To non-practitioners we are all considered delusional.
That would only be the case for a fraction of people who irrationally categorize things as delusional if they conflict with their beliefs. This is not the sort of situation being dealt with here.
The definition of delusion is:
The definition of just "delusion" as I see it is, "a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact" or "a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason". The core keys are that it is clearly false, and that it is resistant to reason and the presentation of actual facts. But the proposed rule does not even ban all delusion, as that would be potentially too sweeping. Instead it creates a category only for "persistent, disruptive, and blatant" delusion. "Blatant" means it would only apply when it is overwhelmingly clear. "Persistent" means it should only apply when it continues repeatedly and remains resistant to reason and presentation of actual facts. And "disruptive" is as discussed above, where it is not an incidental case but interfering with normal conversation and discussion. Simple disagreements about beliefs will not be able to meet any of those thresholds.
Additionally, we have the existing rule, "Be respectful of other systems, styles, and approaches.
" This rule will continue in effect, and will not be altered at all by the proposed new rule. There is a vast difference between "other systems, styles, and approaches", which will continue to be encouraged and respected, and "persistent, disruptive, and blatant delusions" which will be dealt with so that they do not continue disrupting valuable discussion. A person coming along with a different sort of system or approach which we are not sure if it works or is valid could not be banned under this rule. That would instead be an encouraged discussion to evaluate the new approach. True persistent and blatant delusion is generally obvious to just about everyone here, and such people tend to end up with discussions that deteriorate to senselessness, as their disordered thinking tends to result in a spiral of contradictions to basic facts even of things that everyone has just seen happen.
(For the sake of some basic respect I do not want to single anyone out by pointing to specific examples in this thread. The goal isn't shaming, but preserving a high caliber of discussion. But if the above description does not clarify the matter, I'm sure just about any moderator can describe several specific examples in private. We have faced this a lot.)
So Rayn are you saying that everyone with a mental illness should be banned?
I don't believe he proposed that. And that sort of extremism is not under consideration, not on the table, and would be strongly opposed by the staff here, as well as most members. For example things like depression and anxiety disorders are among the most common mental illnesses, and have nothing to do with the types of problems being discussed here. The proposed rule is intentionally narrow to describe a category of disruption we experience here.