Discussion A balanced view on this website

[BipolarGuy]

I see you've completely ignored my previous post and my input on your thread for whatever reason, which I'll admit saddened me a little bit because I believe it was a very relevant and well thought out response, albeit a different perspective then the one you share. I was hoping you'd dialogue with me about it.

Here's what confuses me most about this thread.... Where exactly are these "predators" and "manipulators" you claim are squashing people's attempts at offering alternatives? I don't doubt such people are lurking somewhere on the site, but I've never seen one. In fact, in nearly every goodbye thread I've witnessed, at least one poster chimes in to remind the person that there's no shame in changing their minds and that the community will still be here to support the person.

Your stance would make sense if it was substantiated with evidence of such "predators". You've yet to actually provide any, and this whole thread just seems a little...baseless.

To me, it reads like you're angry that we don't jump in and attempt to save every person who's suicidal when the very nature of this site (pro-choice) asks us NOT to. If people want help, they're free to ask. No one is stopping them- in fact, there's even a recovery section on the site where people give wonderful advice and help to people wanting to keep living

Not to mention there are several pro-life suicide forums on the web where vulnerable people post their stories and their pain and posters are only allowed to offer support or solutions. If you're hell bent on only responding in that manner ( which is great in the right context, don't get me wrong- plenty of people do want to be saved), then why not channel your emotional resources into those sites? Why participate in a site that clearly postures itself as "pro choice" and then admonish users who follow that theme? Same thing with the guy who posted the "Am I Manipulator" thread the other day.

I don't get it

Apologies that I didn't reply to your post, and I'm sorry that this has saddened you so much.

I've been asleep for most of the day and woke up with upwards of 40 notifications coming in.
Besides, I rarely feel the need to respond to every single comment, but I am happy to have a read of your post when I get home (I haven't read it) and see if I feel I am able to add anything.

I feel you're upset for reasons other than me not having read your other post yet.

What do you mean when you ask "where are these predators?".

I don't feel that I'm on trial in a court, nor do I feel that I'm preparing to submit a scientific paper for peer review, and thus I don't feel as though I need to build or present a scientifically watertight case that demonstrates the existence of predators or manipulators.
I feel that in this case of discussion on a website, my experiences and the experiences of others are suitable to form the basis of a conversation, which is what this thread is.

I also feel that asserting that I'm angry because 'we' don't jump in and try to intervene is just a straw man, as there is nothing in this thread or elsewhere that indicates that I feel like this.
It's baseless.

Anyway as I said I am happy to take a look at your other post later.

A stickied Scams Thread is literally meant to warn new members against predatory behaviour. A scammer is by definition a predator.

I think you got a bit confused there.

Don't worry, it happens to me too, more often than I care to admit.

Ok.
This thread isn't primarily about financial scams but yes you are correct that this happens too.

Thank you for raising this issue, as readers of this thread will be educated about financial scams as a result of your contribution :)

 

[Deleted member 1465]

I make no apologies for being a rational thinker who rejects intellectual inexactitude, "fuzzy logic", and arguments based only on emotion.

I am a straight talker, and what you see is what you get.
I don't play politics or childish games.

Now I've got that out of the way, allow me to give you my balanced opinion on this site.
The reason I've decided to make this post is because I've read other recent threads about how this website has been removed from search results in Germany, how there is another site (fixthe26) that was set up to challenge this one, and I've seen posts which have concerned me.

Firstly, the positive:

There are some awesome people on here who, like me, stumbled upon this website because we are feeling hopelessly depressed.
These people have empathy and understanding that you don't usually find elsewhere: least of all on other depression chatrooms that are so heavily moderated that you literally cannot even discuss how you're feeling through fear of 'triggering' others.

So in short, a website is needed on which emotional and practical issues may be discussed in a largely uninhibited manner.


But then there's the not so good part:

As an active member on this forum, I'm not going to pretend for one second that there are not people on here who seem to encourage suicide.
And when I say encourage, please don't come back at me with the argument that other users are just providing information and are not encouraging anything, because while this may be true for the vast majority of members, I do believe that some members do in fact encourage it.

There was a guy the other day who started a thread about taking a chemical to end his life with.
He was in the process of doing this.
He was hesitant, so I made a few comments along the lines of
"If you don't want to do it, there is no shame in choosing not to".
I then had another user have a go at me, because in their view I "should not encourage them NOT to go ahead with it"!
Luckily other members could clearly see my intentions, and this user ended up making a complete fool of himself.

There have been a number of comments I've seen in various threads that make me question some of the undercurrents on this site, from a minority of members.

While the official website position may be that this is a peer to peer support forum that doesn't encourage anybody either way, we as members must act to protect ourselves from predators who will seek to take advantage of vulnerable people.

I'm obviously not blaming this website for the behaviour of these people, but as members we should not defend the website by pretending that unsavoury behaviour does not happen on occasion.

I agree with your observations.
There is support here. There is also, sometimes abuse and real danger.
Plus, some do not seem to understand the concept of choice and will villify neutrality: 'if you are not with us you are against us.' I have no time for that attitude.
Personally, I find definitions of pro choice/pro life to be limiting and disingenuous. Things are more nuanced and conflicting in the real world.

 

[woxihuanni]

But have you tried talking walks?

Sure, I've taken a long walk to a sweet secluded spot to bury the bodies. I think it helped!

 

[BitterlyAlive]

Misery loves company. As someone who's given up and decided to CTB, when someone announces they've decided to keep living it makes me feel guilty as fuck. I can admit that.

I definitely try to encourage those that are on the fence to stay though. Especially young folks. My main thing here is trying to make people aware of how bad certain medications are, since they are what destroyed my life. The doctors don't make it clear enough.

No, they really don't. And even if you tell them they don't always care. I had akathisia a few months back due to a medication and my doctor wanted me to wait a few more weeks before coming off. It was unbearable. I kept having thoughts of completely mutilating myself to make the akathisia stop. One of my bosses wanted to hospitalize me lmao.

Doctors really need to inform their patients of side effects and show a bit more compassion.

 

[Nymph]

I can't believe there's a whole site just to fight SS while there's sites for pedophiles where they openly share child pornography and their nasty fantasies about raping children. They'd rather see children getting raped/trafficked/sold/abused than people having an open source for CTB...Priorities amirite?



I don't think people should encourage anyone or tell them not to CTB, just let person themselves decide what to do and maybe just say "have a nice journey" "goodluck" or sumn. I mean it's not that hard. Everyone's troubles have a different impact on people and to someone it might seem like nothing but to them it's a huge deal and they want to CTB. So just let them do what they want and do not interfere

 

[muffin222]

Apologies that I didn't reply to your post, and I'm sorry that this has saddened you so much.

I've been asleep for most of the day and woke up with upwards of 40 notifications coming in.
Besides, I rarely feel the need to respond to every single comment, but I am happy to have a read of your post when I get home (I haven't read it) and see if I feel I am able to add anything.

I feel you're upset for reasons other than me not having read your other post yet.

What do you mean when you ask "where are these predators?".

I don't feel that I'm on trial in a court, nor do I feel that I'm preparing to submit a scientific paper for peer review, and thus I don't feel as though I need to build or present a scientifically watertight case that demonstrates the existence of predators or manipulators.
I feel that in this case of discussion on a website, my experiences and the experiences of others are suitable to form the basis of a conversation, which is what this thread is.

I also feel that asserting that I'm angry because 'we' don't jump in and try to intervene is just a straw man, as there is nothing in this thread or elsewhere that indicates that I feel like this.
It's baseless.

Anyway as I said I am happy to take a look at your other post later.

Ok.
This thread isn't primarily about financial scams but yes you are correct that this happens too.

Thank you for raising this issue, as readers of this thread will be educated about financial scams as a result of your contribution :)

I mean what I asked... where is the evidence that these predators that you alleged are encouraging suicide are actually doing so? You're being disingenuous with this question. I'm not upset- I'm merely asking a question because your balanced view on this website doesn't seem to be very balanced if you can't back up your claims with some sort of constructive proof.

Your opinion is your opinion, and you're entitled to that. But, when it devolves to the level of accusations that members actively try to prevent people from offering solutions and alternatives to suicide, then it starts to beg the question of who exactly is doing this?
No one is asking for scientific evidence. You put it out there, and I'm responding with a question.

 

[SipSop]

Ok no worries.

If you're ever feeling down and need someone to chat to, my pm is open to you.

hell of a way to mix your words up though, if it got lost in translation!

It was not lost in translation.
And you could've replied me this directly.

I have not come here to die necessarily. I am just here to keep that option open . I am pretty sure most people if not all feel the same way as me.

The point of criticizing actions of some members is to make them rethink on attacking people who try to offer alternatives to CTB. There are people on here who have a chance of living a good and full life, but they have just gone through a bad divorce or financial hardship and that's why they are suicidal. If someone offers advice that works , their whole life can turn around, based on this I don't see why giving such advice should be looked down upon. The only thing I keep in mind is not to keep pestering when the advice is received by the person.

Well, you're nitpicking what I said.
I specified that if people choose to live other people encourage them, if people choose to die other people encourage them.
When you make a thread on a method it is supposed that you want to use it.
And that is fine.

 

[XYZ]

Ok.
This thread isn't primarily about financial scams but yes you are correct that this happens too.

Thank you for raising this issue, as readers of this thread will be educated about financial scams as a result of your contribution :)

This thread is about predators, among other things. So, what you wrote makes no sense. I am not trying to educate anyone, I am merely pointing out that predators are recognized and warned against, which you denied in your op.

I see you are using sarcasm as a means to deflect attention from the fact that you cannot counter my observation with a good argument.

I must concur with what a previous user wrote: I am unsure of what the aim of your thread is.

I am finding your logic confused and confusing and a bit prozelytizing.

 

[checkouttime]

It was not lost in translation.
And you could've replied me this directly.

I did reply to you directly post 46. You must of read it because you have just said it wan't lost in translation.

So you admit you encourage people to CTB then if thats the case? Which i wouldn't have thought was allowed

 

[SipSop]

Are you saying its ok to encourage members to die? thats what that sounds like to me, reading that!

You are not paying attention.
IF they choose to.
It's a pro-choice website.

 

[muffin222]

You are not paying attention.
IF they choose to.
It's a pro-choice website.

Exactly. That's the key word people are missing here. If. Ideally, no one commits suicide and they can find solutions to their problems that make existence more bearable. But, if they don't or can't or won't, then we support their decision because it's their life. Supporting people's choices is not encouraging them to die. Encouraging them to die would be actively pushing them towards suicide when they're clearly on the fence about it. I've never seen anyone do that on here

 

[checkouttime]

@SipSop I think its you who isn't paying attention actually!!!!

you said this :-

"It is unfair of you to criticise members of this community for encouraging you to die when you post about a method you want to go"

to which i replied:-

"Are you saying its ok to encourage members to die? thats what that sounds like to me, reading that!"

Then a member pointed out about maybe it had been lost in translation.

you then wrote:-

"It was not lost in translation.
And you could've replied me this directly."

to which i replied :-

I did reply to you directly post 46. You must of read it because you have just said it wan't lost in translation.

So you admit you encourage people to CTB then if thats the case? Which i wouldn't have thought was allowed

and now you have said i am not paying attention, oh i am. its you who hasn't read it all properly not me.

 

[SipSop]

Exactly. That's the key word people are missing here. If. Ideally, no one commits suicide and they can find solutions to their problems that make existence more bearable. But, if they don't or can't or won't, then we support their decision because it's their life. Supporting people's choices is not encouraging them to die. Encouraging them to die would be actively pushing them towards suicide when they're clearly on the fence about it. I've never seen anyone do that on here

Me neither.
Thank you.

 

[BipolarGuy]

I've just logged back in.
I have been considering some of the things that have been said in the last 20 posts or so, and I have this to say...and once again I make no apologies for being direct.

I am very experienced at dealing with individuals of a predatory or manipulative disposition, and I feel no need whatsoever to reply to some of the comments made within the last 20 or so posts.
The purpose of this thread is obvious to anyone with living tissue within their skulls.

I would urge readers to be aware of all that follows:

Predators/manipulators don't like to be:

- Called out/challenged
- Held accountable for their actions
- etc

Predators/manipulators tend to employ indirect and often convoluted methods to achieve their aim, cover their tracks, defend themselves, or shut down those who oppose their behaviour.
I am going to suggest that this may be happening on this thread.


1. In every day conversation it is perfectly acceptable for people to have a discussion based on shared experience or observation, without undue or excessive burden of proof being required to 'legitimise' what is being discussed.
Should undue or excessive burden of proof then be requested by somebody else, it raises the question why this is needed.
In my experience of debating (in several different contexts, including in national competitions while at university) as well as my experience dealing with highly manipulative individuals, a much greater burden of proof than necessary is usually requested when the person questioning seeks to quickly undermine or delegitimise a point somebody is making, or to negate personal experience or observation.

I suspect this point will be responded to with "well you just don't like being challenged", or some personal remark of that kind.
But what is actually being challenged?
That predators/manipulators don't exist? - I don't think anybody would agree with this!
That predators/manipulators don't exist on this site? - again, who truly believes this?


1.b. Sometimes a manipulator will employ a 'statistical argument'. I actually quite enjoy it when they do this because having studied maths at university, in cases that this has happened I have usually found myself debating with somebody who doesn't actually *understand* basic statistics.
Almost invariable, the crux of a statistical argument in such contexts is "it doesn't happen very often, therefore it doesn't need to be considered, and can be forgotten about".
How many abusive men say this to their partner: "I don't hit you very often....and so can we skip over it please"?
In the case of predators/manipulators on this site, it may be that the relatively small number of members who create issues require the most attention from moderators, create issues for other members, or say the most unhelpful things.


2. One thing I have noticed that manipulators tend to do quite often, especially online, is derail a conversation (potentially by turning it into a heated debate or even an argument).
The manipulator/predator will then claim that the thread doesn't serve a purpose, or that it no longer serves it's original purpose.
On occasion, the manipulator may attempt to undermine your motives for sharing an opinion, expressing a view or starting a thread. Obfuscation tactics ('smoke and mirrors') may be employed by the manipulator to make out that you're being 'confusing', 'unclear' or even 'inconsistent'. These are just personal attacks designed to undermine both the point of the conversation/thread as well as the 'legitimacy' of the person who started it.
Then they may attempt to encourage a moderator to lock/delete the thread and perhaps even take action against the person who started the thread (in this case, me).
As far as I have been able to tell so far, the moderators on this website are more than fair and only intervene when absolutely necessary. However if this course of action comes to pass, be suspicious.

I'm now awaiting an accusation that I am "paranoid" - I've seen it all before ;)


As an aside, a thread exists that provides a short but useful summary of some manipulation tactics (below). More detailed information can be found elsewhere online.

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/manipulation-tactics.31123/

 

[SipSop]

@SipSop I think its you who isn't paying attention actually!!!!

you said this :-

"It is unfair of you to criticise members of this community for encouraging you to die when you post about a method you want to go"

to which i replied:-

"Are you saying its ok to encourage members to die? thats what that sounds like to me, reading that!"

Then a member pointed out about maybe it had been lost in translation.

you then wrote:-

"It was not lost in translation.
And you could've replied me this directly."

to which i replied :-

I did reply to you directly post 46. You must of read it because you have just said it wan't lost in translation.

So you admit you encourage people to CTB then if thats the case? Which i wouldn't have thought was allowed

and now you have said i am not paying attention, oh i am. its you who hasn't read it all properly not me.

Hey, that shit with "it was lost in translation" it was clearly a low blow in order to make fun of my typos and grammar mistakes. Dont fuck with me.
Bipolarguy did it, you did it too now. Or whoever said it.
It was not meant to be said like a mistake.
Out of context by what the bipolarguy said and you it says that I don't know to comprehend and translate english.
Do not twist my words.
Muffin222 got it. But you and Bipolarguy play dump all day long and then try to frame me for something I did not said by nitpicking out of context things.
Drop this shit already.
I was explicit and clear enough in my explanations.
You and Bipolar just play dumb for the sake of it.

I've just logged back in.
I have been considering some of the things that have been said, and I have this to say...

I am very experienced at dealing with individuals of a predatory or manipulative disposition, and I feel no need whatsoever to reply to some of the comments made within the last 20 or so posts.
The purpose of this thread is obvious to anyone with living tissue within their skulls.

I would urge readers to be aware of all that follows:

Predators/manipulators don't like to be:

- Called out/challenged
- Held accountable for their actions
- etc

Predators/manipulators tend to employ indirect and often convoluted methods to achieve their aim, cover their tracks, defend themselves, or shut down those who oppose their behaviour.
I am going to suggest that this may be happening on this thread.


1. In every day conversation it is perfectly acceptable for people to have a discussion based on shared experience or observation, without undue or excessive burden of proof being required to 'legitimise' what is being discussed.
Should undue or excessive burden of proof then be requested by somebody else, it raises the question why this is needed.
In my experience of debating (in several different contexts, including in national competitions while at university) as well as my experience dealing with highly manipulative individuals, a much greater burden of proof than necessary is usually requested when the person questioning seeks to quickly undermine or delegitimise a point somebody is making, or to negate personal experience or observation.

I suspect this point will be responded to with "well you just don't like being challenged", or some personal remark of that kind.
But what is actually being challenged?
That predators/manipulators don't exist? - I don't think anybody would agree with this!
That predators/manipulators don't exist on this site? - again, who truly believes this?


2. One thing I have noticed that manipulators tend to do quite often, especially online, is derail a conversation (potentially by turning it into a heated debate or even an argument).
The manipulator/predator will then claim that the thread doesn't serve a purpose, or that it no longer serves it's original purpose.
Then they may attempt to encourage a moderator to lock/delete the thread and perhaps even take action against the person who started the thread (in this case, me).
As far as I have been able to tell so far, the moderators on this website are more than fair and only intervene when absolutely necessary. However if this course of action comes to pass, be suspicious.

I'm now awaiting an accusation that I am "paranoid" - I've seen it all before ;)


As an aside, a thread exists that provides a short but useful summary of some manipulation tactics (below). More detailed information can be found elsewhere online.

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/manipulation-tactics.31123/

You were wrong from the beginning and now tou try to frame me as a manipualtor because you do not want to accept it.

Why depict me as a manipulator?
Only because you were wrong?

The thing that they don't like to challenged applies to you also.

"I have been considering some of the things that have been said, and I have this to say..."

Only thing that comes to my mind is:
You could have not lived with your failure. Where that brought you? Back to me.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

I've just logged back in.
I have been considering some of the things that have been said, and I have this to say...

I am very experienced at dealing with individuals of a predatory or manipulative disposition, and I feel no need whatsoever to reply to some of the comments made within the last 20 or so posts.
The purpose of this thread is obvious to anyone with living tissue within their skulls.

I would urge readers to be aware of all that follows:

Predators/manipulators don't like to be:

- Called out/challenged
- Held accountable for their actions
- etc

Predators/manipulators tend to employ indirect and often convoluted methods to achieve their aim, cover their tracks, defend themselves, or shut down those who oppose their behaviour.
I am going to suggest that this may be happening on this thread.


1. In every day conversation it is perfectly acceptable for people to have a discussion based on shared experience or observation, without undue or excessive burden of proof being required to 'legitimise' what is being discussed.
Should undue or excessive burden of proof then be requested by somebody else, it raises the question why this is needed.
In my experience of debating (in several different contexts, including in national competitions while at university) as well as my experience dealing with highly manipulative individuals, a much greater burden of proof than necessary is usually requested when the person questioning seeks to quickly undermine or delegitimise a point somebody is making, or to negate personal experience or observation.

I suspect this point will be responded to with "well you just don't like being challenged", or some personal remark of that kind.
But what is actually being challenged?
That predators/manipulators don't exist? - I don't think anybody would agree with this!
That predators/manipulators don't exist on this site? - again, who truly believes this?


2. One thing I have noticed that manipulators tend to do quite often, especially online, is derail a conversation (potentially by turning it into a heated debate or even an argument).
The manipulator/predator will then claim that the thread doesn't serve a purpose, or that it no longer serves it's original purpose.
On occasion, the manipulator may attempt to undermine your motives for sharing an opinion, expressing a view or starting a thread. Obfuscation tactics ('smoke and mirrors') may be employed by the manipulator to make out that you're being 'confusing', 'unclear' or even 'inconsistent'. These are just personal attacks designed to undermine both the point of the conversation/thread as well as the 'legitimacy' of the person who started it.
Then they may attempt to encourage a moderator to lock/delete the thread and perhaps even take action against the person who started the thread (in this case, me).
As far as I have been able to tell so far, the moderators on this website are more than fair and only intervene when absolutely necessary. However if this course of action comes to pass, be suspicious.

I'm now awaiting an accusation that I am "paranoid" - I've seen it all before ;)


As an aside, a thread exists that provides a short but useful summary of some manipulation tactics (below). More detailed information can be found elsewhere online.

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/manipulation-tactics.31123/

Living tissue in skull now necrotizing. My mind has officially been blown.

Engaging ignore button with what little strength I have left in a last-ditch effort to protect my accurate perceptions of reality.

 

[Ghost2211]

I generally see support or neutrality among the community towards goodbye threads. if somebody gets inappropriate people tend to point it out pretty quickly. If you have specific grievances with specific people's behavior it's probably best to take it up with those people or moderators. I really don't get a pro suicide vibe from this group. Giving people Straightforward logical information or accuracy about risks and methods is not encouraging suicide, but rather educating.

 

[muffin222]

I've just logged back in.
I have been considering some of the things that have been said, and I have this to say...

I am very experienced at dealing with individuals of a predatory or manipulative disposition, and I feel no need whatsoever to reply to some of the comments made within the last 20 or so posts.
The purpose of this thread is obvious to anyone with living tissue within their skulls.

I would urge readers to be aware of all that follows:

Predators/manipulators don't like to be:

- Called out/challenged
- Held accountable for their actions
- etc

Predators/manipulators tend to employ indirect and often convoluted methods to achieve their aim, cover their tracks, defend themselves, or shut down those who oppose their behaviour.
I am going to suggest that this may be happening on this thread.


1. In every day conversation it is perfectly acceptable for people to have a discussion based on shared experience or observation, without undue or excessive burden of proof being required to 'legitimise' what is being discussed.
Should undue or excessive burden of proof then be requested by somebody else, it raises the question why this is needed.
In my experience of debating (in several different contexts, including in national competitions while at university) as well as my experience dealing with highly manipulative individuals, a much greater burden of proof than necessary is usually requested when the person questioning seeks to quickly undermine or delegitimise a point somebody is making, or to negate personal experience or observation.

I suspect this point will be responded to with "well you just don't like being challenged", or some personal remark of that kind.
But what is actually being challenged?
That predators/manipulators don't exist? - I don't think anybody would agree with this!
That predators/manipulators don't exist on this site? - again, who truly believes this?


1.b. Sometimes a manipulator will employ a 'statistical argument'. I actually quite enjoy it when they do this because having studied maths at university, in cases that this has happened I have usually found myself debating with somebody who doesn't actually *understand* basic statistics.
Almost invariable, the crux of a statistical argument in such contexts is "it doesn't happen very often, therefore it doesn't need to be considered, and can be forgotten about".
How many abusive men say this to their partner: "I don't hit you very often....and so can be skip over it please"?
In the case of predators/manipulators on this site, it may be that the relatively small number of members who create issues require the most attention from moderators, create issues for other members, or say the most unhelpful things.


2. One thing I have noticed that manipulators tend to do quite often, especially online, is derail a conversation (potentially by turning it into a heated debate or even an argument).
The manipulator/predator will then claim that the thread doesn't serve a purpose, or that it no longer serves it's original purpose.
On occasion, the manipulator may attempt to undermine your motives for sharing an opinion, expressing a view or starting a thread. Obfuscation tactics ('smoke and mirrors') may be employed by the manipulator to make out that you're being 'confusing', 'unclear' or even 'inconsistent'. These are just personal attacks designed to undermine both the point of the conversation/thread as well as the 'legitimacy' of the person who started it.
Then they may attempt to encourage a moderator to lock/delete the thread and perhaps even take action against the person who started the thread (in this case, me).
As far as I have been able to tell so far, the moderators on this website are more than fair and only intervene when absolutely necessary. However if this course of action comes to pass, be suspicious.

I'm now awaiting an accusation that I am "paranoid" - I've seen it all before ;)


As an aside, a thread exists that provides a short but useful summary of some manipulation tactics (below). More detailed information can be found elsewhere online.

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/manipulation-tactics.31123/

Orrrrrrr, maybe some people just don't agree with your assessment and are confused as to why you're viewing this site in a certain light when there appears to be no concrete proof that your claims are factually true? Not everyone who disagrees or questions you is a manipulator. Nice try

 

[BipolarGuy]

Orrrrrrr, maybe some people just don't agree with your assessment and are confused as to why you're viewing this site in a certain light when there appears to be no concrete proof that your claims are factually true? Not everyone who disagrees or questions you is a manipulator. Nice try

Some people have observed the things discussed in the original post, some people haven't.
Throughout the course of the thread other members have added to what was stated in the original post.
But for those that haven't observed or experienced these things to negate the experiences or observations of those that have feels uncomfortable to me.

I am not viewing the website in a "certain light".
I said in the original post that I do not blame the website for the actions or behaviour of a minority of members.

I wish you all the best.

I generally see support or neutrality among the community towards goodbye threads. if somebody gets inappropriate people tend to point it out pretty quickly. If you have specific grievances with specific people's behavior it's probably best to take it up with those people or moderators. I really don't get a pro suicide vibe from this group. Giving people Straightforward logical information or accuracy about risks and methods is not encouraging suicide, but rather educating.

Yes, I agree that this is the intention of the vast majority of people on this forum.

 

[checkouttime]

Hey, that shit with "it was lost in translation" it was clearly a low blow in order to make fun of my typos and grammar mistakes. Dont fuck with me.
Bipolarguy did it, you did it too now. Or whoever said it.

don't try and change subject, a minute ago it wasn't lost in translation YOU SAID IT. he actually pointed it out to me, and i said that was a crazy bit of a mix up. which it clearly was, as i think it was saying the opposite of what you actually mean....... i think. you're changing your mind that much its hard to know what your thinking

IF you had been paying attention not me, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Its not my fault it was you that got confused and din't read shit properly. you want to take a bit of your own advice and read things properly and pay attention.

I'm not after an arguement.but you tried make me look like i was doing something wrong. I had actually done exactly what you said i hadnt done, and then had a go at me for not doing!!

blame you for something you haven't done....its all in blank and white for people to see.!

 

[BipolarGuy]

I agree with your observations.
There is support here. There is also, sometimes abuse and real danger.
Plus, some do not seem to understand the concept of choice and will villify neutrality: 'if you are not with us you are against us.' I have no time for that attitude.
Personally, I find definitions of pro choice/pro life to be limiting and disingenuous. Things are more nuanced and conflicting in the real world.

I find your post, and that of @worried_to_death from earlier in the thread (below) very accurate and insightful.

There even seems to be a tendency (just a tendency on occasion) to interpret 'pro choice' sentiments as pro-life ones, and then to oppose them with more of a de facto 'pro-death' stance. So, saying "If you don't want to do it, there is no shame in choosing not to", is interpreted as being pro-life (even though it's pro-choice), and any sentiment which is in exact accordance (or doesn't contradict in any conceivable way) with someone who is ctb'ing is said to be 'pro-choice', even though it is technically pro-death (which I don't have a problem with as long as there is no active encouragement or goading to do anything).

Before I heard of this site, I also only understood 'pro life' as applying to anti-abortionists, and 'pro-choice' as women's right to choose, so I've only had a short exposure to all the talk and rhetoric around pro-life/pro choice as it's specifically used here.

So from my understanding, 'pro-life' here seems to mean being opposed to suicide as a matter of ideology or principle, and not respecting an individual's basic right over their own lives to either continue existing or not according to their will. In that case, I am definitely not 'pro life'.

tl;dr : there seems to be an occasional lack of clarity/lack of consistency/ambiguity/weaponizing, in some of the terminology used here, specifically around pro-life, pro-choice

 

[esse_est_percipi]

I've just read through this whole thread.

It's a shame it sort of degenerated. I'm not saying that any one person was responsible for this. Maybe the nature of the subject raised is such that it will generate strong responses one way or the other. Especially the longer a thread goes on.

I still think that a legitimate concern was raised in the OP, and I also agree, going by what I've experienced, that the vast majority of users are respectful, non-coercive and non-manipulative.

 

[SipSop]

don't try and change subject, a minute ago it wasn't lost in translation YOU SAID IT. he actually pointed it out to me, and i said that was a crazy bit of a mix up. which it clearly was, as i think it was saying the opposite of what you actually mean....... i think. you're changing your mind that much its hard to know what your thinking

IF you had been paying attention not me, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Its not my fault it was you that got confused and din't read shit properly. you want to take a bit of your own advice and read things properly and pay attention.

I'm not after an arguement.but you tried make me look like i was doing something wrong. I had actually done exactly what you said i hadnt done, and then had a go at me for not doing!!

blame you for something you haven't done....its all in blank and white for people to see.!

I got bored of this topic honestly but I will attempt to explain it to you one more time: the "lost in translation" bit was about me not understanding his first assesment due to the fact that english is not my first language. Framing it as if I do not understand properly what he meant from english in my own language therefore being "lost in translation" from his initial statement.
That's why I said/replied: it was not lost in translation. (Because I understood what he initially wrote in his first post wich started this debate).
I don't know how I can make it more clear for you.

 

[checkouttime]

I got bored of this topic honestly but I will attempt to explain it to you one more time: the "lost in translation" bit was about me not understanding his first assesment due to the fact that english is not my first language. Framing it as if I do not understand properly what he meant from english in my own language therefore being "lost in translation" from his initial statement.
That's why I said/replied: it was not lost in translation. (Because I understood what he initially wrote in his first post wich started this debate).
I don't know how I can make it more clear for you.

thats not right, the lost in translation part was me asking (1)"Are you saying its ok to encourage members to die? thats what that sounds like to me, reading that!"

I wrote that because you had written

(2)."It is unfair of you to criticise members of this community for encouraging you to die when you post about a method you want to go"

It was actually nothing to do with what you thought.

It was pointed out to me,that you may have written something and it didn't translate properly(see quote 2).

that was all. then you said it wasn't 'lost in translation' i hadn't been paying attention or replied to you personally. I did all of these things you say i didn't.

there wasn't a problem, i asked you a question based on what i thought you had written. it was then pointed out to me, it might be for the translation reason.

you then proceeded to accuse me of doing/not doing things, which i had actually made the time and effort to do.

I'm not being accused of stuff that i haven't done. i will defend myself to the hilt if this happens.

If i had done something wrong i would just admit it, i have done this before. but i didn't, i did all the things you accused me of not doing.hence the replies you have got.

 

[Rubyandthemoon]

@muffin222's comment reminds me that many of the outside criticisms of this site are that when someone posts a goodbye thread, no one suggests they get help, and that we cheer them on and "it's sick."

I came to this site not as someone who is considering dying, but as a griever of my daughter's father who did die by suicide with zero warning and no clues as to why. I came to observe and try to understand more than anything. Because I am confused, heartbroken and don't want to be angry with him. Obviously being from the grief community, I have heard those critiques and I have heard at one point from the family member of a user. Not to me directly, just in general discussion.

But honestly? I am not finding those criticisms to be true. Yes, there are instructions on various methods, and further clarifications if someone asks for it, but I don't see anyone pushing anyone to go through with CTB. I see people who genuinely care that a person only does that if it is truly what they want, and urging them to carefully consider when it seems like there may be doubts. Otherwise, I see wishes for people to go peacefully when the decision is made.

It's surreal for me to say, given the circumstances that landed me here, but this is one of the most empathetic, compassionate and beautiful spaces I've seen on the Internet.

 

[SipSop]

thats not right, the lost in translation part was me asking (1)"Are you saying its ok to encourage members to die? thats what that sounds like to me, reading that!"

I wrote that because you had written

(2)."It is unfair of you to criticise members of this community for encouraging you to die when you post about a method you want to go"

It was actually nothing to do with what you thought.

It was pointed out to me,that you may have written something and it didn't translate properly(see quote 2).

that was all. then you said it wasn't 'lost in translation' i hadn't been paying attention or replied to you personally. I did all of these things you say i didn't.

there wasn't a problem, i asked you a question based on what i thought you had written. it was then pointed out to me, it might be for the translation reason.

you then proceeded to accuse me of doing/not doing things, which i had actually made the time and effort to do.

I'm not being accused of stuff that i haven't done. i will defend myself to the hilt if this happens.

If i had done something wrong i would just admit it, i have done this before. but i didn't, i did all the things you accused me of not doing.hence the replies you have got.

I really don't know what I can answer more on any of this statements. They all have been clearly answered in my previous statements.
1. The encouragement of people to die I answered already that: it is fine to do that IF they choose to die . It is alright because this is a pro-choice website.
2. The "lost in translation" bit stated that I might have misunderstood any of your statements. Yours and Bipolarguy. Wich I didn't.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

I still think that a legitimate concern was raised in the OP

I don't disagree that a legitimate concern was raised.

What I'm noticing, though, is that people are taking exception to it or arguing that it doesn't happen, and that the issue is getting muddied because nothing specific has been pointed to in order to illustrate the concern. Then the OP claims an unfair burden of proof is being put on him, and that manipulation is afoot -- again without naming names or pointing out specific examples.

There have been times when I've called out pro-life infiltration on the site. I've been called paranoid. People said they didn't see what I saw. So I defended my position with specific examples, and the next time it happened, I followed up and notified some of those who had said they were unaware when it went on.

I'm frustrated here because it seems like the OP likes those who agree with him, but anyone who doesn't is labeled a manipulator and vilainized for questioning his position.

No examples to support claims + name-calling/labeling + accusations of ill or malicious intent when disagreed with or questioned = (from my perspective) weak position and/or weak debate or discursive skills. It's not an undue burden to challenge one to put up or shut up, and no one has told him to shut up, unless I missed it.

 

[SipSop]

It's not an undue burden to challenge one to put up or shut up, and no one has told him to shut up, unless I missed it.

I know I didn't.

And I did felt like I was made the villain here. (I do not state this to victimise myself).

 

[esse_est_percipi]

People said they didn't see what I saw. So I defended my position with specific examples, and the next time it happened, I followed up and notified some of those who had said they were unaware when it went on

this would seem to be the best course of action to take, yes. Maybe the OP just isn't able to access the specific examples he came across because he can't recall the exact threads and messages. So he's relaying his general impressions and assumes other members will accept that he's speaking in good faith. And he did actually give one example in the OP.

Then the OP claims an unfair burden of proof is being put on him, and that manipulation is afoot -- again without naming names or pointing out specific examples.

What I do think is that shaky accusations of 'manipulation' are easy to make. It's the kind of thing a manipulator might do (I'm not implying by that that I think the OP is a manipulator btw).

I can understand what you're saying, and I don't actually have a strong objection to what you've said.

I don't think I want to contribute to this thread anymore though.

 

[puppy9]

Human are fucked up and they're everywhere, get use to it.

You can talk about it ,but please don't get so worked up.

I think this site does it best to reduce the fucked up scale.

Spoiler: Nuts