Thinking of my own website

[Nickreading]

So, this website is great for connecting people on a social level and discussing methods, etc. But I think there needs to be another one meant to project a specific ideology/philosophy/argument into greater society regarding self ownership and the right to die. I'm not saying that someone else should do it, I'm saying that I'm seriously considering it. Here's a few of my thoughts.

1. I live in Canada and there's already dying with dignity and righttodie.ca but they're both focused on making incremental changes like expanding eligibility for MAiD. In my opinion, that's wrong from the get-go. If someone owns something, they can destroy it for any reason they see fit or for no reason at all. That there are forcible measures taken to prevent people from doing what they want with their own bodies and lives constitutes an infringement on Canadians self ownership. The mental health act should be scrapped or reformed to only empower police to apprehend those who are a danger to others, not themselves. Instead of implementing Means Restrictions policies, access to humane and effective means of a self-chosen end should be a right.

2. Actual activism like letter-writing campaigns.
I've tried posting the publicly available contact info of public figures who oppose our right to die and it's been taken down by a mod. I'm not saying that's wrong: it's extremely savvy given that governments will likely use things like that to get SaSu shut down. Still, there should be a directory of pro-lifers so that the people they impact can tell them personally what they think of their work.

3. Apply pressure to government agencies to at least ADMIT BASIC TRUTHS like that the state is, in fact, forcing people to live. I'm sick and tired of being told that "no one is stopping you". YES! PEOPLE ARE STOPPING ME! I've been apprehended under the mental health act like 3 or 4 times! If cops showing up at your house and putting you in handcuffs isn't force, then what is it? Spicy persuasion? FFS!

This one is actually extremely important. Ever wonder why people cling so tightly to the idea that no one is stopping us from doing what we want? It's because if basic facts like that could simply be agreed upon, public consensus would be on our side! That's why!

Unfortunately, I'm not tech savvy for one thing. Building a website and all that is possible, just difficult. Second, I have a history of anti-feminist activism. Like, a really well-known one. Seems the majority of people around here are staunch lefties. I wouldn't use the site to promote any other controversial opinions I have, but just the fact that I do have said political history might be enough to get me on the bad side of a lot of people around here. Regardless, that's my idea. What do you guys think?

 

[EvisceratedJester]

I have a history of anti-feminist activism.

Please move out of my country.


Sincerely, a Canadian woman

 

[Nickreading]

Please move out of my country.


Sincerely, a Canadian woman

But I just oppose hatred. What's wrong with that?

 

[TheHolySword]

But I just oppose hatred. What's wrong with that?

what's wrong is you sorely misunderstand feminism. also that you are so well known for being staunchly anti feminist (to a degree that you worry people wouldn't even think about joining your site) leads me to believe you might not say the best things about women

 

[Nickreading]

what's wrong is you sorely misunderstand feminism. also that you are so well known for being staunchly anti feminist (to a degree that you worry people wouldn't even think about joining your site) leads me to believe you might not say the best things about women

Women are a demographic and feminism is an ideology. There's no difference between patriarchy theory and anti-semitic conspiracy theories. They both assert that demographic x has had things too good for too long. There are plenty of male feminists and female anti feminists. I disagree with an ideology.

To assert that feminism represents women is to assert that all women have the same viewpoint. That removes the distinction between individual women and is misogynist.

I wasn't worried that no one would join me. I was worried that no leftist would join me. Not all people are leftist.

 

[daley]

Have you looked into this group https://www.therighttonolongerexist.com/ ?
They have a facebook group as well.

As for being known to be anti-feminist, that would indeed be a problem.
I was not aware that such a position was even possible these days.
What does that mean exactly?

Oh, I now read your later responses. So I get it. But labeling that as "anti feminist" just seems too broad.

 

[Nickreading]

what's wrong is you sorely misunderstand feminism. also that you are so well known for being staunchly anti feminist (to a degree that you worry people wouldn't even think about joining your site) leads me to believe you might not say the best things about women

Regardless, we can agree that people should have the right to do what they want with their own lives and their own bodies. Like I said in my original post, I wouldn't be bringing in any other views to a website that is strictly about the right to die. If people are going to hold my other views against me to the point that they wouldn't participate in right to die activism (and my past as a notable MRA would come out eventually, which is why i brought it up), that right there is a good indication that the right to die movement won't go anywhere, or at the very least, would remain simply begging the state to expand to whom they give permission to die, rather than simply asserting self-ownership.

Have you looked into this group https://www.therighttonolongerexist.com/ ?
They have a facebook group as well.

As for being known to be anti-feminist, that would indeed be a problem.
I was not aware that such a position was even possible these days.
What does that mean exactly?

It means I reject patriarchy theory and the claim that women, as a demographic, currently get or have historically gotten the short end of the stick.

Regardless, if I were to start a right to die website, it wouldn't involve anti-feminism, though it would involve anti-statism. I'm a big fan of Ayn Rand, who was an absolute giant of individualism and anti-statism and was also an anti-feminist woman.

 

[daley]

@Nickreading, you mention Canadian organizations acting for the right to die. It is frustrating that they are only trying to make incremental changes, but the reason for this is perhaps because that is what they deem possible politically. Having a different, more radical group would not only split the effort, but might actually make things more difficult for them.

In my opinion, if you want to help pro-choice in your country, just join existing organizations, even if they seem timid to you, because the minor changes they are pushing for is where the current battle is.

 

[Nickreading]

Have you looked into this group https://www.therighttonolongerexist.com/ ?
They have a facebook group as well.

As for being known to be anti-feminist, that would indeed be a problem.
I was not aware that such a position was even possible these days.
What does that mean exactly?

Oh, I now read your later responses. So I get it. But labeling that as "anti feminist" just seems too broad.

So, I checked out the right to no longer exist (thank you for the link) and that is closer to what I had envisioned, though there's a few issues.

1. It looks like it's been inactive since 2022

2. Starting groups and holding signs is something that I do have experience with and because of that experience, it's something I don't want to do again. Just having a website that serves as an electronic leaflet with short, easily read, hard-hitting arguments is more along the lines I was thinking.

3. The whole anti-theist angle makes it too exclusive. Again, I love Ayn Rand and she was anti-theist, but I'm not anti-theist myself and therefore would not mesh with "a collective of anti-theists"

4. They're leftists. I'm not bashing leftism (here or in my hypothetical website. I've already done plenty of that) but by keeping arguments strictly to self-ownership and the right to die, it would appeal to more than just the left.

Face it: right-wing populism and right wing libertarianism are on the rise. If the right to die stays exclusively on the left, it won't go anywhere. Here in Canada, the Liberals and NDP (left wing parties) are the only ones who even support MAiD. Pierre poilievre (conservative) is almost guaranteed to win the next election and he's totally against MAiD.

This is one reason why arguing self-ownership instead of MAiD expansion and arguing it in such a way that doesn't exclude the right is so important.

@Nickreading, you mention Canadian organizations acting for the right to die. It is frustrating that they are only trying to make incremental changes, but the reason for this is perhaps because that is what they deem possible politically. Having a different, more radical group would not only split the effort, but might actually make things more difficult for them.

In my opinion, if you want to help pro-choice in your country, just join existing organizations, even if they seem timid to you, because the minor changes they are pushing for is where the current battle is.

It's not that they seem timid, it's that they're coming at it from the fundamentally incorrect angle. Pierre Poilievre has explicitly stated that if he gets in, he'll freeze MAiD as it is, stopping mental disorders as a sole underlying cause from making people eligible. As long as people are pushing for it to be a positive right, opponents will actually have a leg to stand on when they say that we want to force doctors to kill people against their moral/religious convictions. If, however, we come at it as a NEGATIVE right, as in, people should be allowed to purchase end-of-life technologies from private retailers, that removes the whole "oh so you want to force doctors to kill people" argument AND appeals to the right wing libertarianism that's becoming more popular (see Argentina)

 

[daley]

So, I checked out the right to no longer exist (thank you for the link) and that is closer to what I had envisioned, though there's a few issues.

1. It looks like it's been inactive since 2022

Yeah, the site itself isn't being updated. But there are related facebook groups and a youtube channel that are active.
There are links to those from that page.

2. Starting groups and holding signs is something that I do have experience with and because of that experience, it's something I don't want to do again. Just having a website that serves as an electronic leaflet with short, easily read, hard-hitting arguments is more along the lines I was thinking.

For a short leaflet, couldn't you just use a website builder like wix ? That would make it easy

 

[Forever Sleep]

I admire people who campaign for the right to die but, I think it's a very complex issue. I definitely think we should be having discussions/ arguments with pro-lifers to try to reason with them and, get them to think though.

That said, even as someone who is pro-choice- I would have problems with some of your arguments. For example: I suppose one issue is: Is it possible for someone to commit suicide under the influence of psychosis, drugs, as a very intense but impulsive reaction to something? I imagine, the answer is: 'yes'.

Now- can say a police officer judge what type of person that is about to leap off a bridge? 'No'. So- it's obvious that they would prevent them from jumping so that they can be properly assessed.

That part doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Why are they even on the bridge/ cliff/ whatever at a time when they're very likely to be stopped? That in itself doesn't seem to demonstrate rational thinking.

It's I suppose at that point, I would like to see things change though. Less heavy handedness with sectioning etc. More effective treatment. More freedom for people who are clearly thinking rationally.

I think one major focus needs to be on mental capacity with relation to mental illness and ideation. Are all those with ideation mentally ill? (I'd argue, no.) Are those with mental illness lacking so much reasoning that they can't make logical decisions for themselves? (Debatable if their reasoning is skewed.) Is all mental illness treatable? (Likely not.) Do people have enough mental capacity with mental illness to be able to deny treatment? (They ought to be allowed to in my view.) I think discussions around these issues would need to take place before assisted suicide would even be considered for non physically ill people.

As for your anti-feminist slant, it would depend on whether your site hosted anti-feminist rhetoric I imagine, as to whether it would piss some people off. (Likely me included. I'm not a staunch feminist but I doubt I'd enjoy reading anti-feminist vents.)

People may also not want to join if their identity would be revealed. I imagine a site that actually attacked pro-lifers would be more subject to counter-attacks and doxing attempts. Many people here are trying to keep their ideation and views on suicide hidden from their loved ones, employers etc. And, while your members might not mind your anti-feminist viewpoints, (so long as you don't use it as a platform to express them,) I suspect critics of the site would latch onto that. The same way critics of this site latched on to it's start up by 'incels'. They likely see both viewpoints as extreme and so, less credible.

Also, I think anything pro-choice needs to be well argued and tempered. I don't think posting pro-lifers personal addresses- maybe with the hopes of people sending them hate is a good strategy. Maybe that wouldn't be your intention but, I imagine some members might do it. I think it's better if we manage to look like the calm, rational and logical side. Get someone brainy to present very good arguments and try to reason with them.