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 -
I agree with you on aesthetics and contempt for the nanny state, but I disagree on what I suppose is a lack of charity in this post. Those who choose to have themselves put to death in such a fashion will, I presume, lack the creativity to come up with solutions to their problems, and/or the energy to solve them even if they knew how to. They are taking the easy way out, the path of least resistance, not necessarily out of some deep psychological submission to father state but because it is the only path that seems at all walkable.
Howard and Hemingway, when life seemed intolerable to them, shot themselves. Did they do so out of some deep commitment to masculine values or because they wanted out, now, and that was the quickest and easiest way? Must we laud them for not asking the state to put them down, or condemn them because they, for all their creative genius, found no more grandiose way to go out? I can condemn them for killing themselves in the first place and depriving me of potential reading material, but hardly for the way they chose to die. Not everyone needs to be Sky King or Mishima, putting on a show. When people decide to die they already pay a high enough price for it; there's no need to hound their memory by complaining of the manner of death they chose for what are probably, in most cases, practical reasons.
Or did they do it out of a passing fancy, and would have regretted it had they had the chance? Just yesterday in a morning reverie, I took my razor as I shaved and shaved a patch of my arm hair off, I was sort of wondering what would happen to the long hair of my arms if I did it. Then I instantly thought, wait why the fuck did I do that?
Moreover, shotgun suicide has a surprising failure rate. With the bonus of failure leaving you with half a face and still wanting to kill yourself.
Howard, maybe. He might have gotten over the death of his mother somehow, but I suppose he saw no way to continue at the time.
Hemingway I doubt. His problems seem to have been more permanent.
Given that 100% of people are expected to get over the deaths of their mothers at some point in their lives, I think a fairly talented man would have found a way.
And that's the thing, the story ended with the bang for both those men, so we don't know how things would have gone. Brian Wilson's problems would seem permanent if he had shot himself right after the 1978 Australia tour, instead he stuck it out long enough for John Cusack to play him in the uplifting biopic. If Hemingway didn't kill himself, maybe his story is similar.
Given that many suicide attempt survivors report instant regret, even when they've chosen methods extremely likely to succeed and highly irreversible, I don't think we can assume that methods which are impulsive in nature are indicative of seriousness of intent.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This seems implausible to me since I would hope that going through approval process for euthanasia should be much more difficult and "energy" requiring process compared to any attempt at suicide. I think that the OP is correct and the biggest obstacle is just that those people are cowards and cannot bring themselves to do it. Apparently that Belgian woman even attempted suicide two times, with many people suggesting that this was scream for help.
I also kind of agree with OPs critique of oppressive progressive state which turns into dystopia in front of our eyes. Apparently compassion with homeless is to provide them with needles, drugs, tents and then picking up their feces or even their dead bodies after they literally shit themselves after some drug induced episode. All people should also offload all their responsibility and agency onto "experts", who can better calculate all the priorities like if you going out for a walk on the beach is not somehow dangerous activity. And if you still have some nagging feeling of being wronged, do not engage with anybody but immediately call your school administrator, HR representative or other designated moral authority certified by Twitter with blue checkmark. These are the only experts equipped to fully incorporate your grievance into the newest and definitely scientific psychohistorical model of how to make society effectively altruistic. And of course you have to accept the result, if you disagree it means you may have been infected with some version of wrongthink so you should follow the advice and go for sensitivity training therapy with certified psychologist. And if you still feel ignored, then you can always work with your assigned psychologist to utilize evidence based life affirming care specialized at ending your suffering with "dignity and compassion" in nearest medical facility.
Many people on The Motte, you mean? Because the original article says she was supported in her choice by her family and friends, implying they were already paying attention to her. And if it really was a "scream for help", wouldn't she have stopped short of actually committing suicide in the end?
More options
Context Copy link
Quite possibly so, but I think for most people a large amount of paper-pushing is a lower bar for energy investment than physically killing themselves. Especially if they're already used to interacting with the medical bureaucracy, as I imagine most people who would even consider such measures are.
I think we are talking about the same thing except that "physically killing themselves" is in a sense trivial matter of things like swallowing some pills, jumping off the cliff or pushing a trigger. Motorically killing oneself is triviality and almost everybody can do it in some manner comfortable with his "skillset". It of course is psychologically serious act and not everybody is capable of it - OP says that this is cowardice.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link