It is sad how this website is not comforting anymore.

[WorthlessTrash]

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.

If he is that paranoid, then he shouldn't be on this site lol ANYONE could literally be a journalist or "pro-lifer" on this site and he wouldn't be bright enough to figure it out, which is self evident by him wrongly sussing me out I just don't think anyone like that would waste their time getting 1000+ posts in the span of a month.

 

[9BBN]

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.

But she does explain exactly why she says those who live are delusional. The whole "because [of] delusions like confidence and hope," bit, which I've deconstructed earlier and recently. We know she means delusional strongly because, to anyone who thinks they are choosing to live, "it's really difficult to call it a "choice" to begin with." She's always had the right to reply here, and has explained herself so far only by saying, "being pro-choice does not imply that pro-living is a more rational decision," as an excuse for being able to say living is delusional. Then she doubled down on the "hope is that delusion" argument, which Rain also liked. She's been welcome to elaborate further for days at this point.

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:

So you're saying, maybe Rain Liked a different part of OB's statement, not the invaliding part? Still doesn't explain why the invalidation was left there no problem, and still isn't really acceptable to give that kind of a comment a Like regardless. To the extent that Rain represents the forum it is terrible optics even if Rain can somehow tidy this up.

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!".

Disagree, I think it behooves Rain to respond to this. You can argue they Liked only part of the post, but it's a big deal that the rest of the post was considered not invalidating or at least "OK since 99.9% of the internet is pro-life."

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.

 

[RainAndSadness]

[...]considering Rain is liking your comments).[...]

[...]this all started with an OceanBlue post that Rain 'Liked'[...]

[...] And @RainAndSadness 'Liked' this post.[...]

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?

Alright. First of all, what I like doesn't really affect how I moderate the forum. I think I need to clarify that because that's been a concern. If I wanted to create my own personal safe space or a forum that's based on my own morals, this place would look vastly different. This forum contains a lot of perspectives or opinions I don't agree with and they have a space here. And when I agree with somebody, it doesn't mean their opinion reflects the philosophy of this forum. Quite the opposite is the case. I try to remove my own ego as much as possible when I moderate this forum and I'm trying my best to keep everything as is since I took this position in December because I think the forum is in a good place right now and I think we consistently enforce its pro-choice philosophy.

But to answer your question... when I like a post it either means I relate to it or I consider it valuable to some degree. That can basically mean anything. But I think OceanBlue made great points, which I can relate to - and I'm gonna explain this in a second. Does that mean I agree with every single sentence in her posts? No and I'm not sure if I would agree with her opinion regarding life being inherently delusional. But I understand where she is coming from and I think she has a point because the survival instinct, self-preseveration, is not(!) a rational process. It just happens, it's often an impulse and it kicks in without much thinking. And it affects all of us. There are members in this forum, myself included, that have been in the limbo for years who agree it's an inconvenience. I've talked to these people but I've been there myself. The logical conclusion to years of introspection is that I should end my suffering. Yet I've been unable to do it. Odd, right? I know my own life is gonna be terrible, it's gonna be a living nightmare if I continue living but self preservation stopped me from doing what I wanted to do 3 years ago. And it's really frustrating, it's mind boggling. Me being alive right now and me continuing to live is only gonna increase my suffering, that's not self-care. I'm neglecting myself. And nothing is gonna ease my pain and I know that. It's a rational observation. So I could say I'm delusional for wanting to stay alive and that's where the likes come from. I know in my case it's irrational fear and meaningless hope that kept me alive. Now it's also my responsibilities, mainly this forum.
But we could have a sincere discussion if that type of self-preservation I just described is a delusional process for all people on this planet, like from a very basic philosophic perspective or if there is more to it. But I don't want to generalize all people on principle and there might be people who sincerely enjoy life even when it's a distraction from all the suffering that's going on on this planet. I simply don't know. But who am I to judge? Does that make sense? Is that take nuanced enough? I really worry that we're dealing in absolutes here because I think we can have a good faith discussion about this topic.

I'm not claiming 'scientific expertise' I said there's research on this that you can and should look up. I'm antinatalist, one of the goals is to minimise the amount of death in the world, so no, I'm not pro-death.

This post clarifies that she comes from an anti-natalist perspective when she talks about life and death and that she doesn't set her own opinion as the absolute truth when it comes to your decisons. As I said earlier, I think this entire discussion is vastly blown out of proportion. I think what OceanBlue said is pro-choice. Saying the world sucks and it sucks for everyone or as OceanBlue said in one of her posts, mainly that people who want to live are delusional, doesn't make it pro-death because she never implied that the correct answer to that sentiment is suicide. And that's what makes it so different from all the people who come into this forum ("pro-lifers") and try to persuade people from their own decisions. And that's the most important aspects that's been left out here. I can say "life generally sucks", which is my personal belief and still agree that life and death are choices you need to make for yourself. That's what being pro-choice is all about in this particular context - it means you respect someones decision even if you disagree with it, right? And Oceanblue made that very clear. She never said the correct conclusion to her ideas is suicide.

People complain that members get accused of being pro-life very quickly but I can make the same accusation to people who imply OceanBlue is pro-death. She isn't. She described an anti-natalist sentiment and it's anti-suffering, as she explained.

 

[9BBN]

Just want to clarify that although I specifically take issue with OceanBlue's invalidation, I care more about the broader argument now that pro-death invalidation should be given benefit of the doubt because the rest of the internet is so pro-life. It's a callous and indefensible position. The fact that you Liked anything is really a side point, I'm mostly shocked you you even exclusively allow invalidation of pro-living.

 

[whatevs]

 

[9BBN]

Never said OB is pro-death, just that the statement "It's a fact that if we choose to continue living we are delusional" is invalidating and one-sided, on the pro-death side.
I'll have to take a moment to reflect, but for the moment kudos for the reply.

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.

OK so your main argument is that this was neither problematic nor invalidating?

 

[RainAndSadness]

I'll have to take a moment to reflect, but for the moment kudos for the reply.

Thanks. This response took over an hour to write, like I immediately started writing when Angi directed her question at me and I really tried my best to clarify as much as possible and address the concerns that were expressed. I just want to reiterate again that this forum is as much pro-choice as it used to be in 2018 and that's my priority. And I'll take necessary measures to protect that philosophy at all cost. I just want you to know that. I'm not gonna change any core values in this community. So you have nothing to worry about in these regards.

 

[9BBN]

It's a rational observation. So I could say I'm delusional for wanting to stay alive and that's where the likes come from. I know in my case it's irrational fear and meaningless hope that kept me alive.

OK so you read "delusional" as just the opposite of rational, irrational?

 

[RainAndSadness]

OK so you read "delusional" as just the opposite of rational, irrational?

Yes. I didn't read this word as a psychiatric disorder in this context.

 

[9BBN]

Yes. I didn't read this word as a psychiatric disorder in this context.

The definition is not one or the other, irrational or a psychiatric disorder, but OK.
Look, kudos for the reply, and I respect the defence of anti-natalism. I just read the post as pushing it past that. Thanks for reading my concerns in good faith.

 

[rationaltake]

OK so you read "delusional" as just the opposite of rational, irrational?

Yes. I didn't read this word as a psychiatric disorder in this context.

Thanks both. For me this clarifies the explanation put forward by Angi.

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.

The dictionary definition of delusional quoted by Angi says a delusion is a pathology. I now think Angi was saying that OB was not using this particular definition.

I was blind-sided by my pro-linguistics bias and I apologise for taking the thread down a grammatical blind alley.

I think this has been one of the most fruitful discussions I have ever seen on here and it's a great example of how to treat each other with respect.

Like 9BBN I need to reflect on things that have come up during this thread.

 

[9BBN]

This post clarifies that she comes from an anti-natalist perspective when she talks about life and death and that she doesn't set her own opinion as the absolute truth when it comes to your decisons.

The dictionary definition of delusional quoted by Angi says a delusion is a pathology. I now think Angi was saying that OB was not using this particular definition.

Even if "delusional" was strictly used to mean irrational, it probably behooves most of us, perhaps especially the anti-natalists, to be more careful about the word. This is a suicide forum and even in the word's benign usage it carries connotations that challenge the person's capacity for choice. I still think it's problematic that the "choice" to live was belittled with quotes. I also think it's problematic the way SI was portrayed. Rain said there was no truth-setting OB's post, but it is truth-setting to say, "It's a fact that if we choose to continue living we are delusional," even with the charitable definition of delusional. It is establishing the rationality of the choice for others. I also see it as truth-setting to dubiously call hope and confidence delusions, including the hope and confidence of others. I also don't think it's entirely consistent to say OB is using "delusional" strictly to mean irrational, unless OB is calling hope and confidence necessarily irrational. Here's the post once again:

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.

 

[whatevs]

Even if "delusional" was strictly used to mean irrational, it probably behooves most of us, perhaps especially the anti-natalists, to be more careful about the word. This is a suicide forum and even in the word's benign usage it carries connotations that challenge the person's capacity for choice. I still think it's problematic that the "choice" to live was belittled with quotes. I also think it's problematic the way SI was portrayed. Rain said there was no truth-setting OB's post, but it is truth-setting to say, "It's a fact that if we choose to continue living we are delusional," even with the charitable definition of delusional. It is establishing the rationality of the choice for others. I also see it as truth-setting to dubiously call hope and confidence delusions, including the hope and confidence of others. Here's the post once again:

You're pursuing this with the same ardor only a fresh autistic sleuth can achieve. Truth or nothing. Godspeed, I think you're pushing a discussion that's useful!

And I mean for those that need things spelled out for them fastidiously, of course, as I think you made an irrefutable point long ago.

The prevailing view of the value of life on the forum and how suicide should be treated isn't decided or elucidated in this thread, but rather should be easily surmised after weeks browsing and posting. If what you are ultimately asking is if people signing up to the website entails a higher likelihood of them killing themselves, that's an easy one: yes.

But those that come here already have something in mind, and nobody will tell them that they should go on and do it. That isn't permitted, is illegal and it's just bad taste. It's the methods and to a smaller extent the inevitable effects of social validation (which you are arguing about on this thread) that account for this higher likelihood to suicide.

At the end of the day if you really, really want to stop being suicidal you will stop coming to the forum. This is a straightforward option that will be conjured by even the dumbest of minds at some point if they start feeling realistically hopeful for the future.

Satan knows that I have enjoyed the discovery of the forum but not coming back ever again would mean the best possible news.

 

[9BBN]

You're pursuing this with the same ardor only a fresh autistic sleuth can achieve. Truth or nothing. Godspeed, I think you're pushing a discussion that's useful!

I'm not autistic, but I do take this as a compliment.

 

[whatevs]

I'm not autistic, but I do take this as a compliment.

I'm actually autistic, supposedly. I barely ever user that as something pejorative. Neurotypicals sux. Being autistic is pretty neat as long as it doesn't come clustered with something else.

 

[FuneralCry]

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

What makes life pointless and a non existence?

I often feel the same

To me, life is pointless as I believe that for me personally there is no actual point to being alive, I see no point to suffering for decades until old age. Life is completely meaningless after all and all that humans are doing is just waiting around to die. Life is just one big distraction from death. We are forced to exist and we have to endure this life for no reason. We only exist for the sake of existing and I view life as being completely unnecessary, we were all perfectly fine not existing until we were forced to live.

 

[CrossroadsCurious]

Let's take this thread off track cause I've got some questions.

I've seen this posted so many times, and as I enjoy playing devils advocate, lets examine the following statement...

"I was forced to live/exist"

Q.) How do you know?

If you're one to believe we don't have a soul, then we are simply an evolved organic consciousness born to this world. We came from nowhere, there was nothing before, so we have nothing to go back to when we die. We're just a light bulb briefly turning on and off and then thrown away.

Now, if one does believe in the soul or consciousness existing...

Q.) Are we a new soul experiencing reality for the first time?

Q.) An older soul sent back here as a punishment?

Q.) Sent back here as a reward?

Q.) Maybe my soul and yours CHOSE to come back here, but since life is a gamble unfortunately this time around we drew the short stick and are now screwed?

Take it a little further...

Q.) If life is recycled souls coming back (whether by choice or not) shouldn't we be doing something to improve this life for the next batch of souls being reborn (which might include our own one day)?

Just woke up & drinking coffee, my mind goes weird places this time of day...

 

[Al Cappella]

Let's take this thread off track cause I've got some questions.

I've seen this posted so many times, and as I enjoy playing devils advocate, lets examine the following statement...

"I was forced to live/exist"

Q.) How do you know?

If you're one to believe we don't have a soul, then we are simply an evolved organic consciousness born to this world. We came from nowhere, there was nothing before, so we have nothing to go back to when we die. We're just a light bulb briefly turning on and off and then thrown away.

I'm with the ones that believe we don't have a soul, and that consciousness arises only as a biological process with the brain, and vanishes again when the brain is kaput.

As for being forced to exist—not true. After a certain age you can take yourself out whenever you like. I'm assuming of course you haven't been kidnapped to spend your time in a bare basement somewhere. This also assumes you have agency and choice in the matter, but as far as here goes folks don't believe suicide is solely determined by genetics.

 

[Angi]

Thanks. This response took over an hour to write, like I immediately started writing when Angi directed her question at me and I really tried my best to clarify as much as possible and address the concerns that were expressed. I just want to reiterate again that this forum is as much pro-choice as it used to be in 2018 and that's my priority. And I'll take necessary measures to protect that philosophy at all cost. I just want you to know that. I'm not gonna change any core values in this community. So you have nothing to worry about in these regards.

Thank you. I value the effort that went into this reply. I took me a couple of hours to put an answer together, much like when I try to answer myopybyproxy's elaborate writing and I know into where the answer needs to tie, but my brain just will not compute it.
The above was not replying to me, so I guess you know that I am not commenting and cannot comment on change from how the forum was before you took over. I was a lurker then, and never caught a vibe of the community beyond: "Holy shit, there is a website that tells you how to kill yourself more thinly-veiled than wikipedia!"

Alright. First of all, what I like doesn't really affect how I moderate the forum. I think I need to clarify that because that's been a concern. If I wanted to create my own personal safe space or a forum that's based on my own morals, this place would look vastly different. This forum contains a lot of perspectives or opinions I don't agree with and they have a space here. And when I agree with somebody, it doesn't mean their opinion reflects the philosophy of this forum. Quite the opposite is the case. I try to remove my own ego as much as possible when I moderate this forum and I'm trying my best to keep everything as is since I took this position in December because I think the forum is in a good place right now and I think we consistently enforce its pro-choice philosophy.

Thank you. May you fare well on your quest! I like this forum, too, I think it serves a function much overlooked in society. Now I wonder, though, what the hypothetical forum for your personal safe space or moral would look like. Earlier today, I meant to comment to the human ability to keep their preferences out of things, but I ended up writing some of the paragraphs below first and now my head does not do it anymore.

But to answer your question... when I like a post it either means I relate to it or I consider it valuable to some degree. That can basically mean anything. But I think OceanBlue made great points, which I can relate to - and I'm gonna explain this in a second. Does that mean I agree with every single sentence in her posts? No and I'm not sure if I would agree with her opinion regarding life being inherently delusional. But I understand where she is coming from and I think she has a point because the survival instinct, self-preseveration, is not(!) a rational process. It just happens, it's often an impulse and it kicks in without much thinking. And it affects all of us. There are members in this forum, myself included, that have been in the limbo for years who agree it's an inconvenience. I've talked to these people but I've been there myself. The logical conclusion to years of introspection is that I should end my suffering. Yet I've been unable to do it. Odd, right? I know my own life is gonna be terrible, it's gonna be a living nightmare if I continue living but self preservation stopped me from doing what I wanted to do 3 years ago. And it's really frustrating, it's mind boggling. Me being alive right now and me continuing to live is only gonna increase my suffering, that's not self-care. I'm neglecting myself. And nothing is gonna ease my pain and I know that. It's a rational observation. So I could say I'm delusional for wanting to stay alive and that's where the likes come from. I know in my case it's irrational fear and meaningless hope that kept me alive. Now it's also my responsibilities, mainly this forum.
But we could have a sincere discussion if that type of self-preservation I just described is a delusional process for all people on this planet, like from a very basic philosophic perspective or if there is more to it. But I don't want to generalize all people on principle and there might be people who sincerely enjoy life even when it's a distraction from all the suffering that's going on on this planet. I simply don't know. But who am I to judge? Does that make sense? Is that take nuanced enough? I really worry that we're dealing in absolutes here because I think we can have a good faith discussion about this topic.

I understand now. You feel described in the "delusional" statement. Thank you for sharing. I had not considered "delusional" might be a helpful label for anyone and I still have trouble wrapping my head around the how.

I am sorry life has been giving you the consistently terrible experience you describe. I know this was part of your reasoning and not fishing for virtual hugs, I just thought this deserves a line, too.

You say the survival instinct is not a rational process. Since we have decided we are not fishing in the realm of psychiatric conditions, which of the other versions of not rational?
My first idea is "not logically sound", but then there would be minimal content in the original statement. Most involved processes of the human brain are not logically sound. (Citation needed.) After a bit of nitpicking, I have settled for "absurd", as in "having no orderly relationship to people's lives". If so, is this where all the anger around SI comes from? The internal invalidation, the "I have a part inside myself that refuses to accept my lived experience"? Has anyone tried techniques from internal family systems to bring it in line, by accepting it as an inseparable part of the system, acknowledging its important function as a protector and therby disenganging it from what it had been holding onto? This is how I would go about temporarily shutting it up. Though, by temporarily I also mean permanently, in this very particular case.
The third option I would like to offer is "irrational" - the mathematical way. This would mean that SI has a rational and an imaginary component. While this interpretation has very little merit for the discussion, I want to include it for the humor.

I have put some thought today into my deep aversion for the concept of SI the bogeyman, scary biological function that takes away our option to kill ourselves. For me, suicide is very much about agency. My life is mine, so much I get to choose to end it. Externalizing past decisions not to kill myself takes away one of the two benefits, for me. (In case you read about my fantasy to be beaten to death, never mind that for the purpose of this discussion. I do not want this to actually happen, this is just my head in its weird loops trying to give me pain.) I suspect I will continue to find it upsetting when someone tries to do my externalizing for me, as if I could not make that choice myself. But I would like to understand what it does for other people here. I read many tales of anger at SI. Do they make it easier to still be here? If not, what purpose do they serve?

What is missing in order to have a good faith discussion on the topic? Better surpression of personal attacks in lieu of fact-based arguments?
I think we have the earlier disrespect mostly reined in (funny typo I just corrected: rained in), and I do hope we can keep things respectful. Let's see what the upcoming evidence will bring!

This post clarifies that she comes from an anti-natalist perspective when she talks about life and death and that she doesn't set her own opinion as the absolute truth when it comes to your decisons. As I said earlier, I think this entire discussion is vastly blown out of proportion. I think what OceanBlue said is pro-choice. Saying the world sucks and it sucks for everyone or as OceanBlue said in one of her posts, mainly that people who want to live are delusional, doesn't make it pro-death because she never implied that the correct answer to that sentiment is suicide. And that's what makes it so different from all the people who come into this forum ("pro-lifers") and try to persuade people from their own decisions. And that's the most important aspects that's been left out here. I can say "life generally sucks", which is my personal belief and still agree that life and death are choices you need to make for yourself. That's what being pro-choice is all about in this particular context - it means you respect someones decision even if you disagree with it, right? And Oceanblue made that very clear. She never said the correct conclusion to her ideas is suicide.

People complain that members get accused of being pro-life very quickly but I can make the same accusation to people who imply OceanBlue is pro-death. She isn't. She described an anti-natalist sentiment and it's anti-suffering, as she explained.

As much as I search, I cannot find where the bold part of your statement comes from. It may once more be an issue of vocabulary. I have trouble undestanding the words pro-life and pro-death. After trying to understand them from how people here use them, I suspect they have different meanings for different people, and I may never get on top of them enough to be able to use them confidently. I had thought the invariable content of both is trying to impose one option (one's personal preference?) on other people, regardless of their experience. I fail to understand how this is not precisely what OceanBlue was doing. My plan is to drop this point, both over what Pluto said, and because there is nothing meaningful left to say, but if someone could point me to evidence for the bold statement I would still appreciate this very much!

The definition is not one or the other, irrational or a psychiatric disorder, but OK.
Look, kudos for the reply, and I respect the defence of anti-natalism. I just read the post as pushing it past that. Thanks for reading my concerns in good faith.

Even if "delusional" was strictly used to mean irrational, it probably behooves most of us, perhaps especially the anti-natalists, to be more careful about the word. This is a suicide forum and even in the word's benign usage it carries connotations that challenge the person's capacity for choice. I still think it's problematic that the "choice" to live was belittled with quotes. I also think it's problematic the way SI was portrayed. Rain said there was no truth-setting OB's post, but it is truth-setting to say, "It's a fact that if we choose to continue living we are delusional," even with the charitable definition of delusional. It is establishing the rationality of the choice for others. I also see it as truth-setting to dubiously call hope and confidence delusions, including the hope and confidence of others. I also don't think it's entirely consistent to say OB is using "delusional" strictly to mean irrational, unless OB is calling hope and confidence necessarily irrational. Here's the post once again:

I wonder, what would you like to achieve?
Disciplinary action? I think a few pages ago it was agreed that motel rooms' transgressions in this thread (alone) were not enough to warrant such a thing, so OceanBlue should be well below the bar.
Being understood?

And I mean for those that need things spelled out for them fastidiously, of course, as I think you made an irrefutable point long ago.

Being right and having it acknowledged? I think you are as close as you will get.
I like your passion, I just wonder which goal you are pursuing at the moment?

Thanks both. For me this clarifies the explanation put forward by Angi.

The dictionary definition of delusional quoted by Angi says a delusion is a pathology. I now think Angi was saying that OB was not using this particular definition.

I was blind-sided by my pro-linguistics bias and I apologise for taking the thread down a grammatical blind alley.

I think this has been one of the most fruitful discussions I have ever seen on here and it's a great example of how to treat each other with respect.

Like 9BBN I need to reflect on things that have come up during this thread.

Same here, I have felt the draw of the occasional grammatical alley, too, accurate language is so appealing! When I run into a word used outside of its definition (or my knowledge of the same) and spell it out, I usually get a spectrum of reactions ranging from "Bugger off!" over "My bad, here is a better try at what I meant to say!" to "Well here go three links to definitions of the word just like I used it!", and I appreciate what it yields. The former end identifies a person I do not care to discuss with, the rest of the spectrum provide a meaningful contribution to the discussion. I did not get a corrected statement or a definition I was not aware of here, so I will go with what Pluto said.

Yeah, I have some reflecting planned, too. Interesting points.

You're pursuing this with the same ardor only a fresh autistic sleuth can achieve. Truth or nothing. Godspeed, I think you're pushing a discussion that's useful!

And I mean for those that need things spelled out for them fastidiously, of course, as I think you made an irrefutable point long ago.

The prevailing view of the value of life on the forum and how suicide should be treated isn't decided or elucidated in this thread, but rather should be easily surmised after weeks browsing and posting. If what you are ultimately asking is if people signing up to the website entails a higher likelihood of them killing themselves, that's an easy one: yes.

But those that come here already have something in mind, and nobody will tell them that they should go on and do it. That isn't permitted, is illegal and it's just bad taste. It's the methods and to a smaller extent the inevitable effects of social validation (which you are arguing about on this thread) that account for this higher likelihood to suicide.

At the end of the day if you really, really want to stop being suicidal you will stop coming to the forum. This is a straightforward option that will be conjured by even the dumbest of minds at some point if they start feeling realistically hopeful for the future.

Satan knows that I have enjoyed the discovery of the forum but not coming back ever again would mean the best possible news.

Hihi, very entertaining way to put this.
Also, I have a theory on why people here are more likely to kill themselves than the general population: selection bias. So much selection bias we would never be able to detect a meaningful effect, even if there was one.

I had two more quotes to answer, and there are probably a couple of errors in my post left to fix. Sorry, got to leave it here. Have fun!

 

[locked*n*loaded]

But you joined the day she posted this.

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

It's obvious you don't know what the fuck are you talking about? The OP joined SS on Sep 24, 2020. I joined SS on Apr 15, 2022. You are clearly ignorant. I've read HUNDREDS of posts by FuneralCry since I've joined, some in threads she started, some in responses that she gave to others in their own threads. In threads I have search out, I have come across multiple posts she had responded to, as far back as when she joined. Do you not understand that she has posted other things AFTER this thread that I have already read PRIOR to finding this thread and then responding to it???????? Clearly, math and logic aren't your strong suit. You need to watch the accusations you throw around. Wouldn't surprise me if you were just a troll attempting to gain favor to make inroads with some of the members of SS to garner some info for LE. All I can say is that a brain is a terrible thing to waste.

 

[Istanbulite]

It's obvious you don't know what the fuck are you talking about? The OP joined SS on Sep 24, 2020. I joined SS on Apr 15, 2022. You are clearly ignorant. I've read HUNDREDS of posts by FuneralCry since I've joined, some in threads she started, some in responses that she gave to others in their own threads. In threads I have search out, I have come across multiple posts she had responded to, as far back as when she joined. Do you not understand that she has posted other things AFTER this thread that I have already read PRIOR to finding this thread and then responding to it???????? Clearly, math and logic aren't your strong suit. You need to watch the accusations you throw around. Wouldn't surprise me if you were just a troll attempting to gain favor to make inroads with some of the members of SS to garner some info for LE. All I can say is that a brain is a terrible thing to waste.

No I did not refer to OP. But you instead, quoted you hence. And yes you are clearly a DA.

and I said when OP was posted not when OP joined. So you don't really speak English do you

Anyway, DA means Double Account in forum jargon.

 

[Chinaski]

Anyway, DA means Double Account in forum jargon.

Wait, the district attorney is posting under an alt?

 

[Istanbulite]

Wait, the district attorney is posting under an alt?

think so!

 

[ImsooDone1N]

I've noticed a big change. I am aware I'm here by my own choice- But Something has changed. In April I found the site helpful & in the past I even found it comforting and consoling. Now it feels like a different forum or something.

 

[Quinlor]

Maybe the nice people's of the ss already dead or just or simply got better from depression and left! My diagnosis is that the forum is increasingly accessed by a young audience( under 18) who simply cannot hold a philosophical or deeper discussion.
When you're young you think oh my god it's a forum about suicide how heavy, how scary, how dark and obscure I am!

 

[Hope:-)]

The only thing I dont like about this site is how many young people are here considering suicide with no degenerative health condition nothing. It worries me and I wish I could shake some sense into them x

 

[Painless_end]

The only thing I dont like about this site is how many young people are here considering suicide with no degenerative health condition nothing. It worries me and I wish I could shake some sense into them x

yes it's sort of problematic. I feel the minimum age for using this site should be raised to 21 in the rules.

 

[👁️👃👁️]

You're pursuing this with the same ardor only a fresh autistic sleuth can achieve. Truth or nothing. Godspeed, I think you're pushing a discussion that's useful!

And I mean for those that need things spelled out for them fastidiously, of course, as I think you made an irrefutable point long ago.

The prevailing view of the value of life on the forum and how suicide should be treated isn't decided or elucidated in this thread, but rather should be easily surmised after weeks browsing and posting. If what you are ultimately asking is if people signing up to the website entails a higher likelihood of them killing themselves, that's an easy one: yes.

But those that come here already have something in mind, and nobody will tell them that they should go on and do it. That isn't permitted, is illegal and it's just bad taste. It's the methods and to a smaller extent the inevitable effects of social validation (which you are arguing about on this thread) that account for this higher likelihood to suicide.

At the end of the day if you really, really want to stop being suicidal you will stop coming to the forum. This is a straightforward option that will be conjured by even the dumbest of minds at some point if they start feeling realistically hopeful for the future.

Satan knows that I have enjoyed the discovery of the forum but not coming back ever again would mean the best possible news.

Amen