scepticism is a good thing, but I felt that there was an insinuation in the threads mentioned that the OP might have been some sort of pro-life mole, which was what really annoyed me.
Then, respectfully, your response of feeling annoyed was toward my respectful post of skepticism. I mentioned several reasons for skepticism, including the current active attack on this site by pro-life forces.
Edit: Just saw post 8. I apologize for telling you what you were responding to! I should have asked rather than telling, and take on that lesson. I'll strive to do better with you and others.
But I didnt like the insinuation that there was a pro-life agenda. And I didnt like it again today when it came up in the thread about the father posting about their son. And I didnt see any value doubting a father who seemed to be in extreme grief. Even if they were lying I just thought it wasnt a point worth challenging based on the chance that they were a grieving father, potentially now being wrongfully called a liar.
I acknowledge that you do not prefer some things that others say, and that you do not value others vocally doubting what it is your preference to give the benefit of the doubt to. It is your right to withhold defensiveness, to give of your heart in response, and to otherwise act as you choose.
I sense that you have compassion, but also appeal to others here to act as you would wish them to based at least in part on pity. I'd like to look at the two more closely (though I don't insist you do as well!), beginning with a quote from The Practicing Stoic, in which Seneca is also quoted, and I will build from there:
We have seen Seneca and Marcus Aurelius refer to the value of compassion. That is a nuanced topic for the Stoics. Their philosophy calls for a felt sense that all of humanity are their relations. It also calls for help to those who need it. But the Stoic does not favor compassion in the different sense of feeling sorry for other people and making their sadness one's own -- that is, becoming despondent because others are despondent. Seneca's position was that good Stoics will do all that would be done by anyone who feels pity for others, but that they will not feel the pity themselves; pity is considered a form of distress that serves no purpose and impairs good judgment.
Sorrow is not suited to seeing things accurately, to understanding how to get things done, to avoiding dangers, or to knowing what is just. So the wise man will not indulge in pity, because there cannot be pity without mental suffering. All else that those who feel pity are inclined do, he will do gladly and with an elevated spirit; he will bring relief to another's tears, but will not add his own. To the shipwrecked man he will give a hand; he will give shelter to the exile, and charity to those in need.
- Seneca
Follow that quote with another by Seneca for developing the ideas of compassion, pity, and doing for others, but also adding self-protection, whether of the self or the shared community when someone intrudes or intends harm:
Keep an eye on one man to avoid being hurt; on another, to avoid hurting him. Rejoice in the happiness of all, and sympathize with them in their misfortunes; remember what you should take upon yourself, and what you should guard against.
- Seneca
Consider if you will that SS is like communal living. All that's required for acceptance to live in and participate in the community is to act with pro-choice ethics with regard to suicide, and to read the rules and FAQ before joining. Screening is not strict, and sometimes people enter who oppose the ethic and who do not intend to abide by the rules and FAQ. Sometimes they enter with intent to destroy the house and its foundations from within, sometimes to promote their pro-life agenda by targeting individuals, usually younger members, and corrode from within their sense of themselves and their ability and right to choose.
The father, if that's who he was, did not abide by the rules and FAQ by creating a member profile of his own, he spoke through that of the member who allegedly ctb'd (assuming that member was as he presented himself to be, agreed with the ethic, followed the rules and FAQ, and did indeed commit suicide).
The father expressed strong emotion.
Because the father already crossed multiple boundaries, he was worthy of suspicion, that is, a man to keep one's eye on to avoid being hurt. It is to myself and others that I owe it to keep an eye on so that none of us are hurt. I pay attention to what I should guard against, and I pay attention to what one wants me to take on.
The expression of strong emotion to garner pity and take on another's emotions in order to serve them is a classic manipulation tactic. One may brandish anger to get another to back down from their position of self-protection and defense, or they may cry or act wounded.
An extreme example of this is the serial killer Ted Bundy. He wore a sling and pretended to have an arm wound. He asked women to help him put groceries in his car. The women who heeded red flags surrounding his pity play escaped. Those who did not were violated and murdered.
I applaud compassion, and I believe that it should be from one's own heart and will, not dictated to others, but an example to follow if and when it truly serves social reciprocity. However, one is only in charge of their own moral character, much as they may exhort others to adopt it, but they at least can be secure in their own souls that they acted according to their values in how they treat others. If one wants to offer a helping hand, it is their right to do so; it is not their right to offer the hand of others.
The alleged father entered our space uninvited and without right to do so. He did not only inform us of the death, which is not a reliable confirmation, but he also brandished strong emotion -- the emotion of a parent's loss, which for at least the past week has been a consistent tactic used by infiltrators on the forum. I have personally reported members who have been banned for doing exactly that. Members of a facebook group have targeted members to relay messages for them. There is a lot of pro-life activity happening right now, both overtly and covertly aggressive.
My house comes first. I and my fellow legitimate members come first for me in this space. Our right to choose comes first. All else may be worthy of compassion, and I myself have actively shown compassion to pro-lifers in several posts. But I remain wary of any outsiders' tactics and do not take on the burdens of their sorrow; it weakens me, it muddies my judgment, and it does not inspire or promote actions that further my values or those of the community. They do not seek soothing, they seek to influence and destroy from within our values and goals. I'm not going to put groceries in their car, and I'm going to call out to fellow members to guard against doing the same. That is how social groups survive and thrive, by supporting one another against attacks, even the most piteous ones or attractive ones (the Trojan horse is an example more ancient than Stoicism; deception is nothing new). Attacks don't always mean one has to take up pitchforks and torches against the piteous-seeming aggressors, as it is aggression meeting aggression and toxicity feeding toxicity, but even if they do so, they have sounded the necessary alarm, and the aggressor knows they've been noticed and their power to influence has been weakened.
Finally, let me say that those who have been abused in any way over long periods, especially in childhood, are conditioned to protect aggressors, to pity them, and to make sure no one else stops them from achieving their aims. Telling another to not defend themselves in deference to the feelings, needs and wants of an aggressor results in empowering the aggressor and his/her goals to do harm with impunity. It is being their flying monkey and doing the work for them to groom their intended victims and convince them to lower their boundaries. I have experienced this conditioning and have broken free from it. I am vocal. I maintain my position and my personal power even when strong emotions and other manipulative tactics are brandished against me. I am strong in myself and my values, and allow neither to be negated or redefined in a negative light.
If you do not agree with my argument, I accept that. But nor do I accept what you implore me to do. I don't accept the burden of the alleged father's suffering. And respectfully, I don't accept the burden of what bothers you. I respect you enough to say that I disagree with your reasoning and seek to show why, not to weaken you but to empower you as a fellow member of my community, and to empower any other member who reads this. If I have reason and am correct, even an infiltrator can learn from this comment. It's not just about the community or pro-choice, it's about healthy boundaries, which I wish for all. For those who disagree with me, I am content that these boundaries and my stance which supports them are sufficient for me, and remain comfortably within them. It is only when they are challenged that I defend them, and the OP and subsequent comment challenged them. But I'm not offended, and I'm not striking out; I am using the strength of my reason, and remain calm but firm, with compassion, not pity.
Edit: I just read comment 8, which was posted while I was typing. I respected much in your response. And I respect you. I address statements and stances I disagree with, but I am not against
you. If I have in any way come across otherwise, it was an error, and I'd thank you to point it out so that I can correct the error, and move forward with improved communication skills.
