This came up in my health care forum.

Right now, you can legally detain someone medically when they are a danger to themselves or others for up to 72hrs. The details vary by state, but this is how we lock down individuals trying to suicide or someone mentally off the rails making threats of violence.

This variation on that law would also make opposition to Trump qualify.

Civil commitment can follow as with individuals who have profound mental illness and are not safe to be out in the world.

This is the loudest scream that democracy is dead short of hauling people out into the street and shooting them.

It’s important to note the police are currently the people who bring individuals in for the 72hr mental health holds.

  • PeripheralGhost@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) (noun) - An irrational and unwavering devotion to Donald Trump, characterized by blind loyalty, the dismissal of any criticism as fake news or conspiracy, and an inability to acknowledge his flaws or contradictions.

  • Captain_J@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK.

    Free speech is dead. Democracy is dead. And now the individuals who criticize Trump can be detained in a mental hospital.

    Yep, we’re back to the 1930s folks

  • fff45667@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    This process is already able to be abused to swat people, and the conditions are horrible for the people being held. I’ve seen it as a MH worker. It’s not a hospital, it’s a jail. There is no treatment, only observation in cells. It’s deeply traumatizing and corrupt. Coercion to get people to sign into voluntary programs ($) in order to be released, or they extend their hold. The whole thing is a travesty.

  • jaxxed@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    Americans are fucked. Political disagreement to be classified as a mental disorder? Y’all skipped the Hungary and Russia steps, and went straight to NK.

    • badelf@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      You’re not scared because your great grandmother wasn’t thrown out a 4th floor window by Nazis. You really don’t understand a dictatorship, do you?

      • pinheadednightmare@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        My grandmother was a German citizen. My blood runs deep and I fully understand how you put these people in their place.

        • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 days ago

          To be clear, screaming on rooftops didn’t put the nazis in their place, communists with guns did.

            • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 days ago

              It is an observation of historical facts, I am not prescribing any particular action.

              Running in the woods and trying to wage a protracted people’s war against the local police didn’t put the nazis in their place either, so who exactly would I be calling to arms?

    • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      American asylums weren’t exactly shining beacons of human rights during that period either. JFK’s sister had her frontal lobe scraped until she could no longer repeat the lyrics of a song because she said problematic things as a woman.

    • NimdaQA@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      Not really, abuse of the mental asylums like this mostly happened after Stalin’s death. Under Stalin, you were simply thrown into the Gulag system.

      • sfu@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        Red flag laws were geared more towards conservatives, this TDS bill would be geared more towards liberals.

        • ubergeek@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 day ago

          How are laws stating “If you’ve beaten your spouse, you cannot own guns” geared towards conservatives? Or, is that a slip of some sort?

        • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 days ago

          How are red flag laws geared towards conservatives? Are they more likely to have someone report them as suicidal?

          Also how would removing a gun from a suicidal person be comparable to taking a person against their will and more than likely getting them fired from work and thrown in poverty?

    • GalacticGrapefruit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      Red Flag laws are used to remove guns from Trans, Latino, and Black people in red states too. It’s not the solution to gun violence that people think it is. It was a good idea, but it ends up falling to paradox of the false positive and even being weaponized against minorities more often than not. It violates due process as well.

      More comprehensive care for people with severe mental health issues and arresting and jailing domestic violence offenders their first time is more effective. Unfortunately, we just defunded public mental health, so…

      • sfu@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        No. You don’t have to agree with everything Trump. This bill won’t pass anyway.

        • ubergeek@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 days ago

          Assuming it passed, that’s what the bill said. Any disagreement with Trump is a clear sign of a mental disorder.

          • sfu@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 days ago

            No, it does not say any disagreement with Trump. That alone would not qualify.

            Don’t worry though, with walz as gov, it won’t pass.

            • ubergeek@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 day ago

              No, it does not say any disagreement with Trump

              It literally does. That’s how it defines “Trump Derangement Syndrome”.

              But yes, Walz will veto it, thankfully.

              • sfu@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 day ago

                Its only part of what defines it. Disagreeing alone would not qualify.

  • Etterra@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    And here I thought it was Roadkill F. Kennedy that was gonna send me to a concentration camp for taking antidepressants. Welp I guess it’s the nuthouse for me instead. At least until being mentally ill at all gets you sent to the “rehabilitation farms.”