TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,612
It really frustrates me how the masses and mainstream normies consider that "coping" is a solution to whatever problem one is facing. To start things off, as a disclaimer, I am not going to disparage those who wish (on their own) to using coping as a strategy to endure or even as their 'personal' solution to their problems, if that's what they want. In fact, this article is aimed towards people who promote coping as a means of a solution to one's problems without regards to how a person may perceive it. It is not only presumptuous, but also insulting and invalidating towards the person it is being addressed to as it presumes that if said person simply "coped away" whatever suffering that is bothering them, then all will be good and everything is great again! This couldn't be farther from the truth! In fact, coping basically means to tolerate or to put up with whatever one deems insufferable, intolerable, or unacceptable, and does little to affect the situation nor improve it. It doesn't solve the problems, it simply just makes oneself endure unnecessary suffering just for the sake of prolonging one's torment.
Part of my inspiration for writing this article comes from one of the posts in that thread, from the user @surroundedbydemons, as that person mentioned about the family putting their son's picture on a badge as an attempt to virtue signal and cope over the loss of life. I do think that if that makes the family feel better, then that's their prerogative, but for others, it still doesn't address the systemic issues that cause the problem(s) that everyone is facing in present reality.
Anyways, back to the article about how coping mechanisms aren't necessarily solutions to many problem(s). First off, not everyone is interested in tolerating what they deem intolerable, nor do they wish to. It isn't anymore rational nor irrational to simply do so because one can adapt. Many animals adapt to shitty circumstances that nature and other species cause them, but it doesn't make it more just or acceptable; it's just that in the eyes of the universe, the universe (a non-sentient entity) would not care for whatever happens to said animal. Furthermore, it would be an appeal to nature rather than an actual argument of the topic. Just because that is what is natural for our self-preservation instincts to keep us alive, even if it isn't what we wanted.
Next, I want to address the adaptability argument. The adaptability argument that a lot of pro-lifers like to use is the fact that one is capable (and should!) adapt to whatever adversity or circumstance that one faces, be it debility, poverty, or other insufferable circumstance(s). Not only is that a non-sequitur, a strawman, and many other fallacies, but also rather dismissive of one's personal choice. Furthermore, the logic in the adaptability argument is rather circular in nature, especially this snippet part of it. "If you adapt, then you accept the circumstances, but if you don't adapt then you don't accept it (the circumstances)." It is circular because the condition that makes adaptation true is contingent on acceptance of it or vice versa. Therefore, it would be considered one of those unfalsifiable statements, where you simply cannot disprove it.
Additionally, the use of such an argument is relegating the targeted person's grievances to nothing but psychological processes, which is of course, nothing more than just an underhanded way to invalidate and dismiss others' problems and sufferings. This is because instead of respecting or even honoring said person's choice with regards what they wish to do with their plight, they are instead pushed onto de facto "accepting" whatever circumstance (regardless of whether they wish to or not) that they find themselves in. This is not acceptable nor tolerable to said person!
In conclusion, for some people coping may very well be what they do, and perhaps that's what they want, which is fine in that case. However, when normies and many people EXPECT that everyone copes and puts up with situations and/or circumstances that one deems intolerable, then it infringes upon one's personal freedom as well as their choice on bodily autonomy (and their life). Therefore, we are in a constant contention with pro-lifers and anti-choicers who not only disrespect our choices, but also to relegate our suffering to simply a matter of 'coping' and enduring unfavorable conditions and circumstances.
Part of my inspiration for writing this article comes from one of the posts in that thread, from the user @surroundedbydemons, as that person mentioned about the family putting their son's picture on a badge as an attempt to virtue signal and cope over the loss of life. I do think that if that makes the family feel better, then that's their prerogative, but for others, it still doesn't address the systemic issues that cause the problem(s) that everyone is facing in present reality.
Anyways, back to the article about how coping mechanisms aren't necessarily solutions to many problem(s). First off, not everyone is interested in tolerating what they deem intolerable, nor do they wish to. It isn't anymore rational nor irrational to simply do so because one can adapt. Many animals adapt to shitty circumstances that nature and other species cause them, but it doesn't make it more just or acceptable; it's just that in the eyes of the universe, the universe (a non-sentient entity) would not care for whatever happens to said animal. Furthermore, it would be an appeal to nature rather than an actual argument of the topic. Just because that is what is natural for our self-preservation instincts to keep us alive, even if it isn't what we wanted.
Next, I want to address the adaptability argument. The adaptability argument that a lot of pro-lifers like to use is the fact that one is capable (and should!) adapt to whatever adversity or circumstance that one faces, be it debility, poverty, or other insufferable circumstance(s). Not only is that a non-sequitur, a strawman, and many other fallacies, but also rather dismissive of one's personal choice. Furthermore, the logic in the adaptability argument is rather circular in nature, especially this snippet part of it. "If you adapt, then you accept the circumstances, but if you don't adapt then you don't accept it (the circumstances)." It is circular because the condition that makes adaptation true is contingent on acceptance of it or vice versa. Therefore, it would be considered one of those unfalsifiable statements, where you simply cannot disprove it.
Additionally, the use of such an argument is relegating the targeted person's grievances to nothing but psychological processes, which is of course, nothing more than just an underhanded way to invalidate and dismiss others' problems and sufferings. This is because instead of respecting or even honoring said person's choice with regards what they wish to do with their plight, they are instead pushed onto de facto "accepting" whatever circumstance (regardless of whether they wish to or not) that they find themselves in. This is not acceptable nor tolerable to said person!
In conclusion, for some people coping may very well be what they do, and perhaps that's what they want, which is fine in that case. However, when normies and many people EXPECT that everyone copes and puts up with situations and/or circumstances that one deems intolerable, then it infringes upon one's personal freedom as well as their choice on bodily autonomy (and their life). Therefore, we are in a constant contention with pro-lifers and anti-choicers who not only disrespect our choices, but also to relegate our suffering to simply a matter of 'coping' and enduring unfavorable conditions and circumstances.
