TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,963
There are many different kinds of euphemisms (statements and substituted terms) that pro-lifers, preventionists, and anti-choicers like to use in order to masquerade and hide their true intentions (which is of course, to impinge and intervene against the choices that others' make that they don't approve of – namely the right to die). One such example is the safety euphemism whenever they try to interrogate or even assess someone suspected of possibly CTB'ing, nevermind the context. This statement of course, is "Are you safe? Or will you be safe?" or any similar variation of that, and on the surface it does look to be benevolent and something that is helpful (presuming the person wants to be 'saved' but more often than not, not everyone wants to be saved, they simply want to be validated, understood, and they reached out only to later be betrayed by who they thought was safe). This talking point was also mentioned in various podcasts by TRTNLE (The Right To No Longer Exist) and one of the hosts, Kevin (Eye Doubt) spoke about it but I digress.
Note: I want to make it clear that the "safety assessment" is NOT referring to people who are victims (or potential victims) of crimes, but mainly the CTB preventionists and pro-lifers who are conspiring to prevent CTB, regardless of the context.
With that said, back on topic about the euphemisms that pro-lifers like to use. It appears innocuous and even benevolent because it sounds like they are looking out for one's best interests, which couldn't be farther from the truth, because instead, they persecute those who wish to be free of suffering, mistakenly trusts these so-called (unbeknownst to the announcer or asker) benevolent people, only to not only have their trust and confidentiality breached, betrayed, but also be further victimized by whatever happens after revealing their plight. What these euphemisms refer to is about whether the person will CTB or cause harm to oneself, and that is such a broad criteria (which is another whole issue, but I'll save that for another thread), then if said person looks to want to CTB, not only would preventionists disrespect said person's choice, they would also make things more complicated and difficult for said person, effectively making said person's sentience (on top of said person's existing problems and complications) worse.
In the end, there are many, many more different euphemisms and this one is a common one so I thought I'd mention it. Basically anything that pro-lifers and anti-choicers use to assess or gauge their targets' potential for CTB is a threat towards the person's bodily autonomy and civil liberties. It was never about helping the person to not want to CTB, but to gather intel and evidence that the person 'may' CTB and take action to impinge on said person's liberties, thus making the person suffer even more.
Note: I want to make it clear that the "safety assessment" is NOT referring to people who are victims (or potential victims) of crimes, but mainly the CTB preventionists and pro-lifers who are conspiring to prevent CTB, regardless of the context.
With that said, back on topic about the euphemisms that pro-lifers like to use. It appears innocuous and even benevolent because it sounds like they are looking out for one's best interests, which couldn't be farther from the truth, because instead, they persecute those who wish to be free of suffering, mistakenly trusts these so-called (unbeknownst to the announcer or asker) benevolent people, only to not only have their trust and confidentiality breached, betrayed, but also be further victimized by whatever happens after revealing their plight. What these euphemisms refer to is about whether the person will CTB or cause harm to oneself, and that is such a broad criteria (which is another whole issue, but I'll save that for another thread), then if said person looks to want to CTB, not only would preventionists disrespect said person's choice, they would also make things more complicated and difficult for said person, effectively making said person's sentience (on top of said person's existing problems and complications) worse.
In the end, there are many, many more different euphemisms and this one is a common one so I thought I'd mention it. Basically anything that pro-lifers and anti-choicers use to assess or gauge their targets' potential for CTB is a threat towards the person's bodily autonomy and civil liberties. It was never about helping the person to not want to CTB, but to gather intel and evidence that the person 'may' CTB and take action to impinge on said person's liberties, thus making the person suffer even more.
