Leo's perspective on suicide?

[cetus]

11 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Then again I bring you back to why did he pull the Solpsism video? 

I say it was because there was just too much truth being spoken for some to handle. 

Edited yesterday at 09:56 PM by cetus

[Inliytened1]

8 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Good point. I wasn't around during that time so IDK the dynamics around it. 

Leo's a very young teacher relatively speaking.  And he came up on YouTube.  The forum was a place he could just be himself.   I'm pretty sure he's working on himself and we will see some changes going forward. And yes I can say this because i am like 20 years older than almost all of you here at 55.  I just have a baby face.  And a bit more grey than that pic which I need to update.  I don't think im older than @cetus though

 

Edited yesterday at 09:57 PM by Inliytened1

[Someone here]

22 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Then again I bring you back to why did he pull the Solpsism video? 

 

[Joshe]

41 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Yes..If you want to know what death entails the only way is to actually seek what death entails. So what’s your issue? Did Leo hit a nerve because he roasted your worldview with an uncomfortable truth?

This has nothing to do with my personal metaphysical views or feelings. I'm making a logical argument for harm reduction in a community that often deals with suicidal desire. I believe rhetoric around death and suicide in such a community should be highly controlled. And I believe that anything that even hints of suicide permission shouldn't be allowed, which is why I said the default position should be "it's always bad" or it shouldn't be spoken of at all. I'm not trying to optimize for what is philosophically true. I believe some suffering suicidal humans going through a rough patch are better off not having access to thousands of pages of text that glorify death, because I think that leads to more harm than good. If it led to more good than harm, I'd be for it. 

I'd have a different opinion if this community wasn't filled with suicidal people. If you found a way to keep all suicidal people out and if your metaphysical discussions involving showing interest in death were kept behind a wall, where only mentally healthy members could view it, I think it's totally fine to discuss whatever you want. But of course that's not possible and you don't want to cut suicidal people out of your community. So the only way to handle it is to moderate it. 

There's a reason why WHO and every major news organization has strict protocols around how they report on suicide. They never put it on the front page of a newspaper because if you do that, you increase suicide rates. It's called the Werther effect. They follow protocols like this: 

They don't avoid this shit because they're "woke". They do it because otherwise, they'd contribute to suicide and suffering. 

Edited yesterday at 10:13 PM by Joshe

[Joshe]

14 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

And yes I can say this because i am like 20 years older than almost all of you here at 55.  I just have a baby face.  And a bit more grey than that pic which I need to update.

Damn brah, I thought you were my age. I'm 40. Even though I don't act like, lol. 

Edited yesterday at 10:11 PM by Joshe

[cetus]

10 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

I don't think im older than @cetus though

@Inliytened1@Joshe I'm in my second childhood and loving it. Older than dirt and just as smart.

 

[Inliytened1]

7 minutes ago, Someone here said:

 

I have listened to it.  And this is the point.   He specifically says how blunt he was being in the video.  The point is hammered home at minute 6:30

[Someone here]

@Inliytened1 That was published on his blog soon after he took down the video . Do you follow his blog  ? A lot of deep Material there .

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, Someone here said:

@Inliytened1 That was published on his blog soon after he took down the video . Do you follow his blog  ? A lot of deep Material there .

I have no interest in his blog.  Not direct enough. 

Edited yesterday at 10:29 PM by Inliytened1

[Inliytened1]

15 minutes ago, cetus said:

@Inliytened1@Joshe I'm in my second childhood and loving it. Older than dirt and just as smart.

 

Dinosaur.. JK.  You gave me my first warning before I became a mod.  Love you man and keep up the good work but more importantly health and happiness.  Wishing you all of it.

 

Edited yesterday at 10:32 PM by Inliytened1

[Inliytened1]

35 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Damn brah, I thought you were my age. I'm 40. Even though I don't act like, lol. 

I don't reveal it much.  You do act like it but you have a young persona. Keep that.

Edited yesterday at 10:46 PM by Inliytened1

[cetus]

1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

Dinosaur.. JK.  You gave me my first warning before I became a mod.  Love you man and keep up the good work but more importantly health and happiness.  Wishing you all of it.

 

Thanks man. Best wishes to you too. Just saying because you're talking about age difference. Between the ages of say 40 and 56 it's all pretty much all the same extension of your 20's and 30's. But once you start hitting 60 and beyond your whole perspective reverses now that you're closer to death than you are to your birth. You begin to look at your life from the top down instead of the bottom up. A time of reflection.

[Yimpa]

I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again: ketamine done under medical supervision is a legitimate way to wake someone up from their nightmare of wanting to die from suicide. One trip isn’t enough, you need to do it a handful of times. I died on Ketamine multiple times and realized myself as God. I will never, ever forget those experiences. It saved me and made me realize how powerful I really am.

Edited 21 hours ago by Yimpa

[Jirh]

4 hours ago, Joshe said:

I'm saying the existence of positive or permissive suicide messaging increases suicide rate. 

You cannot prove that.

Quote

Is a 14 year old having a temper tantrum and who wants to kill themself experiencing unbearable suffering? 

This has nothing to do with the discussion. The permission doesn't cause the tantrum or the suffering.

You're arguing for a causal effect of messaging, so you need to prove that case before using it as a counterpoint. You haven't done that.

Quote

Have you heard of the Werther Effect? I didn't know about the name until I started engaging on this topic, but I already understood it. Maybe this is something fundamental you need to understand about this topic. 

The opposite of the Werther Effect is the Papageno effect, which shows that creating space to acknowledge and discuss suicide while emphasizing coping and making it through is associated with lower suicide rates.

Finally, this is your argument.

But since you don't have any data or numbers, it remains fair to assume the total net is zero, because the two effects seem to cancel each other out. So, it remains a fact that you cannot prove permissive messaging has a negative effect.

4 hours ago, Joshe said:

If it were truly about compassion, you'd be like "oh shit, yeah, that makes sense, I definitely shouldn't be saying things like this: "Only one way to find out" in a forum post titled "suicide consequences" where members are venting frustration and desire to suicide and asking questions about the afterlife.

Everyone here should be able to look at this and call it reckless and irresponsible. And given the patterns, deduce his rhetoric on this topic is not about compassion. A compassionate person would not act like this.

You have a point here, and I agree with you. This was terrible in many ways. The least I could say is that it's immature. There are many better ways to convey the same message more carefully and responsibly, yet he chose this. The advice became rhetorical and pointless after that terrible first statement.

Edited 21 hours ago by Jirh

[Natasha Tori Maru]

6 hours ago, Joshe said:

And a new logical fallacy is born. 

"The Armchair Fallacy: dismissing a conclusion by reclassifying the reasoning that produced it as an inferior epistemic category—"mere" inference, unsourced, armchair—without demonstrating any flaw in the inputs or the inference itself."

Nothing inferior, just made up.

[Joshe]

28 minutes ago, Jirh said:

You cannot prove that.

I'm confused. I wonder if you've misinterpreted something I said because what I'm saying is very basic.

Why does Coke pay Kim Kardashian 100k to sip on a Coke during her live stream? And why is it that the more influencers you get doing that, the more Cokes get sold? 

If you're trying to say something like "We can't prove that any one specific individual is drinking Coke because of Kim Kardashian's influence", then yeah, you're right, and I don't need to because that's not my claim. My claim is that the more influencers drink Coke, the more Cokes get sold. This is not up for debate.

Now, swap out Cokes for permissive-suicide messaging. The more influencers offering those messages, the more suicides will occur. This is a provable fact in behavioral science literature.

52 minutes ago, Jirh said:

This has nothing to do with the discussion. The permission doesn't cause the tantrum or the suffering.

You're arguing for a causal effect of messaging, so you need to prove that case before using it as a counterpoint. You haven't done that.

It has to do with your specific claim of "No one would even consider suicide unless they're going through unbearable suffering."

And I gave you a specific example that makes the falsehood clear. I could provide many more examples. For instance, a man crushed by debt and worried about his family and so he offs himself so they can get the insurance money. Or he offs himself because the thought of being a failure seems unbearable because he doesn't yet know how to deal with the feeling of being a failure. Or how about Hitler, was he in unbearable suffering when he pulled the trigger? How about a 15 year old girl caught up social media and feeling like she's not beautiful and she's isolated and wants the suffering to stop. That's not unbearable, inescapable suffering. It's a hard time that she can make it through, and her environmental influences can either contribute to seeing her through or contribute to her ending it all.

Obviously, there are different motives for suicide, but you're right that I'm specifically talking about suffering. 

But it seems you're collapsing or equivocating "objectively unbearable" and "subjectively unbearable". The majority I've been speaking of feel that it's "subjectively unbearable", as in, they can't imagine a way out. They're suffering from thoughts and feelings, not from truly unbearable, debilitating pain. These are exactly the types of people most susceptible to harm from suicide-permissive messaging and they can, and obviously ARE influenced all the time. 

1 hour ago, Jirh said:

Finally, this is your argument.

But since you don't have any data or numbers, it remains fair to assume the total net is zero, because the two effects seem to cancel each other out. So, it remains a fact that you cannot prove permissive messaging has a negative effect.

Lol, you serious bro? I ain't even touchn' this one. 

1 hour ago, Jirh said:

You have a point here, and I agree with you. This was terrible in many ways. The least I could say is that it's immature. There are many better ways to convey the same message more carefully and responsibly, yet he chose this. The advice became rhetorical and pointless after that terrible first statement.

See, this is why I've been confused this whole time.

When you look at Leo's response there and call it terrible, as in "the messaging has a negative effect", you're AGREEING with me because you know that it's exactly what I've been calling it: common sense. That's what it is, and you just arrived at it without a study. 

 

[Jirh]

28 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Now, swap out Cokes for permissive-suicide messaging.

The coke example is a repetition of the same strawman argument that I responded to by saying permission is not promotion. You are equating the two again, even though they are completely different and their effects are completely different.

No one is advocating that you should commit suicide. In fact, you are told to avoid it at all costs. But if you've exhausted all of your options, then suicide might be a possible solution. That's very different from marketing coke. You cannot compare the two. The permission is specified with rules and conditions, while marketing plays on your basic desires unconditionally.

Quote

How about a 15 year old girl caught up social media and feeling like she's not beautiful and she's isolated and wants the suffering to stop. That's not unbearable, inescapable suffering. It's a hard time that she can make it through, and her environmental influences can either contribute to seeing her through or contribute to her ending it all.

Interesting example. Reminds me of when "13 Reasons Why" first came out. I watched it and thought it was stupid as all the reasons were silly from my pov. Hannah had no real reason to commit suicide. All that's happened to her was high-school scandal and some light bullying. And yet she killed herself and recorded 13 reasons for why she did so. By your logic, Netflix is directly responsible for many suicides. Yet, the law gave Netflix the right to broadcast it even after it was sued for it. If you have a problem with the law, that's another story.

Quote

Lol, you serious bro? I ain't even touchn' this one. 

Yes, I'm serious. I'll take that as you conceding.

Quote

See, this is why I've been confused this whole time.

When you look at Leo's response there and call it terrible, as in "the messaging has a negative effect", you're AGREEING with me because you know that it's exactly what I've been calling it: common sense. That's what it is, and you just arrived at it without a study. 

Message is not delivery.

Someone can be bad at delivering a message. That doesn't make the message false or harmful, just the way it's delivered.

Edited 18 hours ago by Jirh

[Inliytened1]

16 hours ago, Jirh said:

The coke example is a repetition of the same strawman argument that I responded to by saying permission is not promotion. You are equating the two again, even though they are completely different and their effects are completely different.

No one is advocating that you should commit suicide. In fact, you are told to avoid it at all costs. But if you've exhausted all of your options, then suicide might be a possible solution. That's very different from marketing coke. You cannot compare the two. The permission is specified with rules and conditions, while marketing plays on your basic desires unconditionally.

Interesting example. Reminds me of when "13 Reasons Why" first came out. I watched it and thought it was stupid as all the reasons were silly from my pov. Hannah had no real reason to commit suicide. All that's happened to her was high-school scandal and some light bullying. And yet she killed herself and recorded 13 reasons for why she did so. By your logic, Netflix is directly responsible for many suicides. Yet, the law gave Netflix the right to broadcast it even after it was sued for it. If you have a problem with the law, that's another story.

Yes, I'm serious. I'll take that as you conceding.

Message is not delivery.

Someone can be bad at delivering a message. That doesn't make the message false or harmful, just the way it's delivered.

The problem with this argument is that you are assuming an even playing field.   It is not.  There are some who may truly believe all options have been exhausted when this could not be further from the truth - however they are self deceived.  These people can be saved going tbe @Joshe route. But not with yours.

Edited 2 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Razard86]

21 hours ago, Yimpa said:

I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again: ketamine done under medical supervision is a legitimate way to wake someone up from their nightmare of wanting to die from suicide. One trip isn’t enough, you need to do it a handful of times. I died on Ketamine multiple times and realized myself as God. I will never, ever forget those experiences. It saved me and made me realize how powerful I really am.

Wow did you do a trip report? If not mind doing one?