This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
As much as suicide does agonize the family you left behind (most of the time) I'll push back on it being like hardcore drug addiction/incest/blahblahblah.
There are reduced and finite externalities. First, you stop being a direct burden on anyone else on the day of your death, and then eventually your loss fades into the background for those who cared about you. Compare that with the unrelenting toll a fentanyl addict takes on everyone around them.
As /u/DaseIndustriesLtd put it: The state is "not entitled to deny people their exit rights". This isn't just a libertarian fantasy principle. The ability to opt out of existence should be table stakes for most moralities. Nobody would begrudge someone being trapped in an inescapable room and being raped day in and day out for committing suicide. Your personal line will be different from almost anyone else's.
Should we discourage suicide? Of course. 2 years of treatment seems about right to me in terms of a support system putting up a fight with the individual and making the barrier to entry sufficiently high. The bulk of these responses seem to be that she was too young and could have gotten better. Sure, maybe. But that's the individual's decision and judgment, and 23 is old enough to be a mostly formed person.
I find the arguments against Euthanasia because COVID has exposed the average government's ability and willingness to coerce suicide far more convincing than "Suicide is Wrong"
This is a libertarian fantasy principle. I agree with permitting euthanasia for people who are terminally ill, living with untreatable chronic pain, or severely disabled (e.g. paraplegia and quadraplegia), but extending these edge cases to "anyone who wants to die" is a really fringe libertarian belief. Suicide is possible as a solo act, and the transgressive barrier implicit in the solo act is a useful check on people who would otherwise make the decision too lightly. If we reach a point where suicide is no longer possible as a solo act (quadraplegics, or some sort of post-singularity future where an uploaded mind would require admin access to delete itself) then all of this changes, but as long as people can slit their own wrists in the bathtub, the state and the medical system have no business trying to make it a more desirable option than it already is.
To reiterate, I sympathize with the argument that the government can and will encourage suicide, before eventually forcing it. There's so many signals pointing to this - whether it's the inevitable implosion of welfare state pension systems or climate change hysterics that overemphasize individual carbon footprints. From a practical perspective, I have radically altered my priors on state-controlled euthanasia being a "Good Idea".
How are we far from this with modern medicine? People exist in vegetative states for years, bankrupting their families or costing hospitals and insurers millions.
I think this isn't charitable enough to those who do want to commit suicide. I haven't checked metrics on who regrets committing it vs not, and I do believe that there has to be some barrier to entry. But it's not easy to do far simpler things like dig road rash out of my own skin or cut away lesions. There's a reason why so many people thought it was amazing when that guy sawed off his leg to escape being trapped by a boulder. I do believe that you can absolutely want to commit suicide in a real way but fumble the execution.
I mean, one person suggested black powder pistols? C'mon. I would want to have an extremely high sense of certainty that I wouldn't be signing myself up for even more excruciating pain with whatever method I chose to kill myself. The appeal of having someone ensure this happens correctly I think is natural.
IDK. How can you fumble, say, accelerating to VMAX and hitting a tree?
With modern car safety systems? Very easily. That's another dice roll I wouldn't take for myself personally.
In terms of "Cool ways to die" it's basically suicide by federal cop or skydiving for yours truly.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If she's not mentally healthy, it's not "the individual's decision and judgment", because the mental illness impairs her judgment.
More options
Context Copy link
I've been personally burdened by the natural deaths of two family members, who had done adequate planning as far as wills and such, but there's still a lot of things that have to be taken care of. I've also observed another family that devolved into petty fighting among siblings over a meager inheritance.
Even a person with no possessions and no next of kin will burden some government worker with their remains unless they die in such a way that a body can't be recovered.
You're sidestepping my point a bit here - finishing up an estate or filing some paperwork is still a task with a specified end date. Compare this to maintaining a family member's drug habit, consistent depression, or financial irresponsibility.
The point is that ceasing to exist has a clearly defined limit on what negative costs you're imposing on the world around you. If suicide therefore doesn't cost anyone else something past a certain point, it's an inalienable right you should retain at all times.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link