Compassion is given.

It lays out his actions, how they are perceived by others, and why the author feels they cannot work with him.

It does not name him evil, and in fact seems disinterested in his private personal motivations.

Shunning someone is a compassionate response to bipolar disorder. Keeping the reasons for shunning someone private harms others, such that “compassionate” becomes “complicit”.

The community’s replies indicate that many chances have been given, well ahead of when this post was published. What further compassion would you suggest is appropriate here?

ps. It is suggested he has bipolar disorder, but replacing that with “for personal reasons” in no way alters the content of the post.

Sorry, my experience says shunning is a very shitty thing to do, as it re-enforces their bad feedback loop.

I am being vague because I don't know what the right answer is. But it is surely a compassionate one, and not one that rushes to judgement. The author is making an attempt at this, sure.

Anything will reinforce the feedback loop. That’s inherent in the disorder. Either they voluntarily seek help, they are involuntarily committed, or they do not seek help. You can’t pressure them. They will rationalize their decision without any regard for the reality you perceive. Eventually, you can only choose either to enable them or to shun them.

I think this is very dehumanizing and assumes the worst. I guess I don't have too huge a dataset, but I have seen it be the case that they know something is wrong even if they're not super eager to admit it, and even if they have a strong delusion they won't otherwise let go of. If they are on the fence about it, shunning will tip them over in the wrong direction.

It’s your right to try and act as a counselor to them, but it’s also your right not to. If you are emotionally invested in their welfare for personal reasons, that will absolutely skew your priorities away from shunning. So will the sunk cost fallacy.

The hardest thing to do is to protect yourself when those circumstances are combined, and someone is this close to getting over the hump, and it’s infinitely worse when they’re family/friend. I’m sorry you had to live through that, no matter what you chose.

I have done both things at different times with different people. Lately, after some recent experiences, I err strongly on the side of letting go of myself, abandoning any pretense, and trying to be unconditionally supportive. I would make some attempt to do that even if I were not especially close to the person. A lot of people tell me they don't feel comfortable extending themselves in that way and that is fine, but I have decided it is the ideal we should aspire to.

Someone very close to me has been diagnosed with a similar condition. I have a world of sympathy and compassion for people going through that sort of challenge. However...she would be the first to agree that a diagnosis is not an excuse, and that you have to own your own actions.

A bipolar diagnosis can explain toxic behaviour, but it does not excuse it.

> A bipolar diagnosis can explain toxic behaviour, but it does not excuse it.

Context aside, this is a good maxim and a good thing to keep in mind when dealing with others.

Moreover, I would argue that it’s not just about dealing with mental illness, but about dealing with people in general - it encapsulates the concept of empathy as it applies to interpersonal relations. You can attempt to analyze the motivations for someone’s behavior without implicitly applying a judgement to them, for the purpose of being able to more effectively work with them in the future toward mutual beneficial goals.

"Many people manage their conditions without causing this kind of harm, and when they mess up, they make amends, just like the rest of us. If someone can't do that, then as a community, we can have compassion but shouldn't give them power and influence."