Discussion I read the twitter context regarding the CTV report. Am I missing something, because why is the SaSu team being hostile and unresponsive?

[waterworks]

I've not been on here long, so maybe there is some even broader context I'm missing. Otherwise, what is up with the responses to the reporter? It's almost like the SaSu team is trying to give these guys ammunition to smear the site. It would have been better to not even respond, in my opinion. I feel like the SaSu team is coming off as, they don't care about laws and hate reporters; it's really got some teenage, "I don't think through things or care about others opinions", angst.

Help me understand.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

There is a history of news organizations going out of their way to misrepresent this site, not bothering to listen to what users and those who are running the site have to say about it. As a result, I'm guessing that they have grown tired of having to respond to journalists who don't care about anything other then trying to gain as much attention as possible. These people don't care about us nor do they care about reporting on the truth. Their articles have no nuance, they all regurgitate the same things that have been said about this site by others (most of whom have never used this site before and are biased), and they don't bother doing any actual in-depth research on this site at all. All of the users on this are either demonized or infantilized as though somehow the only people on here are either evil monsters who love driving others to suicide or gullible idiots who are on here because they don't know any better.


At some point, you just lose your will to put up with these people.

 

[Placo]

The response seemed crude to me too but then I remembered how this site is constantly attacked by journalists so I imagine there might be a bit of anger towards them.

If one day this forum will close it will mean that prolife fascism will have become something truly fearsome.

 

[N3UR0T1C]

It's likely a hostile response to previous bad faith journalism, but I feel like they definitely could have responded better. It would have been far better for our case if they gave an actual response, it was misconstrued in bad faith, then they released the full transcript/messages showing that the journalist was being a dishonest hack.

 

[waterworks]

There is a history of news organizations going out of their way to misrepresent this site, not bothering to listen to what users and those who are running the site have to say about it. As a result, I'm guessing that they have grown tired of having to respond to journalists who don't care about anything other then trying to gain as much attention as possible. These people don't care about us nor do they care about reporting on the truth. Their articles have no nuance, they all regurgitate the same things that have been said about this site by others (most of whom have never used this site before and are biased), and they don't bother doing any actual in-depth research on this site at all. All of the users on this are either demonized or infantilized as though somehow the only people on here are either evil monsters who love driving others to suicide or gullible idiots who are on here because they don't know any better.


At some point, you just lose your will to put up with these people.

I can imagine that. It can be exhausting, but why not just ignore it all together? I think it's much worse responding negatively because like you said, they aren't out to get the real story; just to get a reaction. Regardless of how terrible the media is, they have an audience, and sometimes it's just better to stay out of the public eye all together.

The response seemed crude to me too but then I remembered how this site is constantly attacked by journalists so I imagine there might be a bit of anger towards them.

If one day this forum will close it will mean that prolife fascism will have become something truly fearsome.

Yeah, I figure there's some resentment. But media is not a fair playing ground, and since these guys determine what's news, I think it's better to stay away rather speak or defend yourself.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

I can imagine that. It can be exhausting, but why not just ignore it all together? I think it's much worse responding negatively because like you said, they aren't out to get the real story; just to get a reaction. Regardless of how terrible the media is, they have an audience, and sometimes it's just better to stay out of the public eye all together.

Reporters are well-knowm for harassing people until they get a response. No matter how they responded to the situation that reporter likely would have portrayed them in a negative light so their response makes no real difference here.

 

[wljourney]

This particular reporter is a click bait journalist for a "news" outlet that repeatedly has received balanced information and replies but picks the outrageous bits and blows them up.

They do not report fairly. Period.

While I agree that the response from SaSu could have been better worded/thought out, I understand the annoyance and frustration with this reporter in particular and others who are milking this site and the case around Kenneth Law (the Canadian SN seller who is currently accused of 14 counts of murder).

I am not surprised by this specific reporter using this kind of headline unfortunately.

 

[Tesha]

I suspect it's because these reporters appear to be completely incapable of impartial reporting. Every single member of SaSu could tell them the site can be supportive of recovery or is pro-choice, not pro-suicide, but they'd still report whatever they wanted and deem everyone too mentally ill to be able to have reasoned opinions.

I've still got a live complaint in progress from the previous BBC report - it's now being handled by OFCOM, as the BBC failed to respond. So, even when they are challenged, they try to wriggle out of holding accountability for their reporting.

 

[RainAndSadness]

At some point, you just lose your will to put up with these people.

This. I just want to point out that the first article misrepresenting us was published back in 2019, so this anti-SaSu campaign has been going on for 5(!) years at this point. We have responded in the past, I know the founders did and I reached out to them myself, but they never took anything we said seriously. They either only put like one sentence of our statements in the article and just keep running the narrative that we're some malicious asshole site or they ignore it straight away. There is an unreleased interview I had with a reporter for 45 minutes where I tried to defend the website, why do you think it's never been released? Because it doesn't fit the narrative. They keep pushing the narrative that we're a pro-suicide cult regardless of what we do. And why should I take anyone seriously that keeps calling us pro-suicide in the first place, when I have literally a thread up debunking that notion and instead explained why we're pro-choice? There are couple of threads that address common media narratives and misconceptions like that, I literally spent days writing them, they're all well researched and backed up with sources and evidence and these losers who keep pushing a narrative ignore all of that because they already made their mind up about Sasu before they started researching. They don't reach out to us to understand our perspective, they simply reach out to us in hopes we say something that can be used against us out of context. I have responded to the NYT, the BBC, other outlets - not once has there been a correction for any of their errors. Like again, I think it's a blatant disregard for journalistic integrity and objectivity when you call a forum like ours with thousands of active members collectively pro-suicide without ever establishing why that's the correct way to describe our forum, when we have literally gone out of our way to explain why we're pro-choice? And look, the founders have stepped down 2.5 years ago - why do they still keep mentioning their name and run the narrative that the people running this forum have anything to do with inceldom? Is it because maybe the claim that we're a malicious death cult wouldn't be so credible anymore when instead of an incel, a trans woman is running the forum, who has been suicidal her entire life (I've been very open about my background) and who can point out to rational and reasonable factors that justify your right to die? Maybe, maybe. We'll never know because these journalists aren't very eager to defend their claims and accusations either.

 

[waterworks]

Reporters are well-knowm for harassing people until they get a response. No matter how they responded to the situation that reporter likely would have portrayed them in a negative light so their response makes no real difference here.

I disagree, though reporters do harass, not commenting is far better than saying anything at all. It's the influence of speculation. There's something about a reporter being able to quote a source (however wrongly) that inadvertently gives them credibility to a regular person. But that's just my opinion, based on things I've seen.

This particular reporter is a click bait journalist for a "news" outlet that repeatedly has received balanced information and replies but picks the outrageous bits and blows them up.

They do not report fairly. Period.

While I agree that the response from SaSu could have been better worded/thought out, I understand the annoyance and frustration with this reporter in particular and others who are milking this site and the case around Kenneth Law (the Canadian SN seller who is currently accused of 14 counts of murder).

I am not surprised by this specific reporter using this kind of headline unfortunately.

I see, I've kinda been educated on a bit of the history by the members here. I agree with you, new media are never fair, and it's all about clickbait tactics. But that headline may not have even happened if that reporter didn't have something to quote. I'm just saying, I think there was a better way to handle it, regardless of history.

I suspect it's because these reporters appear to be completely incapable of impartial reporting. Every single member of SaSu could tell them the site can be supportive of recovery or is pro-choice, not pro-suicide, but they'd still report whatever they wanted and deem everyone too mentally ill to be able to have reasoned opinions.

I've still got a live complaint in progress from the previous BBC report - it's now being handled by OFCOM, as the BBC failed to respond. So, even when they are challenged, they try to wriggle out of holding accountability for their reporting.

There is an agenda they have, I don't doubt that. Challenging them is pointless as you said, but you can only speculate so much before people lose interest. My point being, with all that history in mind, then just not commenting is best. I feel saying "don't care about canadian law", is now just another 100 articles waiting to happen.

 

[waterworks]

This. I just want to point out that the first article misrepresenting us was published back in 2019, so this anti-SaSu campaign has been going on for 5(!) years at this point. We have responded in the past, I know the founders did and I reached out to them myself, but they never took anything we said seriously. They either only put like one sentence of our statements in the article and just keep running the narrative that we're some malicious asshole site or they ignore it straight away. There is an unreleased interview I had with a reporter for 45 minutes where I tried to defend the website, why do you think it's never been released? Because it doesn't fit the narrative. They keep pushing the narrative that we're a pro-suicide cult regardless of what we do. And why should I take anyone seriously that keeps calling us pro-suicide in the first place, when I have literally a thread up debunking that notion and instead explained why we're pro-choice? There are couple of threads that address common media narratives and misconceptions like that, I literally spent days writing them, they're all well researched and backed up with sources and evidence and these losers who keep pushing a narrative ignore all of that because they already made their mind up about Sasu before they started researching. They don't reach out to us to understand our perspective, they simply reach out to us in hopes we say something that can be used against us out of context. I have responded to the NYT, the BBC, other outlets - not once has there been a correction for any of their errors. Like again, I think it's a blatant disregard for journalistic integrity and objectivity when you call a forum like ours with thousands of active members collectively pro-suicide without ever establishing why that's the correct way to describe our forum, when we have literally gone out of our way to explain why we're pro-choice? And look, the founders have stepped down 2.5 years ago - why do they still keep mentioning their name and run the narrative that the people running this forum have anything to do with inceldom? Is it because maybe the claim that we're a malicious death cult wouldn't be so credible anymore when instead of an incel, a trans woman is running the forum, who has been suicidal her entire life (I've been very open about my background) and who can point out to rational and reasonable factors that justify your right to die? Maybe, maybe. We'll never know because these journalists aren't very eager to defend their claims and accusations either.

I understand, and thanks for the insight. I realize you've all done what you can to address the issues. But as you pointed out "They don't reach out to us to understand our perspective, they simply reach out to us in hopes we say something that can be used against us out of context" if you know that they are simply out to manipulate what you say, why keep responding? Why even text that pesky reporter your opinions in the first place, knowing full well before hand, they were just going to apply their own narrative to it? I'm just wondering why this had to happen to begin with, if there's no point in talking to the media.

 

[opheliaoveragain]

Could anyone provide screen shots? Some of us don't want to enter the cesspool that is X/Twitter. Not trying to be inflammatory at all, just trying to understand the situation as well. Thank you to those up thread who have prrovided links.

 

[waterworks]

Could anyone provide screen shots? Some of us don't want to enter the cesspool that is X/Twitter. Not trying to be inflammatory at all, just trying to understand the situation as well. Thank you to those up thread who have prrovided links.

Here you go:

 

[opheliaoveragain]

Here you go:
View attachment 143882View attachment 143883View attachment 143884

Thank you so much. Much obliged. Hopefully this will make things more clear for other as well. Thanks again.

 

[Kalista]

the reporter selected words and used it against the interviewee. typical manipulative tactic.

yes, just because something is a law, does not mean we need to care about it. a law can be very poorly written that only benefits the few and intends control over the majority. just because it's written as a law, does not mean you should 100% follow and believe in it. the law is not universal and absolute.

so yeah, i don't care about canadian law either, nor the us law or any other law a group of rich men may have implemented.

this is good content for them. they don't care about the actual lives struggling in this forum. they're just trying to get the biggest scoop however they can.

these reporters are fishing out for any details they can get their hands on. even if the response is the truth, comes from the heart and even logical. it'll be turned against this forum as a whole using manipulative words which the audience will believe like the sheep they are. simply because they refuse to try and understand how our situations are.
no one's being taken advantage of here. this is literally the only place where people with suicidal thoughts and intent can speak freely about their pain without being thrown in a glorified jail and stuffed with psych meds.

so, canadian reporters and any others sneaking about trying to sabotage this community, fuck all of you.
even if you shut this place down somehow, people will find ways to kill themselves and it'll be on your hands once each and every death becomes a messy scene due to lack of resources and knowledge. oh, but nevermind. you don't fucking care because it's just more content for you to report about.

 

[astr4]

there are more pertinent things to be reporting on, like why they keep pushing MAID for mental illness back… maybe then people wouldn't have to resort to illicit resources

 

[Lost in a Dream]

I was just about to post a similar thread talking about the screenshots. That reporter could make, "Sometimes the sky looks green during thunderstorms" look like "Thunderstorms are always green" and all their regular viewers would think it's Sasu's official stance that thunderstorms are always green.

They have a special skill that should only ever be used in stories by authors. Reporters provide excellent character dialogues lmao.

 

[cowboypants]

I've not been on here long, so maybe there is some even broader context I'm missing. Otherwise, what is up with the responses to the reporter? It's almost like the SaSu team is trying to give these guys ammunition to smear the site. It would have been better to not even respond, in my opinion. I feel like the SaSu team is coming off as, they don't care about laws and hate reporters; it's really got some teenage, "I don't think through things or care about others opinions", angst.

Help me understand.

I personally felt they could have responded more professionally and politely. Despite whether the news channels twist or not.

 

[Tesha]

I suppose if you only ever answer every question with "Sanctioned Suicide is pro choice", they'd soon stop quoting, as they'd either give the site name away or have to admit we're pro choice.

 

[waterworks]

yes, just because something is a law, does not mean we need to care about it. a law can be very poorly written that only benefits the few and intends control over the majority. just because it's written as a law, does not mean you should 100% follow and believe in it. the law is not universal and absolute.

so yeah, i don't care about canadian law either, nor the us law or any other law a group of rich men may have implemented.

I get the feeling what you mean to say is, you won't let the laws dictate what you consider right or true. Firstly, this not me saying your opinion is wrong, but how can you not care about laws that literally determine your quality of life? I can understand if you don't live in any of these countries, their legislation doesn't affect you. However, this forum is a global phenomenon. There are people here from countries where these laws do matter, and I feel there's a kind of unspoken obligation on the part of the SaSu team to properly represent these people. Part of that is showing that this community isn't full of renegades who don't care about what's right or wrong; that's part of what the smear campaign is with this site anyway. That people are dying without thinking things through, being egged on by sadistic no-lifers who's answer to everything is suicide.

Regardless of how media misrepresents SaSu, don't give them things to work with. Which is why I said, maybe just don't say anything. We aren't illiterates who don't care about laws or society, we think about things, but we are castaways who don't fit into modern society, and we want it to change. We want to be part of the conversation, not destroy it entirely. Granted, this isn't officially a movement, but it represents the aspects of a movement. We don't want people shying away from topics of suicide, but seeing how reasonable and thought out people who consider such are. So saying you don't care about such and such a law, will always come off wrong. Regardless of intent.

this is good content for them. they don't care about the actual lives struggling in this forum. they're just trying to get the biggest scoop however they can.

these reporters are fishing out for any details they can get their hands on. even if the response is the truth, comes from the heart and even logical. it'll be turned against this forum as a whole using manipulative words which the audience will believe like the sheep they are. simply because they refuse to try and understand how our situations are.
no one's being taken advantage of here. this is literally the only place where people with suicidal thoughts and intent can speak freely about their pain without being thrown in a glorified jail and stuffed with psych meds.

so, canadian reporters and any others sneaking about trying to sabotage this community, fuck all of you.
even if you shut this place down somehow, people will find ways to kill themselves and it'll be on your hands once each and every death becomes a messy scene due to lack of resources and knowledge. oh, but nevermind. you don't fucking care because it's just more content for you to report about.

I agree with the sentiment, news media is mass manipulation. It's just a tool for propaganda.

I suppose if you only ever answer every question with "Sanctioned Suicide is pro choice", they'd soon stop quoting, as they'd either give the site name away or have to admit we're pro choice.

I can get behind that

 

[DoubleUp8]

This site will always be misunderstood and controversial. It really wouldn't have mattered if you gave the most eloquent and reasonable and intelligent response of all time. They would just cherry pick words and twist them out of context to fit their agenda.

 

[avalonisburning]

It's funny to me, how anyone outside of this forum absolutely can't help themselves when it comes to representing us as card-carrying evil death cultists.

They clearly think they're the more virtuous and righteous side of the debate, so why do they feel the need to constantly fight dirty? Surely, if we're as dangerous and insidious as everyone thinks we are, a faithful and uneditorialized depiction of this forum should speak for itself.

 

[Sprite_Geist]

I understand why some users think that the Sanctioned Suicide team could have responded differently, because in many situations being constructive can lead to better dialogue, and in turn a better understanding of whatever is being discussed, but when this community becomes a subject of mass media outlets then politeness or constructiveness no longer matters...

...The moderators of Sanctioned Suicide, and the community in general, have previously been attacked relentlessly and viciously, and regardless of how the community responds it leads to (in most instances) absolutely nothing except more insults, and horrible slander. Yes: this slander could be ignored, but there is also a limit to how much anybody can ignore harassment before they begin to break down mentally; at this point there are usually only two options: the first option is to simply let the abuse happen, and absorb it as it hits you, at the expense of your already damaged health; the second option is to defend yourself, and attempt to put across your side of the situation, but given how much harassment the users of this forum have experienced their response is understandably not going to be totally friendly.

In the end those who slander this community had already decided on their (strong) opinion of it before they decided to attack, so they are not interested in changing their opinion; now they just want their hateful or ignorant rhetoric to be heard. No amount of civility will change this.

 

[snowbird]

I didn't view their response as being "hostile" because it even says in previous posts on their twitter that they won't be giving interviews and won't entertain journalists with their sensationalism.
Still, those people chose to ignore and bother them anyway. So what did they respect, really? To be welcomed with open arms when the past has shown plenty of times that these things only ever go one direction?
If it was me - I wouldn't even have replied at all. Just report for spam and block, lol (but I have a zero bullshit tolerance anyway, so there's that)

 

[dweams]

a faithful and uneditorialized depiction of this forum should speak for itself.

This is exactly what we need. A reporter who doesn't ignore the fact that there's an active recovery section on the home page of this site!

But I have to say I'm a little confused as to how this CTV News reporter took "don't care about Canadian law" out of context. Based on the additional context provided by the screenshots of the actual text message exchange, the SS team's statement seemed pretty blunt and straightforward. Unless I'm missing something?

 

[jbear824]

We really are in the bad place. Eventually this site will get banned and theocratic fascism spreads more and more. May we all escape soon. Fuck.