>> But that doesn't mean that it's not valuable to use incomplete information to speculate on a diagnosis in other settings.
Jesus man, how do you write something like that in the comments for an article about removing mental health stigmas and improving care for those effected?
Try reading literally the next sentence following the one you quoted out of context. Please stop taking things that people write out of context and triggering off them for faux-outrage. You're attacking a strawman and not adding anything positive to the community. It's a form of bullying that results in less nuance in the discussion.
Sorry to vent, but this is becoming alarmingly common in discussions here and I feel the level of respect and reading comprehension of the average discussion participant here is dropping pretty quickly.
There are good, non-hypothetical reasons that publicly diagnosing living people without their consent is considered a bad thing to do. This came to a head with psychiatrists trying to diagnose Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater in the news media [1], but the general principle that it's uncouth or even unethical to publicly speculate about a person's mental health status has been more broadly adopted in many circles. Please consider the possibility that what you're seeing is not "faux-outrage", but people who genuinely disapprove of your overall line of argument.
Jesus man, how do you write something like that in the comments for an article about removing mental health stigmas and improving care for those effected?