It is sad how this website is not comforting anymore.

[Cathy Ames]

Is it weird that at this point, having left and come back, I can no longer tell what "encouragement" and "invalidation" are in reference to. [Yes, I'm sure I could figure it out if I went back through 6 pages of posts, but I don't have the energy.] Since the post keeps filtering up to the top, I, too, will now add my mostly off topic two cents.

I definitely agree with Funeral Cry that the older posts on this forum have a very different quality than most of the more recent ones. I guess that is because a substantial number of the original members have moved on since that time, and the new people simply are "different" from the original members in some ways (and how could they NOT be different?). There could be a lot of explanations for the people and the types of posts being different, but I think one of the reasons is that NYT article. Possibly that article (and others) have caused there to be a higher proportion of people here who are in a big rush and appear to be acting impulsively. Maybe being inundated with that type of content has an (unwanted? involuntary?) effect on others who ascribe to "choice" but also have concern about people impulsively carrying out a permanent thing that very likely will have repercussions on people left behind or people who end up somehow involved (for example by discovering a body?).

Perhaps it didn't always read as such, but right now the pinned post about "The Principles of Sanctioned Suicide" includes this:

"We accept that suicide is a personal, ethical choice, that may be considered in extreme situations (such as by a person in terminal pain) as long as they are in a rational, non-impulsive state."

In fact, I kind of think I had to state that I was in a rational, non-impulsive state (or something similar?) before I could sign up here. I feel as though I am reading a lot of posts from people are in an impulsive state, but I could be wrong about that.

Also, I'm finding this thread to be a great demonstration of some of those interpersonal communication/cognitive behavior therapy concepts, such as the importance of using "I statements" and the avoidance of "labelling."

For example, when I see people advocate that others must go on living at all costs, I think they are acting in a very close-minded, unkind, ignorant, and selfish manner because they do not appear to take into account the suicidal person's quality of life and whether or not it can realistically be expected to improve under the person's particular circumstances. <--I could be wrong, but I think that's a decent "I statement." I'm guessing M.R. would not have been upset to see that F.C. considers such-and-such kind of person to be pro-life (or delusional or whatever it was). In the past, I saw M.R. stick up for and advocate for F.C. when people were mean to F.C. I'm pretty sure there was no underlying issue against F.C. M.R. seemed upset to be called delusional (or pro-life, maybe? I don't remember) and then got stuck on that train of thought and could not get off it, which is something that happens to some of us who are mentally interesting.

Is it our responsibility to learn how to recognize that we are stuck and then get unstuck? Yes. [Also, how DO you get unstuck? If anyone knows this, please do share!] Is it society's responsibility to make every possible effort to avoid contributing to other people's "stuck thinking"? OF COURSE NOT, but anytime any person makes an effort in this direction, it is a kindness and a blessing.

Also, I strongly disapprove of harassing people in DMs (or profile posts) or participating in threads for the purpose of carrying out harassment. Please do not take anything I have said here as a defense of that type of behavior. I don't defend that.

Here endeth the random collection of thoughts that I am considering to be a reply post.

 

[Angi]

Is it weird that at this point, having left and come back, I can no longer tell what "encouragement" and "invalidation" are in reference to. [Yes, I'm sure I could figure it out if I went back through 6 pages of posts, but I don't have the energy.] Since the post keeps filtering up to the top, I, too, will now add my mostly off topic two cents.

I definitely agree with Funeral Cry that the older posts on this forum have a very different quality than most of the more recent ones. I guess that is because a substantial number of the original members have moved on since that time, and the new people simply are "different" from the original members in some ways (and how could they NOT be different?). There could be a lot of explanations for the people and the types of posts being different, but I think one of the reasons is that NYT article. Possibly that article (and others) have caused there to be a higher proportion of people here who are in a big rush and appear to be acting impulsively. Maybe being inundated with that type of content has an (unwanted? involuntary?) effect on others who ascribe to "choice" but also have concern about people impulsively carrying out a permanent thing that very likely will have repercussions on people left behind or people who end up somehow involved (for example by discovering a body?).

Perhaps it didn't always read as such, but right now the pinned post about "The Principles of Sanctioned Suicide" includes this:

"We accept that suicide is a personal, ethical choice, that may be considered in extreme situations (such as by a person in terminal pain) as long as they are in a rational, non-impulsive state."

I kind of think I had to state that I was in a rational, non-impulsive state (or something similar?) before I could sign up here, in fact. I feel as though I am reading a lot of posts from people are in an impulsive state, but I could be wrong about that.

Also, I'm finding this thread to be a great demonstration of some of those interpersonal communication/cognitive behavior therapy concepts, such as the importance of using "I statements" and the avoidance of "labelling."

For example, when I see people advocate that others must go on living at all costs, I think they are acting in a very close-minded, unkind, ignorant, and selfish manner because they do not appear to take into account the suicidal person's quality of life and whether or not it can realistically be expected to improve under the person's particular circumstances. <--I could be wrong, but I think that's a decent "I statement." I'm guessing M.R. would not have been upset to see that F.C. considers such-and-such kind of person to be pro-life (or delusional or whatever it was). In the past, I saw M.R. stick up for and advocate for F.C. when people were mean to F.C. I'm pretty sure there was no underlying issue against F.C. M.R. seemed upset to be called delusional (or pro-life, maybe? I don't remember) and then got stuck on that train of thought and could not get off it, which is something that happens to some of us who are mentally interesting.

Is it our responsibility to learn how to recognize that we are stuck and then get unstuck? Yes. [Also, how DO you get unstuck? If anyone knows this, please do share!] Is it society's responsibility to make every possible effort to avoid contributing to other people's "stuck thinking"? OF COURSE NOT, but anytime any person makes an effort in this direction, it is a kindness and a blessing.

Also, I strongly disapprove of harassing people in DMs (or profile posts) or participating in threads for the purpose of carrying out harassment. Please do not take anything I have said here as a defense of that type of behavior. I don't defend that.

Here endeth the random collection of thoughts that I am considering to be a reply post.

Yes, and thank you for writing up the first several pages of this thread. I was in fact so irritated by some things that I went through all 7 pages of posts. Now I wonder what a conclusion of this thread might look like.

One important part that was said often, needs to be added to your summary and I hope holds true for everyone still discussing here, is: Noone gets to bully the OP. Not appropriate and not ok!

The whole turmoil here is probably amplified (and certainly amplified for me) by the fact that someone was banned for what he said here. I get it, after reading some of the linked threads, that this was the drop that filled the bucket and not the entire reason for the ban. I love that we are not allowed to follow people to harass them on SS! I just cannot shake the discomfort of the initial: "Wait, this gets you banned??", I had before reading up on the rest of the bucket.

To answer you question about getting unstuck: I do this by stepping out of the situation and waiting until the compelling emotions are not quite so compelling anymore. I would absolutely appreciate if someone shares faster ideas to do this.

I do appreciate the point you made that this is one place where people are allowed to express the view that life is bad and they want to die. I agree this is censored in most other places and people need this site to be able to express this view.

There is another view which I find is censored in most other places. My view that life can be good for a privileged few but that my own personal existence is hell so I want to die. The general view is that I should limp along and be grateful. I'm in agony over the life that could have been. For me and all those others who suffer.

I feel censored in general society and I don't always feel my position is acceptable on this site.

Just to say Rain. People like me need this site too!

This adresses the content of this discussion which is upsetting to me, personally. Yes, the worldview you describe first gets censored in most places. But, at least to me, this does not mean we need to censor all other views here. I would prefer to be dead. I may kill myself. I draw a lot of comfort from the information provided here, and some from the social interaction. I am convinced that someone else has a life worth living. Am I the correct type of suicidal for this site, may I be here?

I actually dislike life in an abstract way, it seems like a constant stream of needs, demands, obstacles, urges, fighting, and then the constant threat of horrible physical and psychological pain.

But attending to how my life USED TO BE, I know for a fact it can be enjoyable. I'm just not there anymore, so I ended in this fucking place.

So my position is simply that, on the whole and from outside, life looks like something that only exists for now, it's imperfect and suffering, but many people live this struggling experience and still obtain from it something that makes every day worthwhile. But you can also very easily fall through the cracks of life and end up in the gutter, in sheol, where you can hear the laughter and activity from above but you are stuck in the shadows, stumbling across sharp objects in the darkness and trying to survive drinking fetid water and the spoils that fall from above. You're not delusional and neither are they, you're just experiencing a part of reality they can't and don't want to see.

This resonates very much with me. Thank you

The recovery section is there because this is a pro-choice forum, it does not mean that the choice to continue living is a more rational choice. And stating that as a personal view is not encouragement.

It's a fact that if we choose to continue living we are delusional, because delusions like confidence and hope actually minimise the death anxiety and that enables us to face all the potential risks of being alive. You can look up the research.

When I choose to stay alive for another day, I understand that mostly it's SI manipulating me into taking on these risks that I am not comfortable taking and delusions are present as well, like hoping it won't get very bad very fast, which is always a possibility. And it's really difficult to call it a "choice" to begin with.

It would be difficult to call suicide delusional, since it prevents all potential harms, which always outweigh potential pleasures in severity and duration.

It's your own choice, but make sure that you think both options through beyond societal indoctrination. If you actually did that, you wouldn't get offended at people pointing out that delusions play a role in this decision.

Why do you call people who want to live delusional? What does it do for you?
Also, can you not imagine a single person who has evidence that their own life is worth living to them?

In case we are actually just using different definitions of delusion, on the top of this page is the one I use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion . After a closer look, you are certainly using a different definition than me, I am relieved to see. You argue that it would be difficult to call suicide delusional. With the definition I use, it would be plainly and obviously wrong to call suicide delusional.

I'm trying to promote choice itself. I'd like to think that's one of the things that this site is about.

Thank you for "both-siding" this discussion. I think it is particularily important here. And it is usually one hell of a job.

Well I shouldn't have written that, as I had nowhere near enough info to come to that position. So I feel embarrassed, and a little shitty, but wrong is wrong.

Most uplifting post of this thread! So cool of you to admit this!

Yh thnk = nt abslute qustn
Sme ppl wn2 liv & sme ppl wn2 di
Sme ppl wn2 liv bt bt lfe = 2 dffclt & thy cnsidr c.t.b 2 b only optn evn if thy nt wnt rlly wn2
Evry1 hs thr own exprnces & feelngs of lfe & thy r all as valid as ech-othr i.m.o
No1 = dlusnl eithr wy bcse every1 = livng dffrnt realty 2 evry1 els

I started this post saying that I am looking for a conclusion. I find it here. I would like this to be the conclusion of this thread. Maybe I will just not come back after this post, and force it to be my (delusional) conclusion. Either way, thank you for saying it!

 

[Istanbulite]

Like many others, I always enjoy your posts, too. IDK, but I still feel comfort here, regardless of some of the drivel espoused by some on here on occasion. Truthfully, unless it's really, really egregious drivel, where I feel compelled to react, I mostly just pass right over it and move on with my business. Maybe I am able to just compartmentalize better than some. Although I know I haven't been here as long as you, yeah, I still feel comfort in like 99% of the postings I read from people, from all walks of life, in all different situations, simply knowing the feelings I have aren't only known to me. It's not that there's comfort in knowing that others are suffering as much as you, but it kind of is, ya know? I don't want anybody to ever have to suffer in any way, ever. But, I guess it's kinda true that misery does love company.

But you joined the day she posted this.

100 posts in a week too now. What a joke, you are clearly a DA.

 

[rationaltake]

This is basically my position. I know in my bones killing myself would be a spiritual failure but it would even worse to never advance spiritually and have to live a life of resentment, frustration and boredom. So I either get out of this rut or I will end it. I don't want to live as someone that proclaims the world is in the wrong but cannot produce goodness.

To me this is a perfect example of existentialist authenticity given the existentialist premise that people can only be judged on their actions.

 

[WorthlessTrash]

But you joined the day she posted this.

100 posts in a week too now. What a joke, you are clearly a DA.

They joined in April.......

 

[9BBN]

One important part that was said often, needs to be added to your summary and I hope holds true for everyone still Why do you call people who want to live delusional? What does it do for you?
Also, can you not imagine a single person who has evidence that their own life is worth living to them?

In case we are actually just using different definitions of delusion, on the top of this page is the one I use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion . After a closer look, you are certainly using a different definition than me, I am relieved to see. You argue that it would be difficult to call suicide delusional. With the definition I use, it would be plainly and obviously wrong to call suicide delusional.

Different definition of "delusion?" This is a weak defence of OceanBlue's invalidating statement. If someone said the corresponding statement, 'It's a fact that if we choose to stop living we are delusional,' the mods would not say "wellllllll, it's not necessarily invalidating, it depends on their definition of delusional." You have not been around the block very long here. Censors and bans for "invalidating statements" come often, but only when it's pro-life, but not pro-death it seems.

Anyway, if you really want to get technical here, I'll bite. OB also calls hope and confidence delusions. The definition is clearly one-sided, because according to OB, without delusions only SI keeps us wanting to live. OB also literally says these delusions are so strong, that to anyone who thinks they are choosing to live, "it's really difficult to call it a "choice" to begin with." This is textbook invalidation, putting the "choice" to live in quotes. The invalidation in OB's words does not hinge on them saying "delusional." It's in the whole post.

 

[rationaltake]

Different definition of "delusion?" This is a bullshit defence of OceanBlue's invalidating statement. If someone said the corresponding statement, 'It's a fact that if we choose to stop living we are delusional,' the mods would not say "wellllllll, it's not necessarily invalidating, it depends on their definition of delusional." You have not been around the block very long here. Censors and bans for "invalidating statements" come often, but only when it's pro-life, but not pro-death it seems.

I feel the two sentences I highlighted above come across as invalidating statements.

You've made some brilliant posts and put your point across very well. I appreciate your passion.

In common with every member of this forum Angi deserves to be treated with respect.

 

[9BBN]

I feel the two sentences I highlighted above come across as invalidating statements.

You've made some brilliant posts and put your point across very well. I appreciate your passion.

Like every one of us on here Angi deserves to be treated with respect.

Absolutely correct. I apologize to Angi. 17 minutes before you posted this I edited my post to call it a weak defence not a bullshit one. I got riled up in writing that but upon re-reading I edited because that's hypocritical of me and at the expense of Angi, who did write a very well thought-out post that made good points too.

 

[rationaltake]

Absolutely correct. I apologize to Angi. 17 minutes before you posted this I edited my post to call it a weak defence not a bullshit one. I got riled up in writing that but upon re-reading I edited because that's hypocritical of me and at the expense of Angi, who did write a very well thought-out post that made good points too.

Kudos for this reply. I'm finding this discussion pithy and thought-provoking.

 

[Graham]

I think I did write about this months ago, but I feel like this even more now. I think that in the past, a long time ago, being on here did comfort me a bit, even know nothing could possibly ever make me feel better and I will always suffer no matter what. I feel like now, there has been too many pro life, harmful and insulting things on here. The last thing that suicidal people need is being made to feel worse. It is a shame how things turn out like this, but after all life is extremely disappointing. Things only seem to get worse.

I just think that in this world people will always be cruel and that is just the way that people are. At this point, it seems as though there is no peace or comfort in this life, there is only pain, and it is tiring trying to distract myself each day, having to deal with this miserable existence. Sometimes I do envy those who come on here for methods and just go. If euthanasia was legalised then this website would not even need to exist in the first place.

This life is so meaningless and temporary but at the same time so painful. I wish I never felt a need to write about this and I wish that I never felt a need to use the forum, if I was gone from this world I would not have to. I wish that I was gone more than anything, but of course dying is not easy. I envy those who have left this life as they are free from suffering, they do not have to deal with pointless life anymore. Non existence is all that I will ever want.

I'm not going to be pro life or pro death

What makes life pointless and a non existence?

I often feel the same

 

[rationaltake]

It would be difficult to call suicide delusional

In case we are actually just using different definitions of delusion, on the top of this page is the one I use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion . After a closer look, you are certainly using a different definition than me, I am relieved to see. You argue that it would be difficult to call suicide delusional. With the definition I use, it would be plainly and obviously wrong to call suicide delusional.

Different definition of "delusion?" This is a weak defence of OceanBlue's invalidating statement.

Interestingly I didn't think Angi was defending OceanBlue's statement.

The dictionary definition of delusion given above is "a false belief". Suicide is an abstract noun and the last time I looked abstract nouns can't hold beliefs. So according to this definition suicide can't be delusional.

But this was just my interpretation. Sorry if I've got it wrong Angi.

 

[9BBN]

Interestingly I didn't think Angi was defending OceanBlue's statement.

The dictionary definition of delusion given above is "a false belief". Suicide is an abstract noun and the last time I looked abstract nouns can't hold beliefs. So according to this definition suicide can't be delusional.

But this was just my interpretation. Sorry if I've got it wrong Angi.

In their post, OB called people who choose to continue living (a concrete noun) delusional, called things like hope and confidence delusions, and said it is difficult to call suicide (an abstract noun) delusional. If suicide is used like an abstract noun here, OB is not using "delusional" in a way that strictly applies to concrete or abstract nouns.

Here it makes sense to point out suicide is also a verb, and likely OB meant it that way (something like, 'it is difficult to say that killing yourself is delusional'). Actions can be delusional, i.e. guided by delusions.

Also, I don't really think "holding a false belief" defines delusional adequately, the word holds deeper connotations challenging the sound mind of the person. OceanBlue is invalidating the capacity for choice of people who choose to live, as well as invalidating the choice to live itself. And @RainAndSadness 'Liked' this post.

I understood Angi as defending OB by saying they are using "delusional" in a harmless way. I could be mistaken. Regardless, they aptly pointed out that it's important to be sure how OB is using the word. I still don't think mods would even give this kind of leeway to pro-lifers, btw.

Anyway, this is all pedantic, and I stand by my other point that mods would not tolerate someone calling suicidal people delusional, saying pessimism is just a delusion, that it is difficult to call life delusional, and it's difficult to call suicide a "choice," because without delusions the only reason people kill themselves is really because of this SI-boogeyman called Suicidal Ideation, under which we have no true agency to kill ourselves.

Summary since it's been a few pages:
Rain argued that the hypocrisy is justified. But it is irrelevant that other forums get to have pro-life bias as long as this forum wants to call itself pro-choice. If a forum exclusively lets one side invalidate the other, it's not pro-choice. The logic that "they can do encouragement, so we can do invalidation" is arbitrary anyway. And it's overkill, because invalidation is worse than encouragement. Invalidation creates an echo chamber, but encouragement can only rail against it. Invalidation can tune out not only encouragement but also reason. This forum can't afford to be an echo chamber, because the forum calls itself pro-choice, and the high-stakes nature of the forum is discussing suicide. OB's post had other problems with it that I pointed out, like cultish thinking, which makes it all the more shocking Rain Liked it. This is where opponents of the forum are coming from, and if nothing changes, then not only will the purpose of this forum be undermined, but also it might be the reason it gets taken down and lost forever, remembered as a failed experiment, proof of illegitimacy.

I really hope, though maybe hope is indeed a delusion, that Rain explains themself. Their last reply to me did not acknowledge anything about OB's post that they Liked, so I hope this time they carefully review the discussion.

 

[CrossroadsCurious]

 

[Istanbulite]

They joined in April.......

Still questionable. Just like you. 1k posts in a month? Bunch of DAs.

 

[WorthlessTrash]

Still questionable. Just like you. 1k posts in a month? Bunch of DAs.

That's nice. I post a lot because I don't do anything else with my life. Not that it's any of your business.

 

[Istanbulite]

That's nice. I post a lot because I don't do anything else with my life. Not that it's any of your business.

Guess I got you triggered!

 

[MicropBaldCurrycel]

yes i can see how you feel that way and the thing you say about users insulting each other theres examples right up top lol.

But yes i have been noticing there is some hostility going on .

It can be understandable though since we're all frustrated and depressed.

theres many users here who make it worthwhile.

Cathy ames is amazing.

you are also great, your posts are amazing and so well written and thought out.

many people here care about you, and write on your profile, focus on the good and get comfort from us.

i listened to the song of your username its great.

she sings so beautiful

it reminded me off a siren/mermaid.

so enchanting and beautiful.

your username put me into a whole siren/mermaid phase actually.

i know it seems silly but you had a positive impact on my life, i watched your song on youtube then thought of sirens now im in a whole phase.

downloaded siren /mermaid shows and movies.

reading about them on reddit thetruthishere.

watching tiktoks and youtube videos of sightings.

i know you didnt intend to and this isnt what your name or song is about but it lead me down a path thats kept my mind busy and engaged and mermaids make me happy.

 

[rationaltake]

Still questionable. Just like you. 1k posts in a month? Bunch of DAs.

Please follow the excellent examples in this thread of people treating each other with respect.

 

[Istanbulite]

Please follow the excellent examples in this thread of people treating each other with respect.

new additions are very suspect to me, lots of GIFs in their avatar and loads of posts already in such a limited time..

and they act like they know every poster already, it is peculiar

 

[rationaltake]

yes i can see how you feel that way and the thing you say about users insulting each other theres examples right up top lol.

But yes i have been noticing there is some hostility going on .

It can be understandable though since we're all frustrated and depressed.

theres many users here who make it worthwhile.

Cathy ames is amazing.

you are also great, your posts are amazing and so well written and thought out.

many people here care about you, and write on your profile, focus on the good and get comfort from us.

i listened to the song of your username its great.

she sings so beautiful

it reminded me off a siren/mermaid.

so enchanting and beautiful.

your username put me into a whole siren/mermaid phase actually.

i know it seems silly but you had a positive impact on my life, i watched your song on youtube then thought of sirens now im in a whole phase.

downloaded siren /mermaid shows and movies.

reading about them on reddit thetruthishere.

watching tiktoks and youtube videos of sightings.

i know you didnt intend to and this isnt what your name or song is about but it lead me down a path thats kept my mind busy and engaged and mermaids make me happy.

There are some real gems in this thread and your post here is one of them.

Thanks for making me smile.

 

[Dot]

new additions are very suspect to me, lots of GIFs in their avatar and loads of posts already in such a limited time..

and they act like they know every poster already, it is peculiar

Thy r regulr in cht & tlk 2 ppl oftn - = natrl thy wll b gettng 2 knw ppl

 

[Angi]

I feel the two sentences I highlighted above come across as invalidating statements.

You've made some brilliant posts and put your point across very well. I appreciate your passion.

In common with every member of this forum Angi deserves to be treated with respect.

Thank you for defending me, rationaltake. If we want to argue against invalidating statements, we should probably try to avoid making new ones or deal with them appropriately. Apology accepted, 9BBN. I appreciate your passion, too, and I think making (slightly) overheated statements and correcting them later is fine.

Different definition of "delusion?" This is a weak defence of OceanBlue's invalidating statement. If someone said the corresponding statement, 'It's a fact that if we choose to stop living we are delusional,' the mods would not say "wellllllll, it's not necessarily invalidating, it depends on their definition of delusional." You have not been around the block very long here. Censors and bans for "invalidating statements" come often, but only when it's pro-life, but not pro-death it seems.

Anyway, if you really want to get technical here, I'll bite. OB also calls hope and confidence delusions. The definition is clearly one-sided, because according to OB, without delusions only SI keeps us wanting to live. OB also literally says these delusions are so strong, that to anyone who thinks they are choosing to live, "it's really difficult to call it a "choice" to begin with." This is textbook invalidation, putting the "choice" to live in quotes. The invalidation in OB's words does not hinge on them saying "delusional." It's in the whole post.

Neither a weak defence nor a bullshit defence (on a sidenote, was the pun intended?). Not a defence at all, this statement is an explanation, and one where limited plausibility does not hurt the purpose, as long as it is just a weak explanation and not a complete bullshit one. Let me explain:

I want this discussion to be interesting (or pithy and thought-provoking, as rationaltake put it) and I want it civil. I like it when the conversation can stay friendly even over loaded topics, but I am ok with civil, as long as the discussion has other merits. Neither attacking nor defending OceanBlue's statement will work towards this goal. She is certainly more capable of defending her own statement than I am, if she chooses to do so, and I find the attacking quite complete. Now, by explaining her statement, I am giving her three options, all of which would help my goal of moving this discussion forward while keeping it civil:

- She can ignore it. This way, we have a kinda acceptable explanation and we can hopefully let it rest. I was mostly expecting this choice, since she seems to have decided to ignore this thread quite a while ago. I think this is a good choice, as it benefits both her and the discussion.
- She can buy into my explanation, saying something like: "Here is what I actually meant:" and give us a statement that does not severly invalidate other people's feelings. Why not let people backtrack after saying something invalidating? Worked nicely in a post I answered in the top of this post!
- She can label it incorrect. For this, she will need to give a better explanation than mine. This should be easily achieved, since it is her statement being explained. This option may provide a less invalidating result than the original statement, which is rather hard to beat in terms of "invalidatingness". This is the most confrontational result, but it will provide more food for thought, especially as long as she does it respectfully. I like to think I have worded my statement very carefully in order to obtain a respectful answer, should I receive an answer at all.

In their post, OB called people who choose to continue living (a concrete noun) delusional, called things like hope and confidence delusions, and said it is difficult to call suicide (an abstract noun) delusional. If suicide is used like an abstract noun here, OB is not using "delusional" in a way that strictly applies to concrete or abstract nouns.

Here it makes sense to point out suicide is also a verb, and likely OB meant it that way (something like, 'it is difficult to say that killing yourself is delusional'). Actions can be delusional, i.e. guided by delusions.

Also, I don't really think "holding a false belief" defines delusional adequately, the word holds deeper connotations challenging the sound mind of the person. OceanBlue is invalidating the capacity for choice of people who choose to live, as well as invalidating the choice to live itself. And @RainAndSadness 'Liked' this post.

I understood Angi as defending OB by saying they are using "delusional" in a harmless way. I could be mistaken. Regardless, they aptly pointed out that it's important to be sure how OB is using the word. I still don't think mods would even give this kind of leeway to pro-lifers, btw.

Anyway, this is all pedantic, and I stand by my other point that mods would not tolerate someone calling suicidal people delusional, saying pessimism is just a delusion, that it is difficult to call life delusional, and it's difficult to call suicide a "choice," because without delusions the only reason people kill themselves is really because of this SI-boogeyman called Suicidal Ideation, under which we have no true agency to kill ourselves.

Summary since it's been a few pages:
Rain argued that the hypocrisy is justified. But it is irrelevant that other forums get to have pro-life bias as long as this forum wants to call itself pro-choice. If a forum exclusively lets one side invalidate the other, it's not pro-choice. The logic that "they can do encouragement, so we can do invalidation" is arbitrary anyway. And it's overkill, because invalidation is worse than encouragement. Invalidation creates an echo chamber, but encouragement can only rail against it. Invalidation can tune out not only encouragement but also reason. This forum can't afford to be an echo chamber, because the forum calls itself pro-choice, and the high-stakes nature of the forum is discussing suicide. OB's post had other problems with it that I pointed out, like cultish thinking, which makes it all the more shocking Rain Liked it. This is where opponents of the forum are coming from, and if nothing changes, then not only will the purpose of this forum be undermined, but also it might be the reason it gets taken down and lost forever, remembered as a failed experiment, proof of illegitimacy.

I really hope, though maybe hope is indeed a delusion, that Rain explains themself. Their last reply to me did not acknowledge anything about OB's post that they Liked, so I hope this time they carefully review the discussion.

Fine, let's get to the meat of this.

I had thought my earlier post bleeds my discomfort with what you have just explained so much that it almost drowns the reader in my anxious blood. In case someone still missed it, I added rationaltake's wording of essentially the same problem. A broadly invalidating statement was made. Someone likes it? Don't care much. Rain likes it? I shudder. Feels like the integrity of the whole site gets threatened, which by design refuses to police topics and polices invalidation and threats instead. Now, let me have a go at another explanation of someone else's statement, totally open to correction:
Maybe Rain liked a different part of OceanBlue's statement, not the part that equals "You people have your feelings only because you are not right inna head."? I have below cropped OceanBlue's post severely, to highlight parts that are perfectly fine, meaning not invalidating whatsoever, as well as very in character for Rain to like:

[...], it does not mean that the choice to continue living is a more rational choice. And stating that as a personal view is not encouragement.

[...]

It's your own choice, but make sure that you think both options through beyond societal indoctrination. [...]

I really hope, though maybe hope is indeed a delusion, that Rain explains themself. Their last reply to me did not acknowledge anything about OB's post that they Liked, so I hope this time they carefully review the discussion.

I do not share this demand. I am sure Rain has a lot of other stuff to do, some of it hopefully more pleasant than this. So I would like to propose a quicker fix.
Dear @RainAndSadness , could you please read my interpretation (starting with "Maybe Rain liked a different part of OceanBlue's statement", two paragraphs above) and correct it, confirm it, or in some way explain what you meant? This way, you don't have to go through this discussion all over again, and the rest of us in this thread can hopefully get over the anxiety labelled "Someone invalidated my feelings and the administrator of this site liked that post, aaaaah!".

Now, onto the same plan already detailed above. Should Rain choose not to correct my explanation I will assume it is correct or at least close enough as it is. I will use this to put out the dumpster fire part of this thread in my head and hope that it does the same job for the other people discussing here and we can get back and focus on the interesting stuff. No need for delusions, we will soon have evidence whether this works, I am sure.

Interestingly I didn't think Angi was defending OceanBlue's statement.

The dictionary definition of delusion given above is "a false belief". Suicide is an abstract noun and the last time I looked abstract nouns can't hold beliefs. So according to this definition suicide can't be delusional.

But this was just my interpretation. Sorry if I've got it wrong Angi.

No worries. Yup, no defence intended, I think OceanBlue is more capable of defending her statement than me, will do so if she chooses to, has obviously read the criticism and is perfectly entitled to just let it go.

Wow, I should stop here and hit Post reply! So many comments were added since I started writing this, I will never get on top of it, ha! Please excuse if there is poor wording left in my post. Thanks everyone, and especially FuneralCry, for the really interesting thread!

 

[Istanbulite]

Thy r regulr in cht & tlk 2 ppl oftn - = natrl thy wll b gettng 2 knw ppl

hmm that may be so

 

[MicropBaldCurrycel]

There are some real gems in this thread and your post here is one of them.

Thanks for making me smile.

awww im glad friend you're welcome ☺

 

[Dot]

hmm that may be so

= gd of u tht u r lookng out fr th frum - = mch apprci8td

If u evr hve cncrns abt a membr = mght b wrth cntactng mods insted thgh & thy cn alwys invstig8 - thre wll alwys b nw membrs wh/ r relevd 2 fnd plce lke sasu & gld tht thy hve ppl 2 tlk & opn up 2

Evry1 = lookng out fr eachthr

 

[Pluto]

No worries. Yup, no defence intended, I think OceanBlue is more capable of defending her statement than me, will do so if she chooses to, has obviously read the criticism and is perfectly entitled to just let it go.

Not sure if it is of any help but as an old fart with parental instincts, I have a totally different interpretations of these types of comments.

I see a person who has been through unspeakable injustice expressing a fiery disapproval of life itself. To place one's self in those shoes, the position is reasonable and understandable. When there has been a lack of any counterbalancing positive experiences, such a state seems quite natural. It's analogous to spending one's entire lifetime inside a prison cell, and drawing the inevitable conclusion that the universe and life itself is merely a prison cell.

If somebody attempting recovery were personally attacked for their efforts, of course, that would cross a line. I don't feel that I have seen this happen.

My instinct is to let people express their feelings, no matter how dark. I can handle taking my share of blame as a reluctant member of the human race that failed to prevent the aforementioned atrocities that cause so much grief. Emotions cannot be fought, and suppression is dangerous in the long-term. Positive progress is more likely to come about as a result of community understanding/acceptance rather than us seeking out intellectual shortcomings in the perspective that has been expressed.

 

[Al Cappella]

I love how big everyone's brains are. It's daft sexy. Seriously.

 

[Angi]

Not sure if it is of any help but as an old fart with parental instincts, I have a totally different interpretations of these types of comments.

I see a person who has been through unspeakable injustice expressing a fiery disapproval of life itself. To place one's self in those shoes, the position is reasonable and understandable. When there has been a lack of any counterbalancing positive experiences, such a state seems quite natural. It's analogous to spending one's entire lifetime inside a prison cell, and drawing the inevitable conclusion that the universe and life itself is merely a prison cell.

If somebody attempting recovery were personally attacked for their efforts, of course, that would cross a line. I don't feel that I have seen this happen.

My instinct is to let people express their feelings, no matter how dark. I can handle taking my share of blame as a reluctant member of the human race that failed to prevent the aforementioned atrocities that cause so much grief. Emotions cannot be fought, and suppression is dangerous in the long-term. Positive progress is more likely to come about as a result of community understanding/acceptance rather than us seeking out intellectual shortcomings in the perspective that has been expressed.

I agree with what you say here and I value the contribution. I will probably need a while to understand properly, though, please feel free to elaborate.

Do you mean we should treat the statement more like feelings, rather than like a rational part of a discussion? I have trouble doing this, given the wording which screams "I have all the facts, adopt my point of view!", but I would very much like to follow your line of reasoning.

Edit to say: Maybe this is why I get nervous every time I post something I view as "fact" here. As longs as the felt label is "personal feelings" and not "universal facts", you get a lot less shit thrown at you.

 

[WorthlessTrash]

Please follow the excellent examples in this thread of people treating each other with respect.

Hos logic makes no sense. Usually moles or people who aren't on this site for the right reasons don't even talk at all. Like wtf lol

 

[Angi]

Hos logic makes no sense. Usually moles or people who aren't on this site for the right reasons don't even talk at all. Like wtf lol

We have had very shiny pro-lifers or journalists here, even in my short time on SS. (Do not want to link, they have had too much attention already.) And there is a lot of paranoia around. Of course, none of this a valid reason to have a go at you.