read the article, you're just mad that it even exists or that there's even factual basis for something some dumb right wingers said, and that honestly is not my problem.
Intellectual honesty is vital especially in this day and age and unless you demonstrate it by being willing to admit your enemy is right sometimes, and mitigating those issues, you're never going to succeed in anything.
No I'm not. I'm mad that people think mental illness happens just because and I'm mad that people stigmatize it and everything related to different neurological development/traits. I absolutely despise that shit. What I also hate is when people equate correlation to causation. I also hate when people ignore my points and decide to treat facts in the newly added to the conversation context like opinions while hypocritically telling the other person "you're just mad at the facts"
Ok. So I've read the article and it says the data was gathered as a selfreport survey. That means there are indeed more possible explanations of the results. It could mean liberals have more problems with mental health or that the conservatives have more problems with reporting their mental health problems. To resolve this issue, it would be necesary to assess the participants' health with some independent, more objective method.