Nice People, Bad Fit: The Mental Health & Vetting Conversation We’re Avoiding
We need to talk about the times when emotional fragility isn't a private personal issue but a group liability.
There are few topics as untouchable in modern activism spaces as mental illness. Whether it’s due to its commonality, its normalization, or simply the threat of cancel culture in so many aspects of life, mental illness has achieved sacred cow status, even among activism groups. You’re not allowed to question someone’s mental fitness anymore, and today we’re going to have a very frank discussion about why that’s a bad deal.
If we’re going to build serious, resilient, and operationally sound groups—especially those preparing for high-stress or collapse-adjacent scenarios—we need to stop coddling dysfunction and start having honest conversations.
This isn’t about worth. It’s not about who deserves love or care. This is about who can function in both day-to-day situations and high-stress incidental environments. Today we are looking at 5 things you need to understand about mental illness and vetting.
1. Anxiety and Depression Aren’t Harmless
Yes, anxiety and depression are common. No, that doesn’t mean they’re irrelevant to group functioning. These conditions often signal that someone has unresolved trauma, unfinished emotional work, or a shaky internal foundation. That matters.
When someone consistently buckles under pressure, shuts down emotionally, or requires regular emotional triage, they become a point of instability. This doesn’t mean they’re a bad person. A person can be deeply valuable to the cause and group, remain valuable as an individual, and yet still not be suitable for high-stakes activism work. Are we capable of saying that out loud? We need to be.
2. Medication Dependency is a Ticking Clock
Let’s be blunt: if someone’s mental stability relies on a daily pill, what happens when the supply chain breaks? If the answer is "they fall apart," then they aren’t someone who should be in your group.
We plan for water, food, and comms failures—why wouldn’t we plan for this? Ignoring this variable because it makes people uncomfortable is short-sighted and dangerous. If someone’s baseline functionality is tied to fragile systems—insurance, pharmacies, interstate shipping—then any scenario that disrupts those systems also disrupts that individual. The ripple effect can compromise operational capacity for the entire group. That’s not being rude, that is being factual.
In any sustained crisis—natural disaster, civil unrest, supply chain collapse—access to medication becomes inconsistent at best, non-existent at worst. What starts as a personal issue quickly escalates into a group-level concern.
“Wait,” you counter, “but that’s no different than someone on blood pressure meds or heart meds or insulin.” Yes, it is different, and I’m about to be scathingly blunt but here goes.
Someone who needs insulin will eventually slip into a coma and die without it. That’s absolutely true. Someone who needs nitro, asthma inhalers, epi pens, or other meds might die without those, also true.
What do you notice here? In all of these cases, the worst-case scenario only immediately involves that person. They are not a threat to others if they run out of meds—even if they are themselves at risk.
Now let’s examine the potential scenarios that are on the table when it comes to unchecked or unmanaged mental illness:
A person becomes paranoid, convinced the group is turning on them, and acts preemptively in sabotage or even violence.
Someone experiences a psychotic break and begins shouting or otherwise drawing negative attention at an event, resulting in public perception changes of the group or cause.
They panic, bolt, or freeze during an emergency, compromising the safety of the entire team.
They become emotionally volatile and manipulate group dynamics through guilt, coercion, or threats of self-harm.
They require emotional triage so often that leadership attention is forced off of where it needs to be.
Their dysregulation creates constant interpersonal friction, destabilizing morale and eroding trust.
They become a vector for external compromise—talking too much, seeking external validation, etc.
Please understand: These people are not “bad.” They’re not unworthy. They’re not worthless; in fact, they are incredibly valuable to a cause…in the right role.
Those of you who read Basics of Resistance, the book I co-wrote with Claire Wolfe, might remember the wheelchair-bound person who I asked to serve as a lookout in a nearby coffee shop. They refused, wanting to be ‘in the action’ even though there was a chance for physical altercations and arrests. That is a lack of self-awareness, coupled with an individual validation mindset instead of a mission-focused one, and quite frankly, it’s dangerous.
I’m not saying that this person should not have been there at all. I’m saying, build your group and your teams based on what each person can reliably do under pressure—NOT on what they do, hope, wish, or try to accomplish when things are going well and all aspects are properly aligned.
3. External Validation Needs Are Not a Stable Foundation
Uncomfortable truth: There is a difference between working for a cause, and wanting to be seen working for a cause.
One is effective; one is a validation addiction. We’ve all known someone like this. They’re the ones who can’t stay away from a camera or interview, who always seem to be the ‘face’ of the group in public, who need the people around them to approve of them—or at least validate them.
Validation junkies create drama. They triangulate, playing people against each other or fomenting conflict between others. They interpret every boundary as rejection. If the group decides that perhaps they’re a liability, or stops applauding the show, now you have withdrawal, anger, or even ghosting. In high-stress or resource-scarce environments, that’s a threat to cohesion and morale. It burns out strong people and feeds dysfunction.
This is both annoying and corrosive. Groups need trust and emotional steadiness. It needs to be able to trust its individual parts. A person who constantly needs reassurance becomes an emotional sinkhole, drawing attention away from the work and rerouting it toward their fragile sense of identity.
Worse still, these individuals often position themselves as moral barometers. If you disagree with them, you are toxic. If you set boundaries, you are abusive or hateful. And God forbid you ask for accountability, because that’s bullying. Suddenly the group is walking on eggshells, decisions are made to appease that one person to avoid the conflict they will create, and real leadership is quietly sidelined.
Over time, this dynamic creates two predictable outcomes: 1) strong contributors grow resentful and check out, and 2) the person in question becomes increasingly manipulative and even powerful, weaponizing their needs to maintain control. The validation junkie is the new de facto leader, because no one wants them to be angry/upset. They are aware enough to pick up on it, and ride that train as far as it’ll go.
Allowing validation-seeking behavior in your group is like playing Russian roulette with morale. The group ends up serving one person’s emotional needs instead of the actual cause. And when that person finally implodes—because they always do—they’ll take as many people down with them as they can.
This is why emotional intelligence and stability aren’t luxuries. They’re non-negotiables.
4. Look At Behavior—Not Labels
Before you start throwing out anyone with a diagnosis, there are a few things you should know.
There are plenty of people with a diagnosis or ‘label’ who are far more sane and self-aware than most people you’ll meet. There are also plenty without a diagnosis who you should be running away from. It’s about what they DO—not necessarily what label someone says they ARE. Stability is revealed in the doing.
That being said...if you get someone who brags about being diagnosed as having antisocial personality disorder—formerly known as psychopathy—you might want to take a hard look at that. (Don't laugh: I've seen it happen.) In most cases, though, it really comes down to functionality, not labels.
Can this person self-regulate under pressure?
Do they respect boundaries, or do they blur them?
Do they own their mistakes, or deflect and blame?
How dependent are they on external validation?
Are they capable of empathy for someone other than themselves?
These are some of the questions you should be asking and watching for answers to.
5. Compassion Without Compromise (and the Role Must Match the Reality)
Compassion does not mean giving people passes on accountability. It doesn’t mean shielding someone from consequences or protecting their feelings at the expense of group function. That’s how you get a dysfunctional group (and maybe get written about as a case study on this Substack!).
True compassion involves honesty. If someone isn’t ready or properly suited, it’s not cruelty to say so—it’s proper stewardship of the resources. Being a good steward of a group means protecting its integrity, even when that means making uncomfortable decisions. You can believe in someone’s inherent worth and still say, “You’re not cut out for this.” You can care about them and still draw hard boundaries.
And in fact, doing so is care. Enabling someone to operate in a role they’re not equipped to handle sets them up for failure and puts everyone else at risk. You’re not being kind; you’re literally being a neglectful, poor leader.
When we equate kindness with avoiding conflict, we invite decay. Groups must be built on clarity and not avoidance. If someone needs to step back and do more inner work, affirm that path; support and encourage them. In fact, normalize the work needed to heal from your ‘stuff.’ But believe me when I say that empathy can be toxic and deadly. Just because someone wants to be in a specific position, or thinks they can perform there as long as conditions are right for them, does not mean you should put them there. In fact, that’s the last place you SHOULD put them.
Read the following very carefully:
Mental illness isn’t a moral failing.
Read it again.
Now for the rest of the thought—it is a factor in group reliability. We don’t get to opt out of that conversation because it’s uncomfortable. Groups fail when they confuse emotional comfort for operational soundness.
Stability isn’t about perfection—it’s about patterns. Can this person handle conflict without imploding? Can they function without being managed? Can they contribute without destabilizing others?
If the answer is no, then the conversation needs to be about boundaries, not blame. Want to support them? Great. Help them get to a place where they can do the work necessary. But don’t let them fly if they need to lean on others to walk.
Resilience starts with truth. If we can’t tell the truth to ourselves and each other, we’re not building anything except a slow-motion collapse.
Very interesting Substack, and I just discovered it so forgive me if I over-comment on your articles. This comment is going to be a long one.
I can think of three different dissident groups whose meetings I attended in the 2000s, which were completely ruined by a crazy person. They all followed the same pattern.
***
The first was a 9/11 truth group, and this woman would show up to events and dominate the conversation. She had a website which pioneered the theory that no planes hit the world trade center, and it was all holograms and special effects. She looked to be in her 60s. Half her hair was dyed bright orange and the other half was missing, but not uniformly so, as though she ripped it all out with her hand.
She had invented her own euphemistic swear works, like "shnit" and "farking", and her speech was littered with these nonsense words. She talked with her mouth full and when she yelled "FARK" food would fly out of her mouth. When she finished her plate she started asking people near her if she could eat their leftovers.
She was always accompanied by this man who wore a stetson hat and acted like a used car salesman, who, I discovered, was paying her living expenses. At one point, she was committed to a mental hospital and he got her out, claiming that "they" sent her there to silence her and that she needed to be free to spread her important message. So she kept coming to meetings and ruining them.
***
The second organization was a radical environmentalist group whose meeting I attended once, hosted by a white guy in a Kufi hat. This young gutter punk showed up with his friend, who was built like a Navy SEAL but dressed like a bike messenger. The friend stopped at the door and left, and the kid came into the group, in which the host was seated across from a semi-circle of attendees.
So this punk pulls up a chair right next to the host, and now everyone has to face both of them. He reacts exaggeratedly to everything the presenter says (Whaaa? Yo that's fucked up! For real? Damn!) until he loses interest in the presentation and pulls out his iPhone, whose screen is completely shattered. He then proceeds to play a videogame on his phone with the volume up full-blast, until he cuts he thumb on the screen, then freaks out and calls his friend to come pick him up, and in doing so he also cuts his ear. So this kid is just stomping around this meeting, bleeding and cursing at no one. His friend does eventually come pick him up but by this point the whole meeting has lost momentum and is drawing to a close, anyway.
***
The third meeting was for an alternative health organization notorious for vaccine skepticism. A doctor was there to give a talk about persistent toxins in the environment, and in our bodies. This guy showed up with a giant Big Gulp, sporting a long ponytail and a Ghostbusters II shirt pulled over his giant gut. He interrupted the doctor constantly, raising his hand and then just blurting out his question or comment even when it was barely relevant to the presentation. He was dropped off by his "girlfriend", an attractive, diminutive Asian woman who read as upper-middle class.
He was so disruptive that I intervened at one point and told him that we were here to listen to the doctor, not to him, and that he should be quiet. This shut him up for about 5 minutes and then he was back at it. My wife and I had a baby at this time, who slept through most of the talk but woke up at the end and started crying. Ponytail guy then started shushing the baby and complaining about his crying. I took my son and walked out on this meeting to find his "girlfriend" waiting for him in the parking lot.
***
So in all three examples, we have a dissident meeting completely ruined by a raving nutcase. All three of these people were obviously mentally ill to even the least observant bystander. All three were dysfunctional to the point that they could never have gotten themselves to these meetings in the first place, if not for their handlers who were obviously in possession of their faculties.
A couple decades ago, I read a book called The Terror Factory that described how the FBI would entrap Muslims in bogus terrorist plots. It's been years since I read this book, but I remember this pattern standing out:
1. The FBI apprehends some con artist committing mail fraud, wire fraud, or some other scam that crosses state lines.
2. They give them the choice of either going to federal prison or cooperating with the FBI.
3. If they choose the latter, their expenses are paid by the FBI and they're given incentives to "find" would-be terrorists or other subversives in specific communities (in this case, Muslim ones).
4. The grifter then finds a bunch of dupes and suckers—often mentally ill or intellectually challenged—and becomes their de facto handler, where they're eventually drawn into some confected terrorism plot that the FBI can then "foil" and put the poor dupe in prison.
I suspect that the agents provocateur disrupting these meetings were not "feds" themselves, and the people giving them rides probably weren't, either—but whoever was handling the handlers probably were.