Discussion Discussion About Choosing One's Own Method and Managing What Others Think About It

[GoodPersonEffed]

Asssuming there is interest and participation, I hope the comments in this thread are respectful to all who participate. There's been a bit of provocation and trolling on the forum the past week or so, and in awareness of that I preemptively request civil discourse. No poking, please. If you can't help yourself, then I offer this request as your help. If you still can't help yourself, the delete and edit buttons are your friends, they show up as soon as you post.




The starting point for this thread is the following quote:


Just as I shall select my ship when I am about to go on a voyage, or my house when I propose to take a residence, so I shall choose my death when I am about to depart from life. Moreover, just as a long-drawn-out life does not necessarily mean a better one, so a long-drawn-out death necessarily means a worse one. There is no occasion when the soul should be humored more than at the moment of death. Let the soul depart as it feels itself impelled to go; whether it seeks the sword, or the halter, or some draught that attacks the veins, let it proceed and burst the bonds of its slavery. Every man ought to make his life acceptable to others besides himself, but his death to himself alone. The best form of death is the one we like. Men are foolish who reflect thus: 'One person will say that my conduct was not brave enough; another, that I was too headstrong; a third, that a particular kind of death would have betokened more spirit.' What you should really reflect is: 'I have under consideration a purpose with which the talk of men has no concern!' Your sole aim should be to escape from Fortune as speedily as possible; otherwise, there will be no lack of persons who will think ill of what you have done.

- Seneca


I find a lot of value in this forum when it comes to talking about methods. Getting input from others helps one to become aware of unforeseen risks and consequences.

What I find challenging to manage is when one negates a method or one's desire for it based on their desires for themselves, their own capacities, their own limitations, and their own available resources and options (that is, their own freedoms which others may not share). Some people can manage more pain, some people have limited options and so must by necessity seek out less peaceful and/or more drawn-out means to accomplish the goal that they choose. But my reaction of feeling challenged by negating responses is my own, and I admit the responsibility is mine to work to not take them on, they're not about me but about the person speaking. I am evolving in managing my reactions, but have a ways to go.

Interacting with others is challenging period, whether one has social phobia or is an unaffected extrovert; we are social animals and require interaction with others, and interactions often don't go according to our own comfort levels and preferences. So I am aware that my posting this quote is in part a way to try to soothe by convincing others to go along with my preference for awareness and acceptance of others. I, too, have desires for myself, and want to feel comfortable just as those who negate a method also want to be comfortable. I have reached the point that I can more easily honor both, but it has taken work, and the work is not yet complete.

I look forward to any thoughts about this quote or the post. I am putting it all outside of myself and hope that in return I can gain fresh insight. I hope also that my posting may benefit others, and I have no attachment to what that benefit may be, because I am offering things here without being asked for them and I have no control over how they are received. I would be happy if my post is received well and provides some form of good, and I'm okay if it doesn't. If someone disagrees with me, then they give me the opportunity to broaden my perspective, so I welcome disagreement. I'm okay with crickets, too. I still enjoy reading the quote, and I got some value out of working out a bit of shit with regard to my defensiveness and other challenges. I'm an extrovert, I work shit out best when I externalize it.

If you felt poked at by my post, please know that was not my intention. I have no desire to harm, and I did my imperfect best to express that. Along with any reactions I have to anything anyone does, I also always sincerely wish for the well-being, autonomy and non-other-harming self-determination of everyone, even when I disagree with something they do, think, or say, or when they disagree with me.


REMINDER: BE CIVIL. RESPECT OTHERS. YOU CAN DO IT.




NB:

I have a couple of other thoughts about the quote in relation to making one's life acceptable to others (a Stoic position on being a social animal) and how that comes into play with criticism of methods that involve others, such as suicide by train, cop, or traffic. These are highly-criticized methods on the forum, and I'm working out my position about those as well, trying to take into account as I suggested in this post that others have limitations to personal freedoms and capacity that may make such methods the only viable options. Sometimes we cannot choose the death we like best, but the best option we can manage when continuing to live even temporarily is no longer viable.

 

[Anonymoussn]

What I find challenging to manage is when one negates a method or one's desire for it based on their desires for themselves, their own capacities, their own limitations, and their own available resources and options

I think that it's the difference in capacities that makes me sometimes guilty of negating other's methods.

I have always understood that I could never be a jumper, because I dont think I have it in me to do it. I am too fearful of heights, and physically could not jump. But at the same time I know full well that other people could do this. So I wouldnt negate the idea of jumping.

However, we've had a few people recently mention the idea on this forum of death by starvation, for example. This is a method that definitely falls into the category of being one I also know I could never do. But unlike jumping, I have never considered it a viable option for anyone else either. The agony of not eating for several weeks has always seemed unfeasible to me. But I've seen so many posts about it of late, at least one of whom when I last saw them post had been going for several weeks and seemed to be at deaths door, that it has made me think perhaps I should just give up the negating and just accept that maybe it works for some people.

 

[glittergore]

In that I am staunchly pro-choice as far as choosing one's own life and death goes, I'm also pro-choice as far as methods goes. It's a very individualized and intimate choice - one that not only should the person choose for themselves, but also that they deserve to choose for themselves. Even the most brutal and unpleasant of methods are some people's best option, for a variety of reasons.

That being said, I think it's natural for other human beings to try to discourage people from certain methods they know are going to be painful and/or drawn out. Not because they're trying to disrespect their choice, but because they don't want others to suffer. This can be good in some scenarios: some people may not be aware of the consequences of some methods and they are therefore educated by the interjection or they may be dissuaded when they're really made to think about the consequences. I'm of the opinion if someone is dissuaded from something in this way, they probably don't want it. In other scenarios, it can come across as domineering and invasive. I believe there are ways to articulate yourself that you can find a balance between making sure someone is educated and certain without going into that domineering/invasive zone. Ultimately though, it's the individual's choice and as long as it doesn't put others in danger that should be accepted.

 

[Pryras]

I get you. I try not to negate but offer alternatives that may be easier to obtain although catch myself projecting my own fears when it's a method I'm uncomfortable with. I once heavily discouraged jumping partly because of my own fears of failure and disfigurement but that has changed over the past few weeks. Besides hypoxia, jumping has become increasingly more favourable to me as a method despite the easier options available.

Drowning on the other hand terrifies me and I will admit projecting that fear on threads that suggest it. I can't physically imagine drowning for a minute much less several before reaching oblivion. But as with the jumping that might change when life's circumstances weigh heavier on me. It reminds me of your survival instinct thread, and I'm sure life will push me hard enough to change my perception.

 

[Anonymoussn]

I get you. I try not to negate but offer alternatives that may be easier to obtain although catch myself projecting my own fears when it's a method I'm uncomfortable with. I once heavily discouraged jumping partly because of my own fears of failure and disfigurement but that has changed over the past few weeks. Besides hypoxia, jumping has become increasingly more favourable to me as a method despite the easier options available.

Drowning on the other hand terrifies me and I will admit projecting that fear on threads that suggest it. I can't physically imagine drowning for a minute much less several before reaching oblivion. But as with the jumping that might change when life's circumstances weigh heavier on me. It reminds me of your survival instinct thread, and I'm sure life will push me hard enough to change my perception.

Agreed. I now try and say things like 'this is why this method wont work for me... have you considered whether you will be able to overcome these things?' With things like drowning for example. That way hopefully it will challenge the poster to consider the potential problems with a method, but not put them off entirely. Or perhaps it will put them off entirely if they cant think of ways to overcome potential pitfalls, but then I suppose that is a good thing.

 

[rhiino]

This is a great thread. I have always seen it very sceptical when people tried to talk other out of their method because it is too painful, lengthy or involves others. In the end every suicide involves others to some degree and I think it is wrong to draw a line somewhere and then expect other people to draw the line at the same point and argue with them over it.
When it comes to pain or lengthiness it is not everybody's priority to have a quick and painful death. Some just don't care anymore. Thus they consider things like drowning, starving, etc.
Of course it is good to tell people what will work and what won't, that with certain methods, like Paracetamol, there will probably be nothing but pain and no ctb in the end. Other than that you can never know the situation the person is in and what methods are really available to them. In threads about methods that involve others like train suicide I often read that there are always other options and they are just selfish considering this. That reminds me of the guilt-tripping pro-life arguments that there is always the better option to live and suicide is selfish.

 

[Deleted member 17949]

I try to avoid telling people to do anything. If I think a method is more or less painful than other methods (for example drowning and cutting are quite painful in comparison to jumping or hanging) I'll let people know so that they have that info, but whether or not they choose to use it is their choice. I'm also a pretty firm believer in the idea that people can simply want to die in a particular way due to a mixture of different preferences. Not everyone wants the same kind of death and that is fine. I want to inform and be informed, not try to talk people out of their own interests.

Overall, picking a method because it looks cool or seems nice to you is perfectly fine. This isn't a suicide card battle game where we need to try to get methods with the best stats and put them up against other people's methods.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

I'm really enjoying reading the comments on this thread. Thanks to all who have been participating.


I want to argue a little bit with Seneca about one sentence in the quote. When I share the quote on threads, I often replace this sentence with ... so as not to unduly influence what one has already determined is best for themselves.

Moreover, just as a long-drawn-out life does not necessarily mean a better one, so a long-drawn-out death necessarily means a worse one.

I think Seneca shows some personal bias here. Not everyone has a preference for such a death, but as he himself says, what matters is the one they prefer.

I've noticed there are plenty of members who choose a more prolonged death, as has been mentioned in comments here, such as starvation or VSED.

Seneca gives space to those who prefer more painful deaths, such as stabbing, but not any space for a preference for a longer death. As has been discussed in comments throught this thread, it could be a preference, and it could also be the means available and which one can tolerate. Seneca and also the later Stoically-informed Montaigne, focus on the escape from Fortune, but sometimes an effective escape plan takes time to execute, rather than an immediate escape. This is reflected in real life as well, such as someone escaping from domestic violence. It may be preferrable to leave immediately, but sometimes it must be done in stages, which still leads to the same ultimate goal of freedom from bad fortune, done by one's own self-determined efforts, just as with suicide.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

Linking @maru.'s thread as I think the OP and subsequent comments bring value and additional perspectives to this thread. The intro text shown in the link doesn't begin to cover the beautiful efforts (imo) the OP is managing conflicting desires and beliefs.

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/thre...-not-ready-for-it-in-a-way.42735/#post-779694

@maru., please let me know if you'd prefer I delete this comment and link. I will gladly respect your choice, no explanation needed. Feel free to post a comment on my wall so as not to draw unnecessary attention (one word such as no will suffice), and I will quickly respond by deleting both this comment (or request the mods do so if it's too late) and your comment on my wall.

 

[maru.]

@maru., please let me know if you'd prefer I delete this comment and link. I will gladly respect your choice, no explanation needed. Feel free to post a comment on my wall so as not to draw unnecessary attention (one word such as no will suffice), and I will quickly respond by deleting both this comment (or request the mods do so if it's too late) and your comment on my wall.

Nah, it's perfectly fine by me to have it here, especially if it helps anyone browsing this thread in any way.
Still, thank you for being so respectful and polite about it, i really appreciate it :3

 

[Soul]

I think I've earned some disapproval around here by pointing out now and then that not everyone seeks a painless death or cares whether it's traumatic to a driver or police, etc.; we all want different things from our deaths and that's ok. But it's worrying when we see someone apparently uninformed proposing doing something that's more likely to fuck them up worse than they already are, and I think we do have an ethical obligation to make sure (as sure as we can) that they (as well as future readers) understand the flaws in their plans. And that's where things like "but you'll traumatize the train driver" or "but that'll hurt like hell and you'll stop" or "that'll take so long that someone will notice and intervene" start creeping in.

Is there a clear line between making sure a person is fully informed and trying to control their choices? Or is it always going to be fuzzy?

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

Is there a clear line between making sure a person is fully informed and trying to control their choices? Or is it always going to be fuzzy?

I think there is a clear line. To me, it's a matter of recognizing that I and the person to whom I am speaking are both autonomous. We are separate, we cannot control one another, we cannot experience exactly what the other experiences. It is about presentation. LIke throwing a gift at someone, or opening it for them and putting it on them like an item of clothes and demanding they wear it and care for it, or placing it in front of them and letting them open it when and if they choose, and return it, keep it, discard it, or pass it to another as they choose. The giving is about me and how I perceive them, and the receiving is about what I gave and how I gave it.

Therefore, I try to be ever more conscientious in presenting what I say as, "This is my opinion, this would be my preference, this is the information I offer, but I recognize your right to choose for yourself, and I don't expect or desire you take this on, it's up to you whether or not it is of value and I'm not attached to you accepting it." Sometimes I may argue a point when it's not been understood, or when I feel strongly about something, staying conscious of that person's right to reject what I say for any reason. Then I let it go. It's not about me, and I can't control another. I understand that sometimes people will test a boundary, and I know that I am flexible enough, provided I feel safe enough, to say no twice and then I am at my limit and become resentful if I'm not being heard, so if I have to say it any more than that, for boh our well-being, I shut it down and/or walk away -- either temporarily, or if it's a strong enough and intrusive enough pattern, then permanently. I can only stand not having my boundaries heard so much.

I'm learning to manage myself in the same way; if my opinion or preference or advice is not accepted the first time, and definitely not the second time, then it's best for me to release attachment to what I want and move on from the subject, for both our well-being. Or to at least take a break from approaching it again if it is that important, but in those cases, it has to do with ongoing interactions, not with what one is choosing to do in their own life that doesn't harm me or those around me beyond a personal discomfort/dispreference about what they choose to do to and for themselves. The roots for this come from my mother being so controlling and intrusive about things I did in my own life that had nothing to do with her; if I want to enjoy freedom from that, I have to offer it to others as well. I clearly vocalized for decades how important it was, and it never sunk in. At least it sunk in to the point that I could be aware of myself and not heedlessly repeat her heedless pattern.

I think many people, myself included, get a sense of urgency or immediacy about things, but we don't know how another person processes. It may take a while for what is offered to sink in if it is of value, maybe a very long time, and maybe not ever even if it is of value. I don't own that. Recognizing this helps me to also recognize that it's not myself I want to sink in, which is enmeshment, but only what I present. If it is not received, oh well. I made the effort, it wasn't appreciated. Not all things intended as gifts are received as such. Why maintain a storage space of things that were never wanted or are no longer useful? It's just dead weight and hinders forward movement. I am free to get rid of what I don't want, and free to experience consequences if I get rid of something I didn't recognize had value; I have to offer that freedom to others as well or I'm storing them and dragging them around in my life, when I don't own them and couldn't if I tried, and who likes to be drug around for someone else's agenda that has nothing to do with their own wants, needs, or wishes for themselves?

Finally, I think that when people see a problem, they want to offer a solution so it can be fixed, even if the other person says, "I don't want a particular solution, please don't offer it." Then there is a moment of negotiation: do I do what they request, or do I do what I think is best? It's about presentation, but it's also about the personal feeling of being helpless if one cannot offer what is requested, and feels a need to override the impotence by offering something, even if it was specifically requested not to be offered. Then one feels more in control, effective and in charge of themselves. What's difficult to recognize is that holding back is active, it is extremely generous because it is givng the gift that was requested: respectful acceptance. I think that it feels to the one who could not give like there was not connection, and that a connection is perhaps even being denied them, but in fact hearing and honoring another's boundary gives them freedom from frustration, fear, hostility, non-acceptance, and oppression. Much like the Five Precepts are the gifts of things we do not do to others so that all can have their boundaries left unscathed and intact. But people want to push a boundary, it can be a lure, and it's an empowered act of self-awareness and self-control to not test the boundary for locks or cracks, and to respect it as it clearly is, and to enter only when invited, and to leave when asked. The one whose boundary isn't tested or pushed can relax, no one is coming to steal what isn't offered or invade what is protected, and if there is true respect and reciprocity, then we can relax when they don't push our own boundaries, either. We don't have to stay guarded. We are all honored and accepted.
Quite often, we are our boundaries.

I think the line becomes blurred once we allow ourselves to cross it the first time, like the parent who smacks their child to get the point across when words don't suffice; once one justifies to themselves crossing a line, then their perception of the other person wil change and they will see the other person as for some reason undeserving of having their integrity -- their boundaries and wholeness, what is closed off to others without explicit and mutual consent -- recognized and honored. The other becomes an enemy, or less capable than we are, or not as intelligent or informed. To us, they are not in control of their bodies, minds, hearts, spirits and lives, but we are, or we believe we shoud be. That to me is where the fuzziness is.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

I mentioned in the OP that I've been thinking about interactive suicide methods such as train, by cop, or by traffic.

In Seneca's quote, he talks about how one should live their lives for others, but die for themselves. This was a Stoic concept of reciprocity and interconnectedness, and it's seen in other ancient philosophies such as Confuscianism and Taoism. Stoics were very concerned about being part of society and contritbuting, but the sentence leaves out that they also were very focused on personal development, self-awareness, paying attention to their impressions about things, and developing self-control and virtue. They worked on maintaining healthy boundaries, not negating the self, but also being aware that their actions affected others.

When it comes to passive suicide methods, I think about what Seneca said. Yes, one's choice of death is important, but until the moment of death, one is still alive and sharing life with others. A passive death begins at a moment of shared life, and draws another into their death without their consent. They are impacted without their permission, their hand is on the weapon and it is directed for them. In this, I personally have an issue, and I own that it's mine. I can imagine being the person directed, and the aftermath.

But I also make space for the fact that some people have limited options and/or capabilities for achieving what they seek. No matter what we do in life, it will have an impact on others, and sometimes there just is no choice.

My solution is to speak up when someone considers this method and try to share the broader perspective should the others impacted not receive due consideration, and at the same time allow that others are going to do what they do and I cannot control them. I cannot show up and stop them, and even if I did, I don't have the power to change what brought them there. In this I follow what I consider my moral duty, but also accept what I cannot control. It feels like the healthiest, most non-codependent way that I can interact with a fellow memnber in this community and honor their right to self-determination and choice, as well as of those who may be involved as well. It's how I negotiate for myself what is an uncomfortable subject with which I am confronted and isn't going to go away because I want it to.

 

[Soul]

I mentioned in the OP that I've been thinking about interactive suicide methods such as train, by cop, or by traffic.

In Seneca's quote, he talks about how one should live their lives for others, but die for themselves. This was a Stoic concept of reciprocity and interconnectedness, and it's seen in other ancient philosophies such as Confuscianism and Taoism. Stoics were very concerned about being part of society and contritbuting, but the sentence leaves out that they also were very focused on personal development, self-awareness, paying attention to their impressions about things, and developing self-control and virtue. They worked on maintaining healthy boundaries, not negating the self, but also being aware that their actions affected others.

When it comes to passive suicide methods, I think about what Seneca said. Yes, one's choice of death is important, but until the moment of death, one is still alive and sharing life with others. A passive death begins at a moment of shared life, and draws another into their death without their consent. They are impacted without their permission, their hand is on the weapon and it is directed for them. In this, I personally have an issue, and I own that it's mine. I can imagine being the person directed, and the aftermath.

But I also make space for the fact that some people have limited options and/or capabilities for achieving what they seek. No matter what we do in life, it will have an impact on others, and sometimes there just is no choice.

My solution is to speak up when someone considers this method and try to share the broader perspective should the others impacted not receive due consideration, and at the same time allow that others are going to do what they do and I cannot control them. I cannot show up and stop them, and even if I did, I don't have the power to change what brought them there. In this I follow what I consider my moral duty, but also accept what I cannot control. It feels like the healthiest, most non-codependent way that I can interact with a fellow memnber in this community and honor their right to self-determination and choice, as well as of those who may be involved as well. It's how I negotiate for myself what is an uncomfortable subject with which I am confronted and isn't going to go away because I want it to.

I may be missing something, as usual. Isn't a major part of the appeal of this forum the fact that no one controls what we do, within the rules? No one's going to turn us in, or run to stop us, or forcefeed us either literally or verbally. And doesn't that go hand in hand with being aware that I can't control anyone else's choices?

Occasionally someone gets a bit strident in trying to convince someone not to OD on paracetamol, and/or there's a pile-on effect when a number of people oppose an idea like putting down a pet or traumatising a driver, but surely those are still efforts to convince someone to change their mind rather than efforts to actually control them.

Or are you saying those are the same thing?

I don't think so; that would mean you were trying to control our responses to decisions we consider wrong, and that would be inconsistent.

So are you walking us through your own way of coming to terms with some of the decisions you see people here making?

OK, I've now officially lost myself. [bouncy-happy sun emoji]

On a slightly related subject:
Are you familiar with the slogan "Help is the sunny side of control"?

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

but surely those are still efforts to convince someone to change their mind rather than efforts to actually control them.

I wonder, how can you be certain of the intentions of others, and what they are attempting to achieve?

Occasionally someone gets a bit strident in trying to convince someone not to OD on paracetamol, and/or there's a pile-on effect when a number of people oppose an idea like putting down a pet or traumatising a driver, but surely those are still efforts to convince someone to change their mind rather than efforts to actually control them.

Or are you saying those are the same thing?

I don't think so; that would mean you were trying to control our responses to decisions we consider wrong, and that would be inconsistent.

I sense that you're having some cognitive dissonance. Where I pick that up is in "occasionally" and "surely." I think maybe something I said poked at a belief or perception, and there's a negotiation for something you hold to.

There's no judgment in that. Only observation.

Here is how I respond.

First, you are correct that it would be inconsistent of me to try to control another's response.

As you asked,

So are you walking us through your own way of coming to terms with some of the decisions you see people here making?

I am indeed walking myself, and anyone who reads, through my own way to come to terms with some of the decisons people are making. I am also walking through how others respond to those makingn the decisions. I am affected, so I am working through that. Talking and walking it out is how I do it.

My second, direct response, is that I perceive this is still an issue of fuzziness, indirectly or perhaps directly related to your previous question:

Is there a clear line between making sure a person is fully informed and trying to control their choices? Or is it always going to be fuzzy?

To which I responded:

I think the line becomes blurred once we allow ourselves to cross it the first time, like the parent who smacks their child to get the point across when words don't suffice; once one justifies to themselves crossing a line, then their perception of the other person wil change and they will see the other person as for some reason undeserving of having their integrity -- their boundaries and wholeness, what is closed off to others without explicit and mutual consent -- recognized and honored. The other becomes an enemy, or less capable than we are, or not as intelligent or informed. To us, they are not in control of their bodies, minds, hearts, spirits and lives, but we are,

A benefit of this forum is as you identified in its appeal:

Isn't a major part of the appeal of this forum the fact that no one controls what we do, within the rules? No one's going to turn us in, or run to stop us, or forcefeed us either literally or verbally. And doesn't that go hand in hand with being aware that I can't control anyone else's choices?

There is a safe distance here. One can talk about their intentions free of physical control. It is up to that person to interpret any advice or exhortations for themselves, to be influenced because they agree, or to act against what they wish and consider the best option due to the external desires of others that may not reflect what is in their best interests in their life and situation. But I do not see that as a natural consequence one affords the same willingly affords the same freedom to others.

I am aware of that it is the responsibility of the one deciding on their options and actions to determine for themselves what to do, but I simultaneously try to maintain a sense of self-control rather than other-control in giving a gift of recognizing their autonomy and boundaries. This is my value that I try to operate from in order to respect others' boundaries as I wish to have mine respected. I try to detach from my wishes and allow them to make their own choice based on the information I offer from my limited perspective. The outcome is up to them. If I continue to push or present as if I demand, then they may react rather than respond, because they feel negated and in turn double down on what may not be in their best interest, should my perspective be accurate or more benefical than the option they are considering. If I cannot influence, I then detach and wish for the best possible outcome. This is what I am working through, and walking myself and any readers through. I do not demand others take the same stance, but if they find value in my perspective, then I am glad. If they find holes in it, I am glad to know. So far I feel confident in what I am doing for myself in this, and it is ultimately about myself. I may be uncomfortable with how others act in trying to persuade, and I use the same principles to manage my discomfort -- speak about it, reason it out, potentially have dialogue, let it go if it is not received, and go back to "doing me."



This dialogue between us reminds me of a past experience. Please don't take on that I am comparing you to this person, but rather what was happening in my dialogue with him.

He was very manipulative. He was a bar owner and bartender, and loved setting things in motion and watching others react, attempting without being obvious to direct the dramas he created for his own edification, sometimes ostensibly to benefit others, but that was a twist. It was about his own amusement in his little world in which we others took part.

He enjoyed what he did, he felt good when he did it, and struggled when I shed light on it. In that is where I perceive the similarity in this current dialogue.

I later told him a story of how someone attacked my boundaries. I was so proud of how I managed it. Two boys around the age of ten had the advantage of position when I was swimming and trying to come out of the water. They were pelting me with berries. They wanted a reaction. I used my wiles to regain my power in the situation without harming them. It took a lot of control and effort. I stood firm on literally rocky ground when I do not naturally have physical balance. I breathed, moved with intention, and remained conscious. I put my hands on my hips. I said nothing and simply stared at them. I stood unmoveable and firm. I knew it was going to take awhile, and committed to that.

They physically started to show signs of discomfort; their posititions were changing, not mine. They did little things to maintain my attention. They whispered to each other and pointed at me. I maintained my stance and silence. They quickly ran out of things to get me to back down. They'd been noticed, and I wasn't giving in to their desires. I was staring straight at them, and I was in power. They retreated. I stood firm and watched their retreat the entire way. When they had a great distance between us, they climbed a tree and started yelling at me. I then disengaged my attention from them and broke the connection, got out of the water, and walked home in the other direction.

When I told my friend this story, he pointed at me and said, "Hah! You were being manipulative!"

I sense in your struggle to (dis)assimilate my words with my actions a projection that I am attempting to control, and therefore not walking my talk. I sense that you want to shake me from my position because there may be shakiness in your own, which you have up to now enjoyed. I did not mean to attack it. I shed light, and by reading my posts, you stepped into it. If that light is accurate, it is up to you whether you want it. You can shine it wherever you like, I'm not directing it. You can turn it back to me, with a filter of your own perceptions and beliefs applied. If the latter is what's happening, as I sense that it is, I am already under my own light. The filter does not affect me. It is outside of my light, outside of my boundary.

With much respect, to both myself and to you -- autonomous beings who've come into contact in this shared space -- I do not demand you agree, nor push myself to agree. I can get along with, respect and honor you even if we don't. I'm glad we have conversations.

 

[4eyebiped]

I wonder, how can you be certain of the intentions of others, and what they are attempting to achieve?

I feel it would be healthier all around if some of us stopped assuming the worst in someone by assuming they are being controlling, manipulative and so on. It wasn't long ago you judged me in a thread and proceeded to say many unkind, and inaccurate, words about me, and my intents here, for all to see in a insanely long post. When I tried to peacefully have a conversation about this, to correct any confusion or misinterpretation on your part, you simply claimed my attempts to communicate was me trying to be manipulative, and would not talk to me. It was a no win situation.

Perhaps, we can attempt to discover the true intentions of others, and what they are attempting to achieve, by trying to communicate with each other more before drawing a conclusion about each other? Maybe we can ask each other questions to verify intent and meaning in what is said, versus assuming the worst? Not everyone is a native speaker, slang varies from country to country, people make typos, and so forth. Because of these and many other factors there is a lot of room for misunderstandings and misinterpretations. Maybe we can also offer helpful advice via PMs instead of lynching someone in public for all to see? Enough people endure harsh judgement daily in real life and many people are here because of that judgement. They don't need a fellow member judging and assuming the worst in them while they are here. I can't imagine how damaging that could be to some here.

Make sure to read this next line several times. With all that said, I get the impression you have overall good intent, and mean well, so don't consider this as me attacking you. I just feel that you can be a bit too judgemental, and overly negative in your assumptions, at times and that can be harmful, hurtful and unproductive.

 

[Soul]

I wonder, how can you be certain of the intentions of others, and what they are attempting to achieve?

Just by projecting my own understanding that no one here has the power to control others via an internet forum. (I'm not thinking now about cliques or scams, and I think you aren't either.)

Of course I may be wrong about the percentage of people who feel/think they genuinely can control others via an internet forum, but even if I'm wrong about that, they still genuinely cannot control others, and that's the important bit.

I sense that you're having some cognitive dissonance. Where I pick that up is in "occasionally" and "surely." I think maybe something I said poked at a belief or perception, and there's a negotiation for something you hold to.There's no judgment in that. Only observation.

Here is how I respond. First, you are correct that it would be inconsistent of me to try to control another's response.
[...]
I am indeed walking myself, and anyone who reads, through my own way to come to terms with some of the decisons people are making. I am also walking through how others respond to those making the decisions. I am affected, so I am working through that. Talking and walking it out is how I do it.

Thank you. That's what's been puzzling me: Why does the level-headed @GoodPersonEffed see a need to go over this question with her renowned fine-toothed comb? People can't control others via an internet forum, and (as noted above) I assume 98% of us are fully aware of that. We can try to educate or influence others, but we can't *control* them, and @GoodPersonEffed is cognizant of that, so what is the lengthy contemplation needed for?

You want to understand your own stance vis-a-vis members whose proposed methods you're uneasy about. (I'd guessed that in my last post.) Additionally, you wouldn't mind if some other posters gave some thought to their responses too. I'm guessing now: You see people as being too heavy-handed sometimes as they try to make people see things their way?

My second, direct response, is that I perceive this is still an issue of fuzziness, indirectly or perhaps directly related to your previous question (about the line between a] making sure someone is well-enough informed and b] trying to control their choices.) To which I responded (that the line becomes blurry if we cross it).

I'm puzzled again, sorry. What fuzziness do you perceive this is still an issue of? (Ack! Prize-winning sentence structure! )

The fuzziness I originally had in mind was: If I see a poster who clearly doesn't know XYZ about a method like SN or ODing, I try to point them towards the facts they should know; if they have trouble understanding, I may try to clarify, without (I hope) seeming like I'm trying to control them. But if their method is jumping into traffic, and I perceive that they clearly don't realize it will traumatize drivers and onlookers, at what point do efforts to get the poster to understand that do I cease to be educational and start attempting to usurp their freedom of choice?

@GoodPersonEffed, I'm going to skip over a lot of your post for now, both because it's past my bedtime and because I feel there's a misunderstanding somewhere.

I sense in your struggle to (dis)assimilate my words with my actions a projection that I am attempting to control, and therefore not walking my talk. I sense that you want to shake me from my position because there may be shakiness in your own, which you have up to now enjoyed. I did not mean to attack it.

That last sentence goes for me too. I'm not trying to shake you from any position. I've been trying to fathom why you apparently feel the plain fact that no one can control other people via an internet forum needs so much elucidation.

I don't feel shaky in my own position on other people's choices of method, and I didn't mean to imply you don't walk your talk. Au contraire: I said it wouldn't be consistent with your standards (as I understand them) to equate efforts to convince someone with efforts to control them.

Good night.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

We can try to educate or influence others, but we can't *control* them, and @GoodPersonEffed is cognizant of that, so what is the lengthy contemplation needed for?

It's needed for me. It's what I do.

I've been trying to fathom why you apparently feel the plain fact that no one can control other people via an internet forum needs so much elucidation.

Ah, I see some of the disconnect. My ponderings are not about the fact that no one can control other people via an internet forum. It was a point you brought up and I agreed with, but it was not my focus.

The quote I shared was the central theme. From the OP, this was the focus, which I eventually got to but did not make clear was the thesis:

What I find challenging to manage is when one negates a method or one's desire for it based on their desires for themselves, their own capacities, their own limitations, and their own available resources and options (that is, their own freedoms which others may not share).

But the thesis is a bit more multi-faceted. Because I write how I talk, and don't go back and edit to present it in writing, it may take a bit of effort for the one receiving to see my main points. I appreciate knowing that now.

An additional part of my thesis is that I feel defensive for members who seek their own way and get negated, kind of like the Greek chorus saying, "You can't do that! You'll fail!" I've had that projected onto me so many times in life, and when I didn't listen to the naysayers, my instincts were usually correct and I succeeded in what I sought to do. Therefore I've lately been sharing that quote when I recognize someone is following what they seek to do for themselves, and I perceive it as viable or worth developing and pursing rather than stopping before it's started, in order to give them validating support, to say, "I respect your self-determination, and in this, you answer to no one. People will always have plenty to say, but this is totally up to you." The only time I struggle with that is when the method is passive and involves another who is not given the choice to consent. That is the third and final point.

You want to understand your own stance vis-a-vis members whose proposed methods you're uneasy about. (I'd guessed that in my last post.) Additionally, you wouldn't mind if some other posters gave some thought to their responses too. I'm guessing now: You see people as being too heavy-handed sometimes as they try to make people see things their way?

It is my way to look at what bothers me and work it out, often in writing or conversation. I am an extrovert. Simply journaling doesn't usually do it for me, I do better when I direct it outwardly and anticipate and sometimes even receive feedback. t's in connection with others, outwardly directing my process, that I connect with what I'm trying to uncover and understand. I understand myself better when noticing others, then looking within, then trying to figure it all out.

And I'll admit that my heart is crying out, asking, "Please, will consider this? Can you not see the reason in what I say? Can you not consider that what we do affects others, that it's not just about our action and desire for ourselves, but where it is directed? Do you not see the boundary? Can you not hear the other person?" This is my way. (I just posted on wishes, convenience and adversity if you're interested, it's a new perspective I've gained which relates to what I've been trying to get across here). My way comes from having been raised in a home where everything was projected onto me, and where I was controlled for reasons that made no sense, because they were never about me (such as simply wanting to spend time away from the home with others, and my mother saying no for reasons that were utterly irrational and didn't at all relate to what I was seeking). I spent a lot of time crying out, "This makes no sense!" And I was assaulted for that. It poked at a narcissistic wound of hers, it negated her beliefs and her control. There was no room for reason there. But I never shut up about it. And that's part of what I'm doing here. I see unreason. I see unrecognition of the autonomy of others. Even when I'm not the one being poked at, it's happening in the environment where I am, and I am affected, therefore I, too, try to influence, with a goal that we all can have self-control and self-determination, without controlling or being controlled by others or even desiring to. I seek what it is that you mentioned here:

Isn't a major part of the appeal of this forum the fact that no one controls what we do, within the rules? No one's going to turn us in, or run to stop us, or forcefeed us either literally or verbally. And doesn't that go hand in hand with being aware that I can't control anyone else's choices?

I don't see evidence of awareness that people can't control anyone else's choices. More importantly, I don't see evidence that they don't want to have control over them; I see evidence that they do. I see the Greek chorus, and I see enmeshment. I see a non-recognition of being separate people, with separate experiences, needs, desires, etc.

It troubles me. I want it to change. I want it to improve. So I bring it up. I shine a light on it. I present my case, to myself and to others. I do what is within my power, which may or may not have any effect. But at least I spoke my heart, and at least I tried. Then I return to owning what is within my control, only me, only my own actions. Sometimes that influences, too, just doing what I do, because none of us goes unnoticed, even when we'd like to be. But ultimately, even though we all interact with and affect one another in shared spaces, it's about me. If my actions are correct, and I am sticking to my virtues and values, then I am protected by them, and others are protected from me because I'm making a strong point to not do to them what I hate: to attempt to override boundaries, to negate autonomy or otherness, and to control. I speak up, and if no change is effected, I step out of the fight that is not my own, even as it happens in my environment, and I wish for the well-being of all, and let them own their experiences on either side, whether it is the one who has a method or other decision with which some (perhaps even I, perhaps not) disagree, or the ones disagreeing. I offer validation and support when I see it is merited but lacking. After that, all I can do is detach and work on managing my own discomfort. There will always be discomfort because the world and others in it will not always go along with what I wish. If they did, there would be no oppression or violence of any kind.



In closing, and a kind of TL;DR:


I contemplate. I elucidate. I process by simultaneously directing and experiencing my contemplations and elucidations inwardly and outwardly. I experience it not alone but with others. Not everyone is open to receiving it. Not everyone wants to catch the ball or throw it back. They may not even get the game. It's about agreement, but one has to know what they're agreeing to before they can decide whether or not they want to play, or if they can.

I contemplate. I elucidate. I toss the ball. It is what I have always done. It is my way.

I am used to my way not being understood. But when someone gets it, the connection is amazing. It is uplifting, educating, edifying, and enhances and improves the vision I originally sought. If no one connects, I still gained from the process. I put what troubled me outside of myself, took away its power, and connected with my own. Sometimes when others connect with the process and the experience, I gain even more power because I gain enhanced awareness that I wouldn't have alone. It doesn't happen often, but when it does, it's awesome. It's part of my being a social animal inherently dependent on reciprocity, and at that, an extroverted one who as such particularly needs beneficial reciprocal connection to thrive. Contemplating, elucidating, and tossing the ball is how I emotionally and intellectually survive and thrive.

 

[Soul]

@GoodPersonEffed, my "thumbs up" response is to acknowledge that I read your post. I took from it that when you tossed this particular ball out I bounced it back from somewhere you hadn't quite expected it to go, probably using my shoulder or some other ill-suited body part, but that that's okay because the activity is about you, not about me. An ill-aimed bounceback from an unexpected angle may be good sometimes, to hone your responses. I hope so.