That's good news! Though how will we deal with the outsiders like FT26/Stop SS and NYT? Or will we just keep doing our own thing, regardless of what they think about us?
Or do they have no power over us?
We can't control what they think about us and they obviously don't care about our actual position on this matter. They made that very clear in that NYT article, so all that's left to do is accept the current situation and move forward. We're experiencing the same treatment as many other civil right movements in the past. And altough we're not really a movement, many of us in this community challenge the status quo - especially when it comes to mental health, how it's perceived in society and the right to die - which is a human right. And there is a long history of the media attacking and smearing people that did this in the past. For example, just a few months ago, the BBC released an article declaring trans people predatory
and relied completely on voices
that oppose trans-rights to back up their terrible narrative. It's an interesting incident because it mirrors the NYT situation in very important aspect. They didn't interview one single trans woman for that article, it was a one-sided terrible hit piece pushing a very obvious narrative - in simple terms, they portrayed trans people as a threat because they don't like that we exist. And that's exactly what has happened in the NYT article describing the forum as well. They let other people, outsiders, that oppose us purely for ideological
reasons redefine us and our intentions and the journalists run with it without questioning the given narrative or doing their own research. And suddenly a community of struggling people discussing deeply personal matters has been constructed as dangerous and sinister. It's absurd but that's 1:1 what the BBC did with their smear piece on trans women a few months ago as well. I see so many similiarities about the way they talked about us, that's why I'm drawing the parallels. It's a common strategy. The BBC is a huge news outlet, they have a responsibility. And just like the NYT, they failed to act accordingly and it has no consequences for them. So in a sense I'm used to the bad faith treatment of the media but I also have a personal interest in criticising them. Minorities and marginalised groups standing up for their rights and advocating for change have always faced an uphill battle in the history of civil rights and social acceptance of their ideas. And suicidal people surely are marginalised, there is no question about that - our voices has been erased for centuries. We're not allowed to exist and it's totally fine to neglect or even violate our humans rights systemically. This is completely normal. People that oppose the philosophy behind this forum know they can't really win on the merits of this issue so they engage in these logical fallacies and make it about vulnerable people
instead, these talking points are ovious distractions considering this forum is about consenting and autonomous adults. It's a common strategy of the social-conservative playbook because it gurantees social outrage and that was the goal of said article. It's certainly important to deconstruct these articles that run a dishonest campaign against the forum but at a certain point it becomes a waste of time and energy. So I'd say we just move on. The article obviously didn't score anything.
Glad everything is back like it was :D. I hope everything is doing okay for you Rain, it seems like all the pro-lifers are attacking you specifically. So many people find comfort on here all thanks to you and the team.
Cheers for Pro-choice!
I'm aware. They've already picked me as their next target. I' will not let them harass or threaten us into submission, that's for sure. Thanks though.