New YouTube video about us

[CowsAgainstCapitali]

The emphasis is on the second part. No one cares about the truth. Is he really? Highly unlikely. However, he holds anti choice beliefs, so it is logical, and fair by his own logic to accuse and find him guilty of anything I can conjure. He opposed suicide? Only a person who denies global warming and kills puppies would do that.

Holding a stupid opinion negates your right to have opinions.

If you disagree with me in the slightest degree, you automatically become guilty of everything. And that's how I want the history books written.

 

[LastFlowers]

I know I probably have the unpopular stance here, but I don't think all of the points he made in his video are invalid. Do I agree with everything? Absolutely not. Do I agree with how he's handling most of this, as in the way he introduces the information to the viewer and his solutions for some of the problems? No.

Does the fact I have to add a bunch of disclaimers to my statement of "I have a slight differing view to most people here" due to the anxiety of being dogpiled for just stating that - display that the site possibly, maybe, sorta kinda, has an echo chamber of sorts? Perhaps.

I agree that the mindset of "don't seek help" is an actual issue on the website. It's also an issue I deal with. When he mentioned how there was a person who commented on S64's thread saying if they want help, they should get it, but then adding a follow-up to "balance" the thread almost - It's something I've done quite a bit - both in DMs and in posts. I already know everyone's reasons for why that is, and it's not that I don't sympathize with why that's an issue on here - it still doesn't change my view that maybe it should be something we as active users could put some effort into working on.

Ignoring the video itself - because it's quite clear the creator has some kind of history on the website and that lore makes it complicated to view this video as a whole (As I don't have that history with this creator, I mainly viewed it as an outsider) - I do think we could take some of the points from the video and as a community discuss in depth about these issues. Without this creator's input being an influencing factor of that.

My question is this:
How many compromises is this site supposed to make until it's indistinguishable from the rest of the fucking internet..?

The rest of the fucking internet…which is as vile as anywhere else, and of course it is, since it was created and inhabited by humanity.
The rest of the fucking internet..which is free and open to all who take issue with posting their dissenting viewpoints here, which would not be dissenting anywhere the fuck else on the rest of the fucking internet.
(Or the rest of the fucking planet.)

This is not a gated community that is locked from the outside.
People are free to go elsewhere, the world is quite literally their oyster when it comes to having some sort of demented, irreconcilable issue with the act of suicide and the openly suicidal, rather than the actual reasons as to why people end up with no better options.

I've already gone over why the phrase "echo chamber" is utterly meaningless and especially insulting, given the context surrounding this site.

This YouTuber's audience and comment section is also an "echo chamber", every subreddit is an "echo chamber", even many educational institutions and their branches are "echo chambers", FB groups and curated friend lists are "echo chambers", Instagram pages are "echo chambers", any individual and their following creates an "echo chamber", your relationship between yourself and another person could very well be an "echo chamber", your own mind as well can be an "echo chamber" and the majority opinion at that…very much results in an "echo chamber" that apparently has very few avenues of escape or destinations of respite (this site, being one of them).

To call this place an "echo chamber" in any way, shape or form..is at best, to accuse a diminished victim of possessing a faint resemblance to an all powerful perpetrator..and to use that accusation to eliminate said victim's voice.
It is to point the finger at a small and distant valley on the horizon, while missing the rest of the earth beneath one's feet and the sky abounding.

^This is one of the many flaws bleeding through this "content creator's" line of thinking (not to mention the bias in their personal passion against this place, which seems to be a running theme with those who try to kick the legs out from under us).

 

[Looking]

My question is this:
How many compromises is this site supposed to make until it's indistinguishable from the rest of the fucking internet..?

The rest of the fucking internet…which is as vile as anywhere else, and of course it is, since it was created and inhabited by humanity.
The rest of the fucking internet..which is free and open to all who take issue with posting their dissenting viewpoints here, which would not be dissenting anywhere the fuck else on the rest of the fucking internet.
(Or the rest of the fucking planet.)

This is not a gated community that is locked from the outside.
People are free to go elsewhere, the world is quite literally their oyster when it comes to having some sort of demented, irreconcilable issue with the act of suicide and the openly suicidal, rather than the actual reasons as to why people end up with no better options.

I've already gone over why the phrase "echo chamber" is utterly meaningless and especially insulting, given the context surrounding this site.

This YouTuber's audience and comment section is also an "echo chamber", every subreddit is an "echo chamber", even many educational institutions and their branches are "echo chambers", FB groups and curated friend lists are "echo chambers", Instagram pages are "echo chambers", any individual and their following creates an "echo chamber", your relationship between yourself and another person could very well be an "echo chamber", your own mind as well can be an "echo chamber" and the majority opinion at that…very much results in an "echo chamber" that apparently has very few avenues of escape or destinations of respite (this site, being one of them).

To call this place an "echo chamber" in any way, shape or form..is at best, to accuse a diminished victim of possessing a faint resemblance to an all powerful perpetrator..and to use that accusation to eliminate said victim's voice.
It is to point the finger at a small and distant valley on the horizon, while missing the rest of the earth beneath one's feet and the sky abounding.

^This is one of the many flaws bleeding through this "content creator's" line of thinking (not to mention the bias in their personal passion against this place, which seems to be a running theme with those who try to kick the legs out from under us).

I mean, I agree for the most part. I mean, I don't think SS is any different than any other part of the internet, and I don't think I've personally made that claim to any degree.

In regards of the usage of echo chamber - My usage of "echo chamber" is more related to the fact that if I feel nervous/anxious to share an opinion that might be slightly different than the overall website's point of view, that might be a bad sign of, maybe spooking (?), members people disagree with. I don't really mean "echo chamber" being used in the sense of like-minded individuals forming a community together and discussing the common topic at hand.

When looking up "echo chamber" is used within the usage of digital media, it is typically referring to the usage of AI and algorithms. Even though that's not directly what I meant, I guess I meant it in the sense of "eliminates opposing viewpoints and differing voices" - aka a user feeling nervous and then not sharing their view because of it.


(Source: What is a Social Media Echo Chamber?)

I suppose I don't fully understand your argument - I think a place that makes people nervous to share their views (even if it's not intentional) is most likely to be an echo chamber then not. You can say that it's my fault that I was nervous to share my argument, and that it had nothing to do with anyone on here.

But I feel like my nervousness is being "proven" or at least has the evidence to support my argument by the replies I've been getting. I wanted to have this discussion, of course, so I don't blame anyone for responding: but I feel like the language that has been used towards me most of the time was mostly unwarranted. Especially because my points came from a place of innocence and not malice.

I understand the video itself is making a lot of people tense, so I think the fact I was agreeing with the video to any degree is what made people a bit tense with me. No one's fault, but I still feel like it proves my overall point. I agree that overall this video was shitty, in more ways than one, but it still doesn't change the fact that one or two points he made made me question things - of myself mainly.


(Unrelated to you, but related in general with my overall points, so this isn't directed towards you really) Out of all of the responses I've gotten that were opposing my previous comments, @Moonomyth 's were the only one that actually made me question my stance of what I said. They were calm with me, they were patient with me when I misunderstood, and shared their point of view while not dismissing mine. In this way, their replies are a prime example of what I'm asking from this community. I felt nervous responding to most of the replies here, I didn't feel nervous with them. As I've stated previously: I just wish people would be more considerate when responding to others. I know that's a lot to ask from people, and as Moonomyth pointed out, it's more complicated than just being "nicer" or changing a few words, etc. But I only came to that view because of how understanding they were to me, not because of anything else had protested of what I said.

 

[Salvation_]

We're absolutely not an echo chamber. I've seen my fair of arguments on this site. Labelling us a cult actually undermines our individuality a lot. People in the comments have compared us to Peoples Temple and that is not what's going on at all. You have stripped everyone on this site of their individual identity and reduced them to one character trait: suicidal. You know, suicidal people are literally tired of being seen only as suicidal instead of an actual fucking person, so of course it is really tiring to hear this argument blasted in our ears. It's no wonder we feel like a goddamn zoo.

This "cake123" user doesn't dictate the entire community of SS, and it's delusional to think that. I don't mean to throw them under the bus, but there are many users who have complained about them. If we were an actual echo chamber, people wouldn't be voicing their blunt opinions.

Furthermore, the video paints the website as some sort of abuser-victim relationship. Contrary to what people commenting on the youtube video and OP of the video thinks, most people browsing this site are not abusers. We're all just going through our own shit, and the site helps us cope. And you know, the very victims you are trying to protect may also be helping other victims, so are they still victims at this point? According to that logic, we are all just abusers abusing each other. I'm not going to lie, this site is not the healthiest thing for a lot of us. But it's our coping mechanism. So what are you going to do about us when it's gone? There's no clear answer.

 

[Rainy_days]

Let's call the guy why he is: a child raping monster. Dude literally served 8 years in prison for kidnapping and sodomy.

He doesn't care about the truth, very few humans do.

lol, source? I don't have enough energy to even care about whatever this video is.

 

[Looking]

lol source? I don't have enough energy to even care about whatever this video is.

The emphasis is on the second part. No one cares about the truth. Is he really? Highly unlikely. However, he holds anti choice beliefs, so it is logical, and fair by his own logic to accuse and find him guilty of anything I can conjure. He opposed suicide? Only a person who denies global warming and kills puppies would do that.

Holding a stupid opinion negates your right to have opinions.

If you disagree with me in the slightest degree, you automatically become guilty of everything. And that's how I want the history books written.

It doesn't seem like an actual claim, but an example, I think.

 

[Rainy_days]

It doesn't seem like an actual claim, but an example, I think.

Thanks, my brain is not working.

 

[WhiteRabbit]

This "cake123" user doesn't dictate the entire community of SS, and it's delusional to think that. I don't mean to throw them under the bus, but there are many users who have complained about them. If we were an actual echo chamber, people wouldn't be voicing their blunt opinions.

Quite a few people have been warned for complaining or saying negative things about that member. They do seem to get special treatment imo.

 

[Salvation_]

Quite a few people have been warned for complaining or saying negative things about that member. They do seem to get special treatment imo.

They haven't actually broken any rules of the site. They're not acting in completely bad faith either, at least from what we've seen. There aren't any real grounds to ban them except "too active" and etc. As a moderator, I'd be hesitant unless there was hard-core proof that the member is causing issues intentionally.

I'm not as active as I once was, so please feel free to correct me.

 

[WhiteRabbit]

They haven't actually broken any rules of the site. They're not acting in completely bad faith either, at least from what we've seen. There aren't any real grounds to ban them except "too active" and etc. As a moderator, I'd be hesitant unless there was hard-core proof that the member is causing issues intentionally.

I'm not as active as I once was, so please feel free to correct me.

No, I don't want to see them banned. I just think people should be allowed to comment on their postings without fear of warnings.

 

[Salvation_]

No, I don't want to see them banned. I just think people should be allowed to comment on their postings without fear of warnings.

I'm a little out of the loop, so thanks for the clarification.

 

[the_town_manager]

What a tiresome moron. I especially love how at the end of the video he sings the praises of seeking help while most of the rest of his video makes clear just how unwilling the average person is to approach this topic with empathy and understanding.

 

[Pluto]

No one's fault, but I still feel like it proves my overall point. I agree that overall this video was shitty, in more ways than one, but it still doesn't change the fact that one or two points he made made me question things - of myself mainly.

While I haven't watched the video and I'm not properly engaged with this topic due to being "too old for this sh*t", I support the spirit of your comment as I believe in independent thought.

Suicide is an extremely complex and nuanced topic which mainstream society fails to address fairly. From what I'm gathering, the attitude of this video is predicated upon the stance that all suicide is bad. Any valid arguments he makes will thus be buried beneath a fundamentally simplistic agenda. He is also a messenger who is easily criticised for an egocentric saviour complex and the inevitable narcissism that goes with possessing a vast army of sycophants yet little life experience to rein in his arrogance.

Anyway, I've read a similar YouTube comments section in the past and it was largely a tribalistic gang-bashing of suicidal communities, mixed with a contradictory hyper-empathetic compassion for the deceased even though they are for the most part the same people. This only proves my point that intelligent nuance is needed rather than us-versus-them warfare.

Aside from having our own tribal identity reinforced by our mutual objection of these tanta-cruel attacks on our right of open communication or bodily autonomy, I feel there are legitimate criticisms of this website which could prevent some tragic outcomes if addressed. But in order to even discuss this, black and white logic must give way to a sophisticated discussion. I think that the result would be a very slight shift in a more mainstream-acceptable direction for the site.

"All suicide bad" is plain wrong, but "wanting to live is delusional" is equally dastardly, albeit at the opposite end of the spectrum. So, while I'm not really a participant in this tribal conflict, if ever there's a genuine discussion about making this a better place, count me in.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I think the main point I agree with is the unanimous (at least it seems that way) view among most posters to accept a user's decision to CTB as a valid one.

Of course, it's almost impossible to know an individual's situation, especially when in most cases on the forum it's rarely given, but I'm very skeptical about giving direct advice or actively encouraging people that the decision to CTB is the correct one, unless you know them and their reasons very well.

Personally, and this is likely to be unpopular and it's just a wild guess, but I'd wager that that vast majority of people on this forum could benefit from external sources of help and that CTB is not their only option. There's thousands and thousands of people that visit this forum daily, and a very small minority actively CTB. This isn't to suggest that anyone in particular is making a bad decision, but just that most the majority of people who end up on this forum are unlikely (just purely speaking out of the vast numbers of active registered users) to ever make the final decision to end their life, suggesting that for a very real, large contingent of people who may access information here they don't actually CTB. While you can argue that in the grand scheme of things people who do commit may have more 'valid' intentions as opposed to those who don't, it does raise the question as to how many people are misdirected and make the 'wrong' decision when other means might still be available to help them.

Apart from that I have a lot of other grudges with the video but I guess they've been mostly highlighted in this thread already.

I do agree with you to an extent. I think we are all very conscious of one another's pain. We don't like to invalidate one another because none of us want our own feelings or reasons undermined. Because of this, I think we do tend to give the impression that any reason is valid to CTB.

I would happen to agree that any reason IS valid to have suicidal ideation. You can't just tell someone to not feel what they're feeling. Still- it can be much harder to seek out all the reasons why a person is where they are. We can only go on what an OP is willing to share. I think our responses on a thread are very much determined by what the OP says originally.

To be fair- I think it's rare that you see someone say that CTB is their best option. I think most people say that it's a choice they need to make themselves. In fact- quite often- when people do seem to be on the fence and asking what should they do? People DO in fact say- if they have any hope left- it might mean life is still worth a shot with the appropriate help.

I didn't actually interact with @SpentStardust I don't think. I read a post I believe but to me- it seemed he had already decided on the train method. It's a method I personally have a lot of issues with, so, I tend to avoid such threads. From what I've seen though, most of his posts were about method. From what I could find, he gave very little information about what his motives were or that he was in any way undecided.

So- this is the issue really... When someone posts a direct question over their method- Is it really our place to then start questioning them on why they are here? What treatments have they tried? Do they think they have any chance of getting better? I think we all kind of assume (hope) that they have already been vetted in the sign up process.

I read through that again the other day and there IS in fact a major emphasis on recovery. Besides that, I imagine just typing in the term 'suicide' in many places- you're going to be greeted with a whole ton of helplines- before you reach a site like this. I simply don't believe that people don't realise that there is 'help' available out there. I think most people here have either tried it- and it hasn't been effective enough. Or- they are choosing not to.

I do understand your sentiments. I just think they are quite difficult to act on here sometimes. If someone doesn't offer up much information about themselves, or- their reasons seem 'weak', it can seem very intrusive and undermining to start probing, judging and pushing 'help' on them. Many of us are here because we don't want to be 'saved'. Otherwise- we would be ringing a helpline I imagine. Or- we would be in the recovery section.

Should we be 'gatekeeping' suicide here? I definitely think we should be encouraging people to recover IF they seem undecided- but I think that already happens. Still, I'm not so sure we should be pushing everyone that way if they give no indication that this is what they want.

Let's call the guy why he is: a child raping monster. Dude literally served 8 years in prison for kidnapping and sodomy.

He doesn't care about the truth, very few humans do.

Seriously? Have you got a source for this?

 

[LaVieEnRose]

It's kind of funny, the insistence on getting "help" over everything. Because I have a friend who's a psych nurse and a year and a half ago in the hospital he works at a 17-year old boy who had been admitted inpatient managed to hang himself in his room because it hadn't been properly secured. You know, the same age of the user whose death prompted this ego-fueled campaign against SS. That happened at one of those for-profit hospitals too. This hospital intended to milk this boy for all he was worth but failed to guarantee his most basic well-being. Sure, the family probably got a huge settlement but the hospital was permitted to continue to operate and still on a for-profit basis. To me that is several orders of magnitude more fucked up than this case could be. Would that teenage suicide draw the same outrage from him as the one here? Would he campaign against that hospital? Or would he consider that hospital's failure towards the boy to be just a regrettable matter of course while this site's presumed failure towards the other boy is an atrocity?

 

[CowsAgainstCapitali]

I do agree with you to an extent. I think we are all very conscious of one another's pain. We don't like to invalidate one another because none of us want our own feelings or reasons undermined. Because of this, I think we do tend to give the impression that any reason is valid to CTB.

I would happen to agree that any reason IS valid to have suicidal ideation. You can't just tell someone to not feel what they're feeling. Still- it can be much harder to seek out all the reasons why a person is where they are. We can only go on what an OP is willing to share. I think our responses on a thread are very much determined by what the OP says originally.

To be fair- I think it's rare that you see someone say that CTB is their best option. I think most people say that it's a choice they need to make themselves. In fact- quite often- when people do seem to be on the fence and asking what should they do? People DO in fact say- if they have any hope left- it might mean life is still worth a shot with the appropriate help.

I didn't actually interact with @SpentStardust I don't think. I read a post I believe but to me- it seemed he had already decided on the train method. It's a method I personally have a lot of issues with, so, I tend to avoid such threads. From what I've seen though, most of his posts were about method. From what I could find, he gave very little information about what his motives were or that he was in any way undecided.

So- this is the issue really... When someone posts a direct question over their method- Is it really our place to then start questioning them on why they are here? What treatments have they tried? Do they think they have any chance of getting better? I think we all kind of assume (hope) that they have already been vetted in the sign up process.

I read through that again the other day and there IS in fact a major emphasis on recovery. Besides that, I imagine just typing in the term 'suicide' in many places- you're going to be greeted with a whole ton of helplines- before you reach a site like this. I simply don't believe that people don't realise that there is 'help' available out there. I think most people here have either tried it- and it hasn't been effective enough. Or- they are choosing not to.

I do understand your sentiments. I just think they are quite difficult to act on here sometimes. If someone doesn't offer up much information about themselves, or- their reasons seem 'weak', it can seem very intrusive and undermining to start probing, judging and pushing 'help' on them. Many of us are here because we don't want to be 'saved'. Otherwise- we would be ringing a helpline I imagine. Or- we would be in the recovery section.

Should we be 'gatekeeping' suicide here? I definitely think we should be encouraging people to recover IF they seem undecided- but I think that already happens. Still, I'm not so sure we should be pushing everyone that way if they give no indication that this is what they want.

Seriously? Have you got a source for this?

He lied, I lied. You make shit up, I make shit up. Don't set my house on fire if you don't want me to set yours on fire. He took the gloves off so now they're fucking off. Slander is very much on the table. I fully endorse false accusations against terrible people. Let some Qanon bullshit happen to him. My source is Fuck Him.

 

[Forever Sleep]

He lied, I lied. You make shit up, I make shit up. Don't set my house on fire if you don't want me to set yours on fire. He took the gloves off so now they're fucking off. Slander is very much on the table. I fully endorse false accusations against terrible people. Let some Qanon bullshit happen to him. My source is Fuck Him.

I get your sentiments. Still- I don't think (falsely) accusing someone of being a paedophile does much to help.

 

[patpat]

Normal people must have a hard time understanding how hard being sad is and when you have no hope, here at least you have people who are just like you

 

[Cathy Ames]

While I haven't watched the video and I'm not properly engaged with this topic due to being "too old for this sh*t", I support the spirit of your comment as I believe in independent thought.

Suicide is an extremely complex and nuanced topic which mainstream society fails to address fairly. From what I'm gathering, the attitude of this video is predicated upon the stance that all suicide is bad. Any valid arguments he makes will thus be buried beneath a fundamentally simplistic agenda. He is also a messenger who is easily criticised for an egocentric saviour complex and the inevitable narcissism that goes with possessing a vast army of sycophants yet little life experience to rein in his arrogance.

Anyway, I've read a similar YouTube comments section in the past and it was largely a tribalistic gang-bashing of suicidal communities, mixed with a contradictory hyper-empathetic compassion for the deceased even though they are for the most part the same people. This only proves my point that intelligent nuance is needed rather than us-versus-them warfare.

Aside from having our own tribal identity reinforced by our mutual objection of these tanta-cruel attacks on our right of open communication or bodily autonomy, I feel there are legitimate criticisms of this website which could prevent some tragic outcomes if addressed. But in order to even discuss this, black and white logic must give way to a sophisticated discussion. I think that the result would be a very slight shift in a more mainstream-acceptable direction for the site.

"All suicide bad" is plain wrong, but "wanting to live is delusional" is equally dastardly, albeit at the opposite end of the spectrum. So, while I'm not really a participant in this tribal conflict, if ever there's a genuine discussion about making this a better place, count me in.

Off topic, but I really wish I could take you along with me everywhere I go, so you could be my English to English translator.

 

[Barteljaap]

Tbh I wouldn't even blame the mental health system.

It's just life. Life is shit for many people.

 

[SamTam33]

...So- this is the issue really... When someone posts a direct question over their method- Is it really our place to then start questioning them on why they are here? What treatments have they tried? Do they think they have any chance of getting better? I think we all kind of assume (hope) that they have already been vetted in the sign up process.

I read through that again the other day and there IS in fact a major emphasis on recovery. Besides that, I imagine just typing in the term 'suicide' in many places- you're going to be greeted with a whole ton of helplines- before you reach a site like this. I simply don't believe that people don't realise that there is 'help' available out there. I think most people here have either tried it- and it hasn't been effective enough. Or- they are choosing not to...

These are such great points.

I asked a similar question in this thread or maybe the other one, but when is it ok to move past the 'suggesting help' stage and commence to talking about suicide? When does it become acceptable?

After 2 posters suggest calling a hotline? After a 3rd poster talks positively about mental health professionals? After the OP agrees to phone a friend?

WTF do they want us to do? I legitimately don't understand.

It almost sounds like some people want every suicidal post to be met with a degree of resistance.

Like LastFlowers said, how would that make us any different from any other place on the internet?

I also like the part about members knowing how to get help if they want it.

People like Tarantula act as if one goes from being suicidal DIRECTLY TO registering for SanctionedSuicide.

I promise that's not steps 1 and 2 in the CTB journey.

If users look past that gigantic 988 Google ad when searching "suicide," then maybe Google has failed.

Go make a video about them and how they can't reach people when their business model is centered around reaching people.

 

[RainAndSadness]

Quite a few people have been warned for complaining or saying negative things about that member. They do seem to get special treatment imo.

You are allowed to criticise that member. The point is, there are plenty of people who don't do that and instead engage in targeted harassement and that's when I give out warnings. That's point one. Point two, the member in question has also received warnings for their behavior when it crosses a line. Just because you don't see behind the curtain doesn't mean we're unaware of issues. Nobody has special protection here. I have received messages from a few of those people who engaged in targeted harassement, asking me to take action against that member, implying I should ban them. There has been an attempt to make us crack down on their speech. And I take that into consideration when I see how people talk about that member. And I also see when people talk about that member without mentioning them directly, lowkey attacking them. It doesn't matter if you call them Cake123 or [REDACTED], if we think people are intentionally trying to harass someone with the intention to make them post less, I take action against that. Criticism isn't verbal abuse and harassement. And a few of those people are in the list that liked your comment. You're free to make up your own mind.

 

[Forever Sleep]

These are such great points.

I asked a similar question in this thread or maybe the other one, but when is it ok to move past the 'suggesting help' stage and commence to talking about suicide? When does it become acceptable?

After 2 posters suggest calling a hotline? After a 3rd poster talks positively about mental health professionals? After the OP agrees to phone a friend?

WTF do they want us to do? I legitimately don't understand.

It almost sounds like some people want every suicidal post to be met with a degree of resistance.

Like LastFlowers said, how would that make us any different from any other place on the internet?

I also like the part about members knowing how to get help if they want it.

People like Tarantula act as if one goes from being suicidal DIRECTLY TO registering for SanctionedSuicide.

I promise that's not steps 1 and 2 in the CTB journey.

If users look past that gigantic 988 Google ad when searching "suicide," then maybe Google has failed.

Go make a video about them and how they can't reach people when their business model is centered around reaching people.

Exactly- plus- I re-read the joining instructions here recently and a lot of emphasis is placed on recovery:

https://sanctioned-suicide.net/threads/rules-and-faq.4/

We all should have read all this before joining.

Yeah- I get the impression that he would want everyone to be questioned. I said: We DO support an OP seeking help if recovery seems possible- but it can seem intimidating, probing and undermining to question someone when they've just joined and shared little of their story. To that, he replied:

'To be a bit harsh, I think that's a price worth paying. I think it's more important to ensure as few people as possible kill themselves even if it means other people will sometimes have to feel a bit bad because they'd they're being asked to talk to someone and they'd rather not.

Balance of harm falls pretty strongly in favour of protection, IMO.'

He doesn't seem to acknowledge that he's asking suicidal people to tell other suicidal people not to do it and to go and seek out help- even though that person may have gone through years of failed treatment- perhaps even treatment that made them worse.

I don't think we do encourage suicide here- we encourage depth of thinking and choice. Still- we're not bullshitters either. I think we'll definitely encourage someone to reach out for help if they seem on the fence. If their mind seems made up- we're not going to insult them with a bunch of platitudes every time they post!

I believe @RainAndSadness at one point said that the member in question was from Italy. I think sites like this are restricted there- so- he must have found a way around it to access it. If you're that smart- you're likely to be able to 'fool' any protocol designed to keep minors out. In which case- responsibility would have to land with every member of this site grilling one another- possibly each time they post (it's not like we'll be able to remember everyone...) 'Yeah- sorry you feel like shit- just remind us- how old are you? Why do you want to top yourself and what treatments have you undergone?' Only if we deem your answers suitable will we ACTUALLY talk to you. Otherwise- we'll just pass you on to a hotline- they have all the answers! As quoted by someone today- a recent call to a NHS helpline: 'Just think happy thoughts'... Wonderful- why didn't I think of that?

 

[WhiteRabbit]

You are allowed to criticise that member. The point is, there are plenty of people who don't do that and instead engage in targeted harassement and that's when I give out warnings. That's point one. Point two, the member in question has also received warnings for their behavior when it crosses a line. Just because you don't see behind the curtain doesn't mean we're unaware of issues. Nobody has special protection here. I have received messages from a few of those people who engaged in targeted harassement, asking me to take action against that member, implying I should ban them. There has been an attempt to make us crack down on their speech. And I take that into consideration when I see how people talk about that member. And I also see when people talk about that member without mentioning them directly, lowkey attacking them. It doesn't matter if you call them Cake123 or [REDACTED], if we think people are intentionally trying to harass someone with the intention to make them post less, I take action against that. Criticism isn't verbal abuse and harassement. And a few of those people are in the list that liked your comment. You're free to make up your own mind.

I've never seen anyone else one this site get the same kind of treatment that the mods give that member, but it may also be that no one else on this site makes over 16,000 similarly worded posts with such a controversial and divisive theme. It's not surprising that some members pushback on that and that she gets mentioned indirectly from time to time. IDK if I'd call that targeted harassment, but maybe I'm not seeing what you're seeing behind the scenes.

 

[rationaltake]

You are allowed to criticise that member. The point is, there are plenty of people who don't do that and instead engage in targeted harassement and that's when I give out warnings. That's point one. Point two, the member in question has also received warnings for their behavior when it crosses a line. Just because you don't see behind the curtain doesn't mean we're unaware of issues. Nobody has special protection here. I have received messages from a few of those people who engaged in targeted harassement, asking me to take action against that member, implying I should ban them. There has been an attempt to make us crack down on their speech. And I take that into consideration when I see how people talk about that member. And I also see when people talk about that member without mentioning them directly, lowkey attacking them. It doesn't matter if you call them Cake123 or [REDACTED], if we think people are intentionally trying to harass someone with the intention to make them post less, I take action against that. Criticism isn't verbal abuse and harassement. And a few of those people are in the list that liked your comment. You're free to make up your own mind.

I liked the comment.

My posts make it clear that I haven't verbally abused or harassed anyone on the forum.

And you know I have never contacted you and asked you to ban or take action against any member.

I'm very disappointed that your post is implying that I could have done either of those things.

Your post refers to talking about a member "without mentioning them directly, lowkey attacking them". I trust that wasn't your intention here.

 

[Sister of the Moon]

I liked the comment.

My posts make it clear that I haven't verbally abused or harassed anyone on the forum.

And you know I have never contacted you and asked you to ban or take action against any member.

I'm very disappointed that your post is implying that I could have done either of those things.

Your post refers to talking about a member "without mentioning them directly, lowkey attacking them". I trust that wasn't your intention here.

I feel exactly the same way. I 'liked' the post too and was actually gonna speak up but you got there before me. I don't appreciate the tone and neither have I asked for any ban, only questioned the clear one rule for one, another rule for others. And yes I've been reprimanded and lectured and had my motives twisted in my DMs. Poor form.

 

[RainAndSadness]

@rationaltake I didn't say all people that liked the comment have done that. But some have.

@Sister of the Moon, yeah, well. Do you want me to give you some examples of the lowkey attacks of that member? It's not gonna be very difficult.

Here is the deal. You people claim that we protect one individual member and I've never seen any evidence supporting that claim. I can prove to you though that this particular member has also received several warnings, so your narrative is already debunked. Just say it with me: you disagree with the rules. But I've never changed them. If you don't like the rules, feel free to find a place that has better moderation then.

But please just stop with the obviously false claims that we "protect" members. Why would I do that? You disagree with someone and instead of portraying my position and my arguments in a charitable light, as if my intention isn't to keep this community fair to everyone, you essentially just call me bad-faith and that's it. If you really think I'm not trying my best to moderate this place fairly, then I suggest you find a different place. That's honestly the best advice I can give.

 

[Sister of the Moon]

I have received messages from a few of those people who engaged in targeted harassement, asking me to take action against that member, implying I should ban them.

Twisted. It was YOU that DMed me actually, and not once did I ask for a ban for anyone. I thought I spelled that out already.

 

[RainAndSadness]

Twisted. It was YOU that DMed me actually, and not once did I ask for a ban for anyone. I thought I spelled that out already.

So you already know my position and you know that we gave that member warnings because I explained it to you and you still claim I protect members. At this point I'm past assuming you're making these claims out of ignorance. Given what you know, it's simply a lie.

 

[Sister of the Moon]

So you already know my position and you know that we gave that member warnings because I explained it to you and you still claim I protect members. At this point I'm past assuming you're making these claims out of ignorance. Given what you know, it's simply a lie.

You didn't receive any messages from me asking to ban anyone. I don't want anyone banned. It's your claim that you received messages from those who liked the post, when in fact it was you messaging me. And lets not forget, that member is the one forever calling out the people you refer to as pro-lifers. Can't even post anything without being snidely referred to as a pro-lifer. That's my whole point.