Could SaSu be seen as liberation movement?

[noname223]

I mean some people consider Hamas a liberation movement. Why not SaSu? Of course this question is not fully serious. In my opinion one could see this forum as part of the right do die movement. Jokingly with dark humor one could also consider it a liberation movement.
Probably mostly from the standards that the psychiatry sets up for us. Calling everyone who wants to die mentally ill. Or the distorted illusion that everyone who has a mental illness cannot be rational about dying.

I am neither against medication nor therapy. However the take of the psychiatry on suicide is horrendous. One could also see it as liberation of the societal expectations on suicidal people. Simply praying to get better, changing the perspective or here and there calling a hotline. These are cheap solutions for complex issues and they don't work for many. If we rebel against so much hypocrisy the elites and media outlets should not be surprised. But they act like everyone on here could simply get helped if they only reached out. Many of us tried so much to get better. And many simply cannot get an acceptable life quality. And they simply do not acknowledge that.

So maybe we rebel against the societal hypocrisy on this issue. The right to die can also feel like an empowerment. For me it gives me strength to continue the fight for survival knowing there is an escape just in case. The knowledge of how to end it can feel liberating and empower oneself to make the best out of the possible opportunities.

What do you think?

 

[Celerity]

Like @Chinaski, I am not really into a lot of the calls for activism I see on here. I strongly support euthanasia for those with debilitating and painful illness. I am not sure if society should make it much more widely accessible beyond those cases. Having a place where I can share my thoughts with likeminded people is enough. Unlike the terminally ill, I have the means to make this decision for myself, and I do not feel that anyone has an obligation to assist me to relieve my mental anguish. I am pro-choice only to the extent that I wish to be left alone to make my own decision. That's as far as I take the politics - leave me be; I'll figure the rest of it out myself.

 

[Praestat_Mori]

I strongly support euthanasia for those with debilitating and painful illness. I am not sure if society should make it much more widely accessible beyond those cases.

It should be obvious for this group. But there are many more reasons for people to consider CTB, beyond those extreme cases, long before someone reaches such a low in their lives.

I am pro-choice only to the extent that I wish to be left alone to make my own decision. That's as far as I take the politics - leave me be; I'll figure the rest of it out myself.

We have the ability to figure this out on our own but I think the crucial point is: politics make peaceful methods (especially N) unavailable for for everyone who wants to end their lives on their own terms without being "almost dead" (= eligible for euthanasia).

 

[Celerity]

It should be obvious for this group. But there are many more reasons for people to consider CTB, beyond those extreme cases, long before someone reaches such a low in their lives.


We have the ability to figure this out on our own but I think the crucial point is: politics make peaceful methods (especially N) unavailable for for everyone who wants to end their lives on their own terms without being "almost dead" (= eligible for euthanasia).

But just think for a moment what society would look like if those methods were readily available. There is an inherent conflict between what may be best for an individual and what may be best for the group as a whole. A lot of folks on here have desired suicide for years, perhaps most of their lives as I have, but there are also many for whom suicide actually is an impulsive decision. And even with someone like me who has contemplated suicide for almost 20 years, I have contributed to society more than I have taken from it over that time. The situation from a societal standpoint is far more intricate and difficult than the question of morality on an individual basis.

 

[Praestat_Mori]

But just think for a moment what society would look like if those methods were readily available. There is an inherent conflict between what may be best for an individual and what may be best for the group as a whole. A lot of folks on here have desired suicide for years, perhaps most of their lives as I have, but there are also many for whom suicide actually is an impulsive decision. And even with someone like me who has contemplated suicide for almost 20 years, I have contributed to society more than I have taken from it over that time. The situation from a societal standpoint is far more intricate and difficult than the question of morality on an individual basis.

That whole topic is complex and it's impossible to draw a clear line. I don't want to go into much details now bc there would be as many personal reasons to CTB as individuals living on this planet.

I'm pretty sure that passively suicidal people are a minority in each society and the actively suicidal people from all of the suicidal people are also a minority. Even if in the next 24h 1 billion humans committed suicide the world would just go on. Please don't get me wrong with this statement here!

If we gave everyone, who's registered here, a bottle of N it's likely that a majority would drink it but that's only the top of the iceberg and not representative for a whole population of a country. I'm convinced that if we had a representative number of individuals of a country that it would be a small minority actually killing themselves which would not affect the whole system at all. SI is still the best protection even if N was easier available - as a peaceful method.

 

[Celerity]

That whole topic is complex and it's impossible to draw a clear line. I don't want to go into much details now bc there would be as many personal reasons to CTB as individuals living on this planet.

I'm pretty sure that passively suicidal people are a minority in each society and the actively suicidal people from all of the suicidal people are also a minority. Even if in the next 24h 1 billion humans committed suicide the world would just go on. Please don't get me wrong with this statement here!

If we gave everyone, who's registered here, a bottle of N it's likely that a majority would drink it but that's only the top of the iceberg and not representative for a whole population of a country. I'm convinced that if we had a representative number of individuals of a country that it would be a small minority actually killing themselves which would not affect the whole system at all. SI is still the best protection even if N was easier available - as a peaceful method.

I think you're underestimating how few dead people it would take to throw the economy off course, but without a huge social experiment, we can't know. I guess it depends on how easy it is to obtain euthanasia for mental illness in the countries where it is allowed.

 

[MyLuckyStars]

itd be a hard sell. to the average joe, we look like a demented suicide cult that preys on the vulnerable and urges them to join our ranks a la vampirism. never pays to underestimate the layman's attachment to life, be it theirs or others. if we ever wanted to obtain legitimacy, we would probably need to have a skilled orator as a representative (that is not at risk of ctb himself) and misc. administrative changes like strict age verification and tighter moderation of harder to swallow posts (sh tutorials/anti-natalist philosophy posts). it would inevitably shed a bit of its authenticity in the process, if you would call it that. the best result we could hope for would be the de facto acceptance of the idea that it is the right of anyone to end their own life, should they be willing for a prolonged enough period of time (and consequent increased availability of more effective/painless methods to public). i don't think its impossible, but it would have to be a dramatic shift from the way things are

 

[Praestat_Mori]

I think you're underestimating how few dead people it would take to throw the economy off course, but without a huge social experiment, we can't know. I guess it depends on how easy it is to obtain euthanasia for mental illness in the countries where it is allowed.

Maybe I underestimate it maybe not. It would certainly depend on which "groups" would have the most "losses". "The economy" and "social pressures" especially for nowadays youth are one of the major factors for MH issues and a slow down would certainly help here. But that'd be another point to be discussed in the whole complex topic. (= prevention of MH issues/suicides long before someone even has to consider such a drastic step !!)

"mental illness" is sth that cannot be physically recognized / be seen like a "terminal illness bc of cancer". That is actually one of the biggest problems here.

I'd never get euthanasia (although I'm middle aged) bc of my failure in life which will inevitably lead to a life in poverty although I have no MH issues (no serious ones yet) or other physical illnesses yet. I still do not want to experience any further decline of my current life quality and society cannot force me to experience that.

Do I not qualify for a peaceful method that is easily available?

Well, we know from reports that N can be sourced in certain countries even from foreigners. Do those countries have higher suicide rates among their locals? I'm pretty sure that for locals it'd be so much easier to get a peaceful method like N than for foreigners. It'll be similar in other countries and the "West".

 

[Slow_Farewell]

IF Sasu was a liberation movement similar to Hamas, we'd never get off the ground.

 

[Praestat_Mori]

IF Sasu was a liberation movement similar to Hamas, we'd never get off the ground.

We (SS Community) have as less support as the invaded people of the region have from the US (as actually the US are the invaders) in regards of this. (I don't wanna become political here ...)

 

[Celerity]

Maybe I underestimate it maybe not. It would certainly depend on which "groups" would have the most "losses". "The economy" and "social pressures" especially for nowadays youth are one of the major factors for MH issues and a slow down would certainly help here. But that'd be another point to be discussed in the whole complex topic. (= prevention of MH issues/suicides long before someone even has to consider such a drastic step !!)

"mental illness" is sth that cannot be physically recognized / be seen like a "terminal illness bc of cancer". That is actually one of the biggest problems here.

I'd never get euthanasia (although I'm middle aged) bc of my failure in life which will inevitably lead to a life in poverty although I have no MH issues (no serious ones yet) or other physical illnesses yet. I still do not want to experience any further decline of my current life quality and society cannot force me to experience that.

Do I not qualify for a peaceful method that is easily available?

Well, we know from reports that N can be sourced in certain countries even from foreigners. Do those countries have higher suicide rates among their locals? I'm pretty sure that for locals it'd be so much easier to get a peaceful method like N than for foreigners. It'll be similar in other countries and the "West".

I don't think N is a well-known or commonly used suicide method around the world. If you asked a random person off the street in those countries if N could be used for suicide, I honestly doubt many people would know what you're talking about, and the lack of knowledge would be even more profound before the rise of N's popularity online.