Alan James said:
She said that she nowhere wants to work (name of the tread - "Fuck Work"), that the problem is in the system itself, that she hates this wageslavery system, if there was an opportunity not to work - then she would not work at all and live.
I'm afraid the only response I can give to this is the same response I've already given. Or to put it another way I have trouble picturing someone who is otherwise mentally and physically healthy, who has a reasonably fulfilling social life, and some support network taking their life entirely because of their job, which is not to say she had those things, but to stress that if she didn't I can't see how it wasn't a major factor. Moreover we don't know what components of her working life were making her so miserable. Was it workplace bullying? Was she being harassed by co-workers? Did she simply feel completely alienated and alone at work? What was the reason she couldn't pursue another job? Issues like this are much broader than
the stresses of work. Moreover for all we know even if she'd been in a position to quit her job she might have ended up in the same position. The grass is always greener after all. I don't work, and she might well have envied that aspect of my lifestyle, but I envy the fact that she had a job, yet I would wager real money if we switched places for a year we might well be equally miserable at the end of it, and perhaps nothing would have changed. So maybe her job or some facet of it was the straw that broke the camels back, but I guarantee there were other straws. That's what I'm trying to get across. I doubt many people who CTB spend hours introspectively adding up and elaborating on every single event in their life, every component of their lifestyle, and all their internal problems which brought them to that decision. In most cases, even when they leave us an explanation, I think what we do not know will always be outweighed by what we do, at least for those of us who weren't very close to the person in question.
omoidarui said:
This translates to me as something that would align with the ethos of this forum's opposers - aka those who are 'pro-life' - as it's close to the implication that every suicidal person's idealisations are curable, just with the 'right support'. I'm personally not sure about this
I absolutely don't think every suicidal person can be saved, but in the absence of certain devastating and generally chronic psychological or physical problems suicide is generally the result of a negative, downward spiral resulting from compounding psycho-social-physical issues. The point that they could, in many cases, be arrested or even reversed with the right support is essentially a technicality. That support is not available to everyone. In fact the further down you spiral the less likely you are to be able to find it, and often it's absence is among the cause of that downward spiral in the first place. Often instead of support you get the exact opposite. So to the extent that suicide represents a cultural issue I am 'pro-life,' in wanting to oppose those issues at the cultural level
without interfering with people's right to choose, and I would be the last person to tell someone that suicide is not an option or that there is always help. I know for a fact that is a lie, and I believe it's one that does vastly more harm than good.
omoidarui said:
I don't know, because this analogy very loosely reminds me of documentaries of certain aviation disasters where subsequent to the investigation, it was indeed the system that was blamed (i.e. the training procedure for pilots) rather than the pilots themselves who manned the aircraft at the time of the incident. I still feel like I'm being dense for how I'm interpreting your post - if an employee is guilty of negligence in their business activities, from a legal standpoint isn't it the company as a whole that's held accountable and not the individual?
Like I said assigning fault is difficult in large systems where culpability is often spread thin. But to go with your example I would suggest the people at fault are those who established those procedures. The only time I think a company should be culpable for a negligent employee's actions is if they were a byproduct of it's policies, and even then I would rather hold the policy-makers accountable, but whether you're following orders or policies at the same time I can't help but feel the Nuremberg trials had the right idea; it may mitigate culpability but it does not erase responsibility. These were situations where people risked being executed and having their families put in concentration camps for insubordination so I have limited sympathy for someone who is 'just following orders,' to keep a cushy job.
omoidarui said:
And how can the context of 'flawed politics stemming from flawed people' apply in the context of Shawn's family and wageslavery - the family have no control over the things that I've perceived Shawn as saying to be blamable for her ctb (again, not trying to change anyone's views, just seeking to understand this particular one).
Again, culpability is spread very thin in large systems, but we almost all contribute to our socio-cultural norms to some extent. Some more than others. I don't care to speculate in this case because I don't know them. But who knows whether or not their attitudes were a factor? All I know is if I were her mother I would be doing a lot less scapegoating and a lot more introspection, and I say this as someone who has been in a similar position where someone I cared for a great deal CTB'd without any apparent warning. Though that was far from pleasant, and I suppose it's no surprise some people would do anything rather than ask themselves such questions. That I would argue is one of our
most destructive cultural norms.
