eos_nyxia

Added Thought: To make it too much harder than it already is... is patronizing, since it's most often based on the assumption that people can't or don't deserve to make their own fundamental decisions about the quality and meaning of their own life and experience. If you truly care about the well-being of suicidal people (as opposed to obsessing about them being able to do it in a more "convenient" and painless way rather than killing themselves), then forbidding this is likely to backfire and cause those people to suffer more because of the sheer amount of invalidation already existing in their subjective experience. It is unlikely to stop someone from either wanting to kill themselves or actually doing it when it gets bad enough and they get desperate. IMO this is a bit different than the government not providing assisted suicide facilities because they've decided that making decisions about death isn't their jurisdiction, just because it is not within their scope of responsibilities as a government. Intentions and reasons matter, especially when people don't live in social vacuums. Often it is actually INVALIDATION, ISOLATION, and self-negation at the heart of suicidal ideation, not just "pain" alone, whether psychological or physical, even if the pain seems massive and unending in scope. It's believing that you are fundamentally alone, incurable, unreachable, not understandable, unlovable, not worthy... whether by humanity, God, Life itself, etc. Or believing that it is legitimately all for nothing.

IMO, a bottleneck-type effect is more than enough to deter people who might be doing it more "impulsively", which comes in the form of whatever series of passes and checks that people have to go through to reach their objective. For whatever already exists for countries that allow assisted suicide, this is likely a process that involves multiple years, I imagine at least 2-3 years at the bare minimum on top of a longer waitlist, and likely multiple psychiatric and/or medical assessments. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong...) That automatically weeds out the impulsive and those without determination, leaving a very small fraction of people who were actually serious about the outcome, have likely already thought about the outcome extensively, and have had more than enough time to come to terms with what they desire. Much like anything else which is difficult in life that involves going directly against the grain. Though I don't think we collectively have much to worry about when it comes to this issue of influencing impressionable minds to commit suicide. I wouldn't say that it's making suicide more glamourous or accessible, since people who really want to do it, even if the motives are highly emotional and impulsive, will just do it anyway. Which by the way, was already a known thing with certain cults and even literary works, which triggered clusters of suicides. For example, Goethe's "Sorrows of Young Werther" triggered many suicides when it came out in the late 1700s. Ironically, the book was written because the author himself was trying to process his own suicidal feelings, and his art came from figuring out how to make something positive and constructive despite it all. Art is probably always going to be more glamourous (and therefore influential) than mainstream science and the government, and therefore more influential with impressionable and young minds. Should we just go back to banning art and media? (This is actually what happened with the Sorrows of Young Werther; I believe it got banned in 3 countries.) The primary influencing factor is a fundamental shift in the emotional and moral fabric of the society first and foremost, and not the government permitting people to do something that most people fundamentally DO NOT want to do anyway. Correct. I was more thinking about this in terms of citizen involvement, people like you and I, discussing these issues on the internet. Though perhaps we should also take a look at what politicians DO first, and then measure that against what they say. Talk is cheap... Decision-making without empathy usually leads to decisions that end up harming the people they are meant to protect though. I think of it as Essential Step 1... Without a deep empathy and comprehensive perspective, there is no foundation for anything good and lasting.

There are ways to encourage people to live and re-evaluate their lives, their narratives about life, to continue trying, without wishing to COERCE them into living. And if you can't release your iron grip on your attachment to "life", can you truly love life at all?

1) How is anyone supposed to prove that things get better after you die without supernatural or paranormal means? Or did you mean something else? 2) In any case, what justification does anyone have for the sheer selfishness of telling other people to be in pain... basically for your own benefit and moral code/ belief system? So that your reality is kept safe and intact, so that your idea of a fair/ just worldview is preserved? Look. It's not like any of us are going to be taking on anyone's else pains directly, living out their life for them. Very, very few people are doing whatever is possible to see things and empathizing with people directly from their perspective (as much as humanly possible anyway) rather than pushing their own agenda first and foremost. IMO it's not so different in attitude with people who are pro everyone having kids, but when it comes to doing something themselves about creating a better social support system for mothers and families, let alone actually being the person to help these people directly.... pretty much all of these people who tell others what to do with their life are conveniently absent and absolved of responsibility. Nope, it's just a bunch of people who want to tell people what to do. It very much has the effect of condemning people to life. Ironically, it's very hostile to the human spirit and life itself. Trivializing the subjective quality of life tends to do that.

I had some version of the same anxiety when I was younger, though I tried not to ruminate on it too much. I simply could not trust anyone at a deeper level, which I think was the root of it all. I also got some anxiety from my mom, not about my dad, but her bio dad was a deadbeat. I'm 35; I met my husband when I was 16. He's only grown so much more into me over time, his interest in me has never wavered, and TBH I get even more other attention now than I did when I was younger as well. If there's anything that will "save" you IMO, it's: 1) Are you capable of truly trusting and leaning into that trust? 2) Is the man you're with worthy of your trust, character-wise? And are you capable of seeing him for what he is and what he does with open eyes, rather than through the eyes of your fears, anxieties, and idealistic hopes (or lack thereof), regardless of your feelings for him? With 2), you'll see and sense disinterest and dishonesty miles ahead before anything like cheating would occur, IMO. People usually leave their tells everywhere through their actions, or they will literally tell you who and what they are to your face. So even if you can't trust other people, not yet, you can at least reasonably trust in yourself.

@LambChop If all goes well, you will hopefully age out of feeling this way without needing to do much. Don't let the societal narrative brainwash you! Well, let's be real. Was your dad ever a great partner to your mom before she got "old and conventionally unattractive"? I seriously doubt it. TBH, being this pliant and accommodating rarely works out well for the woman, despite men often saying this is what they want.... look at their actions, they tend to get bored and take them for granted. On some level, the lack of self-respect is repelling to people regardless of gender, age, or background unless they're a leech. Being a doormat is for being used, not being loved, unfortunately.

I'm mildly surprised that no one mentioned the autism diagnosis. Why are so many people acting like they know what it's like to be her, and what sort of unseen, intangible subjective experiences she might have gone through? There is so much more to suffering than being born in a first-world country or not... in some ways, it seems like being forced to fend for your own can survival significantly simplify the human experience, and that's not always a subjectively negative experience, even when people go through terrible ordeals. Haven't you noticed that people who go through these type of challenges tend to have some sense that there is at least a point to it all? In my own experience, if you used to live in the simplicity of survival mode, whatever the source or cause of it, living in a reality which is calmer, more open-ended, more peaceful... it can be extremely unpleasant and overwhelming. The past catches up with you, particularly if strife and aversion to your own body and experience is hardcoded into you since childhood, including at the raw sensory level which is something that many, many autistic people have to live and make sense of on a daily basis. For example, I remember reading about this fairly recent study, as well as some related, earlier studies specifically involving autistic women and childhood CSA. : https://www.frontiersin.org/news/2022/04/27/frontiers-behavioral-neuroscience-sexual-abuse-women-with-autism-widespread/ That's just one of many possible issues.

@KingCrimson It works. Thank you!

@Jannes Great perspective, you can't coerce, "should", guilt or shame someone into wanting to live. Not truly and authentically. Platitudes and trying to enforce positive thinking onto someone is just not an effective strategy.

Complete derailment of the topic: I thought the lady on the top left still was Gina Rodriguez (an actress) without the glam, and got hella confused.

It looks like this is not officially available in Canada?

Are people still coming to this type of conclusion based on reading "The Singularly is Near"? (Or something adjacent and well-known that's more recent) IDK, I feel like it takes a special type of human to truly, completely, and unironically commit to the transhuman philosophy and techno-utopianism, to believe that problems of inner self-image and management plus the cure to all our existential woes will be wholly resolved and released from yet another form of externalization. This most often seems to be what's at the heart of the spirit of techno-utopianism... though arguably, -true believers- believe in the spirit of the machine in their own way. It's actually not so far from religious/ spiritual fervour. There is an extreme, childlike naivety to this tendency though. As for everyone else, I get the sense that they grew up watching too much sci-fi and cyberpunk media: whether it's books, movies, tv shows, etc. It's good to think about WHY certain cultural narratives are either chronically dystopian or utopian, and what that says about yourself and your culture, and not to look for the truth of the future in these narratives, when it is near-impossible to focus with eyes-wide-open because you can only see what is projected from the emotional root of said narratives. Though if there was a use, this would be more on par, prob: We've barely explored the capacities of the human mind unaided though, for what it's worth. At times, technology has been a huge, unavoidable distraction. We'll never get the best of our selves through directly via externalization technologies and processes, and therefore are limiting what is possible with technology because of said limitations in our beingness.

Is there actually any major culture where this isn't crammed down young girls' and women's throats? Without even necessarily being super direct about it with words, though some cultures and places are super direct about it, still... the message is read loudly and clearly. It's evident enough through people's actions and what is sexualized most easily and availably in culture and media. Alternative cultures and reactionary cultures are just that. Anyone who has read a book involving history or folklore from the past (including fairy tales) or grew up watching Disney movies surely will have gotten the message on one level or another. Try even younger than 30 or 25 in mainland East Asian culture, though maybe it's shifted somewhat. Like my mom is Chinese, "18" is THE age, and East Asian people look young by a lot of other culture's standards too, lol. Though...whatever women might hypothetically have to gain materially and from """high value men""" from that type of thinking is paid back many times in the form of self-hating brainwashing and displacing yourself from your own sovereignty. Like literally... you have to live with yourself either way, and then be in denial most of the time in order to live somewhat peacefully with yourself. Whether you win materially, or you don't. It's an actual lose-lose situation for women. You still have the rest of your life to live... why bother disowning yourself? What did you expect? Living with the cope sprinkles itself freely across all genders and all cultures... I'm sure some would just agree with you and call it a day though.

Always on the money. Add to that list all the other things a man could use a woman for. I'd also add to that list: men who are not emotionally present or who literally do not show up in other ways. Like if they want to be there, they will be THERE. You will be their priority. Everything else is just excuses. And for myself, as much as my teenaged self was rough around the edges emotionally, I always had deadly accurate instincts about who was serious, and how much, and intuitively, what the conditions were. Violating my own intuition and instincts about men came at my own absolute peril.

Yes, that's generally how it goes. You've dealt with all the nuts and bolts of the English language which native speakers take for granted. Likewise, I find that I'm usually way more efficient and direct when I've written in other languages because it's far easier to ensure clarity and general grammatical correctness when you keep things simple. And it's easier to train yourself to write and think simply and directly than it is to account for the number of mistakes you could be making in a foreign language when you make things convoluted. In English, I have the privilege to get away with being as sloppy as shit if I want to be, and still know if it literally means what I intend it to mean and generally falls within the range of acceptable usage and grammar. Though this is done on my own time and terms, obviously. Yes. Communication is generally a compromise of sorts, or meeting people part way. Give or take. There are varying connotations to specific words, many of which are highly context-sensitive. Generally speaking, most of the words you pull out of a thesaurus are not viable at all for specific use, if you consider both literal accuracy and style. Or you can use them and they'll be technically correct by the base dictionary definition of the word, but it will be off to anyone who has any sense of nuance in their native language. Let's just say as an example, often I find words in the thesaurus that have about 30-50% viability in both accuracy and stylistic feel (if I were to quantify something which most often has a moderate degree of subjective interpretation), so I would never select them for specific uses. There are often words that are very simple and broad in their connotations, and there are many words which are much more specific and nuanced in their use. Usually, it's harder to use these less direct and simple words well, and many people consider it stylistically superfluous anyway. So it's not like you're alone with preferring simple, direct language. Really, at a certain point, it's an individual judgment call about "good taste" and communicability. This is the stuff that's often out of reach for non-native speakers unless you spend a ton of time studying and using words in specific contexts: for example, scientific language, editorial language, languages specific to one academic field or another. Word creatives such as novelists, especially the more experimental variety, often have a more novel approach to language and the context (the creative medium) and the reader is expected to adjust their expectations, to a degree. Just like how poetry has different rules and conventions that don't apply to plain English. Some people write the way they do to keep outsiders out. It's a human thing.