Venting Human Incongruity when it comes death (or of the similiar)

[TAW122]

Today is yet another sore reminder of the incongruity of humanity as a whole, especially when it comes to death. The incongruity, specifically, lies in the fact that humans would do things that either result in death (both figuratively and literally, or one or the other), yet would deny the an individual to reach the same state (the state of death, nonexistence). This greatly fuels my misanthropy (ragefuel) towards humanity as a whole as well as my suicidality (suifuel).

Anyways, I have once again, experienced a shitty part of humanity and this is just another push towards my suicidality, increased suicidal ideation. Basically I had liked some person's posts on FB and while this person doesn't really know me, without warning a day later, I was gone, cut out of that person's life and never able to interact with said person anymore. Now the fact that I get blocked, deleted, ignored on social media isn't the main issue here. I am more disgusted at the broader, bigger picture, which is the incongruity of humanity itself. To put it in simplified terms, basically getting deleted, blocked, ignored on social media means that said person is (for all intents and purposes) dead to the person deleting, blocking, and ignoring said person, because of course the target (deleted, blocked, ignored) person cannot ever interact with the person who blocked him/her anymore. Thus, essentially dead. However, I willing to bet that if said person knew I wanted to CTB, he/she would do the opposite, intervene, and force me to live a life I don't want to live, plus additional consequences. This is the hypocrisy and incongruity that I am referring to when discussing about the right to die and how people are okay with killing off said person (indirectly) but if same said person tries to (directly) CTB, then the same people will stop and prevent said person from successfully executing his/her attempt.

Here is a simplified equation to illustrate what I mean.
Let B = blocked, ignored, deleted, D = death, dead, deceased, and CTB = means self-deliverance.
So we can consider that D = B since a person who is blocked, ignored, deleted can no longer interact with the blocker, ignorer, or deleter, thus from the blocker's point of view, the target is essentially dead (since he/she cannot interact anymore, cut out of the blocker's life.
D = CTB is self-explanatory because by self deliverance, assuming one is successful, then one is both literally and figuratively dead, therefore, resulting in 'D'.
Ergo, B = D = CTB, as both actions result in death.

But the irony and incongruity comes from the fact that even though both result in death, one of the options (self-deliverance) will result in intervention from others, thus preventing one from successfully reaching peace and being kept alive, forced to live.

I have various threads elaborating and explaining this incongruity along with examples, so I will just list those threads for reference:

Misanthropy fuel (which shows an example of the incongruity of humans)

People are against suicide because it makes them uncomfortable

Other threads for reference (not directly related but loosely applied):
Stories of my social ineptness, Aspergers, and mistreatment by others

Problems with conversing with others

Suifuel story demonstrating my social failures

In Conclusion:
So yeah, if anything, in the thread about how people are against suicide because it makes them uncomfortable, and misanthropy fuel, the main point that I'm driving home is the fact that they are fine with cutting someone out of their life and all contact with them, but on the same token, if they have knowledge that same said person is suicidal, they will do everything to intervene and prevent the person from CTB'ing. It's incongruous because on one hand, they are essentially figuratively killing them and perfectly fine with it, but when it comes to the person exercising his/her own self-deliverance, they turn around and prevent it from happening. It's basically a fine example of hypocrisy at it's core. Death and no death (or only death when we decide it's time).

 

[AmDead]

I like your point, however I think it's a bit unfair to say that cutting someone out of your life = Said person is dead to you, therefore = dead. Because if person A blocks, deletes, ignores a person, person B, person B is figuratively dead to person A, but for everyone else, person B is alive. You said that if person B were to actually CTB, person A would "care" enough to not block them and prevent them from CTB. But I think that is reasonable because being literally dead means dead to everyone, which include everyone else who loves Person B, not just blocking them, which would only cut Person B out of Person A's life. I think the point I'm trying to make is that I believe trying to prevent someone from ending their life is unnecessary because I am pro-choice, but to everyone else, they just want to follow society's norms. Being literally dead is a big deal because you can't bring them back. Blocking someone on the other hand, can be reversed, or maybe you still see them irl, just not on social media.

 

[TAW122]

I like your point, however I think it's a bit unfair to say that cutting someone out of your life = Said person is dead to you, therefore = dead. Because if person A blocks, deletes, ignores a person, person B, person B is figuratively dead to person A, but for everyone else, person B is alive. You said that if person B were to actually CTB, person A would "care" enough to not block them and prevent them from CTB. But I think that is reasonable because being literally dead means dead to everyone, which include everyone else who loves Person B, not just blocking them, which would only cut Person B out of Person A's life. I think the point I'm trying to make is that I believe trying to prevent someone from ending their life is unnecessary because I am pro-choice, but to everyone else, they just want to follow society's norms. Being literally dead is a big deal because you can't bring them back. Blocking someone on the other hand, can be reversed, or maybe you still see them irl, just not on social media.

Yes, you are correct in the sense that it is not "literal" death as in permanently physically (and clinically, biologically) dead, but this assumes that the person has another means of contacting the person who blocked him/her and assuming that the blocker is willing to forgive or allow reconciliation (a 2nd chance).

For example, if say A and B were acquaintances or did know each other at some time and had some relations together and contacted each other. In this example, A blocks B for some reason (reason being that A and B had a fallout of some stuff, between the both of them), then B still knows someone who is in contact with A and/or has another means of contacting A, via another communication media or alternative social media. Then yes, it is possible that B towards A would still be alive since the block can be reversed and that A forgives B (after some time).

However, in another example, is that if A and B are strangers, don't know each other and only had that one means of communication (either on FB, or other social media and none elsewhere, not even IRL), then yes, it would effectively (even if not literally) be the same as person B is dead to A as B would have no way to even letting A know to unblock him/her. Therefore, (unless of course A refreshes, updates, and clears out all the old block/ban/ignore list and/or by some random chance ) B is forever dead to A.

You said that if person B were to actually CTB, person A would "care" enough to not block them and prevent them from CTB.

What I mean is that if (assuming omniscience) person A knows that B is going to CTB, attempted to CTB, then A would selfishly intervene to prevent B from CTB'ing. Thus, making A incongruous and hypocritical. This is because A is deciding to cut off B from A's life (meaning that B is dead to A, even if not dead to everyone else) and never going to hear, see, or know of B ever again, but when A decides to prevent B from CTB'ing A is wanting to keep B alive (thus B not being dead to A). It's just incongruous because A is fine with killing B (figuratively - but might as well be literal to since B is dead to A), but then on the same token, A is not ok with B dying on his/her own hands (which is still the same as being dead to A in addition to being dead to everyone else).

All in all, this is just something that I've encountered and experienced over and over, throughout the years. Consider it like a mini-social experiment that is ongoing and my observations on how people behave with respect to another (I am not a psychologist nor sociologist just fyi. I'm just a lay person giving my experiences and observations). It seems pretty consistent throughout the years and given that this is how incongruous people in general are, I've become more jaded and misanthropic. It's not the block or cutting people out of their lives that annoy me the most (yes that does suck, ngl), but the hypocrisy and incongruity that messes me with. I only wish for people to be logical and consistent, but even then it's probably too much to ask for (those normies and NPC world).