Dave Cullen – Columbine

columbine.jpg
You can look at the story of Columbine and think it’s just a bunch of whiny, privileged white males. That’s okay. People write off people’s troubles in similar ways. As we know, black people are less intelligent and cultured, so who cares what’s going on in Africa?

The world is full of stories. People murder and cause terrorist attacks all the time and it’s not something I feel comfortable reading. The purpose of the storyteller is to extract the meaning out of it. This book is not just the recounting of the events in Columbine and what came after/before. It’s a gigantic argument why the story even matters in the first place. Cullen does an amazing job. No scene is without purpose. No scene exists only to spout details. Each detail has insight into another topic. Like the best non-fiction, Columbine is more about other subjects than its title.

Cullen dispels two big, contrasting myths. There’s the ‘psycho villain’ myth, and the ‘revenge of the nerds’ myth. The truth is actually somewhere in between, or at least split between the killers. The truth was, Columbine Massacre was instigated by a single person.

The writings about psychopathy here are integral. Psychopathy was the cause of the massacre, and also what people miss. People believe in Just World and want to believe that moral people are also good social presence. If someone’s charismatic and hot, then he cannot be bad. However, the fat dude who sends you a message on Facebook is a creep. Such a world is ordered, easy to navigate and we know what to fear.

Psychopaths blow it apart. The true danger isn’t the socially inept person. He’s too timid and his doors are blocked. In order for him to cause social crime, he first needs to become a part of society. Psychopaths are the most desirable people. They’re aces in imitating social cues and personalities but they have no good intentions. They don’t even have empathy.

In truth, there’s nothing like ‘what a killer/rapist/thief’ look like. People who want to deliberately harm – and psychopaths do – need to conceal themselves. How else can a rapist do his crime, if he can’t convince his victim to trust them in an isolated setting? Eric Harris was successful. Women loved him. When he apologized, everyone was convinced. He knew exactly how to hint about the killing to see who’s on board. People couldn’t believe Eric would do it because of his social skills, but his high social skills are directly related to his lack of empathy which pushed him to massacre. It’s a bizarre thing. The most dangerous people are designed to look benign.

What’s ironic is during all the time leading to Columbine, it was Dylan who got the most flak. Dylan was only in it to kill himself. The journals are up online if you want to read it. Dylan was soaked in self-loathing. His character was truly tragic. While I’m not excusing what Dylan did, he’s perhaps just as a victim as the others. He barely even shoot during the massacre. His depressive state and feelings of powerlessness made him an easy target for a psychopath needing an accomplice. Harris provided him a way out. Psychopaths are hard to stop, but what if someone reached out to Dylan before?

This situation reveals something dark about our society. It’s caused by our overall preference for socially skilled people over everything. Yes, this would happen again. In the end, what we want are people who can act like Harris. We want charismatic people who can lead, who look good and can tell jokes. Dylan may have been almost innocent, but socially he’s useless. What’s there to do with a depressive suicidal? Speaking from an evolutionary standpoint, we will always support Harris over Dylan. Harris can navigate social situations gracefully, and for a social animal nothing is more important.

Aside from the killer’s psych, the book reveals the many shades of tragedies with multiple victims. Not everyone comes out the same. The stories of survivors, or the bereaved, are vastly different. Cullen tells the story they deserve with empathy. After such a tragedy, you need a spotlight on your unique position. No matter how many suffered with you, your misery is still real. Lumping it up with everyone else is insulting.

It’s also a story of media, and how the way we report events affect their influence. For those who are interested in media studies, this is essential. The parts about the eyewitnesses’ unreliability are fantastic. Such tragic stories have a stronger demand for precise details. These situations, by their nature, confuse us and we need every information we can have to understand them. The intensity of these situation also leads to confused memory. It’s almost funny how people thought there are multiple killers. One person saw Dylan & Eric with trenchcoats. Then they took off and a different person saw them.

An important arc is the story of Cassie, the supposed martyr. Initially it was reported she claimed to believe in God right before being shot. In reality this exchanged happened with a different student who survived. Yet people were quick to believe Cassie’s story and stuck to it even once the truth goes out. It goes to show you what kind of moral responsbility the media has. The reporting of this story affected lives. A survivor in trauma who needed her story told has been pushed aside while everyone lives in a lie.

I don’t think the conclusion of this book was that tragedy was inevitble, that Eric and Dylan were pure evil and we’re all victims. What makes the book so dark is that it shows how badly we function when tragedy strikes. Aside from the aforementioned psychopathy, there’s a coverup, ganging up on parents without knowing why and a parent who becomes a ranting anti-abortion activists. If anything, it’s almost fatalist. What could we do? We’re only human. Why disclose that we could’ve prevented it, and put us in harm’s way?

Cullen’s prose is sometimes too fiction-esque. Writing a non-fiction book like a fiction one, with dialogue boxes makes it look silly. The author wasn’t there, and if he were he could only have this exactness if he recorded it. I prefer writing as summary, since that’s the only thing you can do. Cullen’s prose is also precise enough to let it slide. He’s fantastic in choosing the right details. Physical descriptions never enter. Instead, it’s all about the people and what they did. I know a lot of people who say they can’t read a book without understanding the physical reality of it. Here, Cullen wrote a powerful story by only describing the people in it.

Some will write this off and say it’s just two white privileged white kids. Perhaps, but perhaps underneath every school shooting or underneath every crime rests a story like this. The difference is, we had a lot of cameras on the scene. Columbine is important because of what it tells us about us – that, yes, this will happen again. As social animals, we’ll always take Eric Harris above others. We’ll tell stories that make us feel good – our son is a martyr, they were just evil villains, they were just bullied kids. Cullen does have answers, they’re just incredibly pessimistic.

4 out of 5

Advertisements

The Facebook Suicide Algorithm or: Getting Closer to Getting Further Away

Recently, Facebook announced they got a new algorithm that’s supposed to spot suicidal behavior. What I’m about to present isn’t a claim for or against this. This doesn’t have much to do with my philosophy of suicide. Rather, I’ll analyze the technology based on the McLuhan-ian view of technology as extensions of man. My purpose is to present this analysis and let people decide whether this technology is worthwhile. Spoiler alert, I think the conclusion means it’s bad.

First off, here’s the basic theory of McLuhan. When McLuhan talks about ‘media’, he talks about any technology. Any technology is an extension of a function of us. A ‘weapon’ isn’t something that sprang out of nowhere. Every weapon is an extension of our ability to hurt other people. Another integral fact is that every extension is meant to be more effecient in achieving its end, but means less involvement.

A hammer is an extension of our ability to hit things. What the hammer does and what the hand does when they beat the nail isn’t any different. The difference is in the effiency and involvement. The hammer is better at knocking the nail, can insert it more quickly into the surface. Once we use the hammer, we’re also less involved in the process. This is more vague, but what it means is our experience is limited. When we knock the nail with the hammer, we don’t feel the nail.

To use the weapon example, think of the atom bomb. It is just an extension of our ability to cause destruction, only far worse than a fist hitting a board. When you hit something with your fist in order to destroy it, you’re deeply involved in the process, you feel the surface of the object being destroyed. The object has to be close to you so you’ll use your fist. The atom bomb makes us less involved, since we don’t feel the surface of the buildings being destroyed. We don’t even see the victims since we have to drop the bomb from far away. This fact explains why technology leads to far deadlier wars, since people are less involved in the act of killing.

Of course, it’s possible this is not exactly what McLuhan meant. His writing can be cryptic, but this is the framework I’m working with here.

Now, for the algorithm. People have the ability to reach out to people that they consider in need of help. In our case, being suicidal means needing help. Life’s positive value is an axiom for many. Currently users can report posts they consider problematic – by that, I mean containing signals of ‘self-harm’ or suicide. I’m not sure if this can be called an extension of our ability to reach out, since it is already embedded in a technology – Facebook, which is an extension of our social circle/neighbourhood. What the algorithm does is search for these signals of ‘self-harm’ and report them, instead of users doing it.

Our ability to offer help is extended via this algorithm. It serves the same function, yet unlike a single person it scans thousands or millions posts a day. This alone makes it more efficient, since no post will go unnoticed and every distressing signal will be reported. In general, people will report a distressing suicide if it will be explicit. A show of hands: How many of you had people reaching out to you because you expressed something sad? By ‘reaching out’, I don’t mean commenting but engaging in conversation. If our current methods were efficient, we wouldn’t create an algorithm to do this. We wouldn’t feel the need to extend this ability if we did it right, just as we don’t have a machine to extended our ability to chew because our teeth work.

Now comes the bad side. Extensions of ourselves make us less involved, which is good if the experience wasn’t worth much. No one is going to miss feeling the pain of hitting a needle. In this case, the algorithm makes us less involved because we’re no longer reaching out as a person. Many in Sanctioned Suicide mocked this. We’re less involved since we’re no longer giving personal feedback, seeing the distressing signals with our own eyes and containing it. We don’t contact the person and hear what they got to say and hear their feedback to our attempts at help. Although this algorithm will be more efficient at finding distressing signals, we will be less involved in the experience of reaching out.

The question is, is this bad? My answer is, yes.

Involvement is critical when it comes to personal issues. Else, we’d all confess our sins to Cleverbot. A common complaint against psychotherapy is that the therapist isn’t actually involved and doesn’t really care. It’s a profession for them, they ask questions for the salary. The whole idea of caring demands involvement. In order for someone to care for us, for our troubles to mean to them something they need to be involved in our life. They need to find our troubles affecting, consider them important. Try reading about a serial killer and then watching an interview with him. In the second instance, you’re more involved with this person, you see them and hear their voices. Empathy demands involvement, since we can’t be empathetic unless we imagine ourselves in the position of the person suffering.

The algorithm, by making us less involved in the process of reaching out to people undermines itself. By removing ourselves, we remove the most crucial thing. The basis of reaching out is that someone actually cares about your troubles and wants to be involved in getting through them. Remove the person who cares, and there is no ‘caring’. An algorithm cannot care, it is not a person.

The main message this algorithm sends is not that someone is so caring they’ll invent this technology but the opposite. Someone is so uncaring that they’ll invent a technology that will do the caring for them. You can lead a horse to water, but a bunch of professionals showing up at a person’s house doesn’t send the message you care but that you want control. The reason communities like Sanctioned Suicide work compared to R/SuicideWatch is that the people in SS are deeply involved with one another, they communicate and exchange ideas, don’t aim for a specific result but are just there with a person.

Let’s assume we take the position that suicide is bad. This algorithm is another symptom of our pathetic attempts at controlling people, rather than helping them. If suicidal people are really in a bad situation and in need of help, how can we help them by patronizing them, caging them, trying to control them rather than reaching out to them? We can’t complain about being mystified by suicide since we don’t even try to understand it. Technology now extends our ability to reach out for others, to letting them know we hear their troubles in such a way that actually tells them we don’t care.

If we really did care, we wouldn’t need to invent a technology to do it for us.

Haibane Renmei

haibane
Death and suicide are the ultimate questions. Anyone who writes them off as a first world problem doesn’t interact with human beings. Humans are the only organism that’s aware their life will end someday. We make a mostly conscious decision whether to live or die, and that includes people in war torn countries.

Death is so confusing though. Can you imagine the complete ending of all of your consciousness, all of the data inside your head? That’s why I can’t blame Haibene Renmei if its exploration of themes is fuzzy. If someone couldn’t climb Mt. Everest but still took a picture of a summit, that’s something.

The portrayal of common concepts such as purgatory, heaven and hell are slightly modified. They make a big psychological difference. Almost by accident, Haibane Renmei comes close to understanding the suicidal mind. This is a great achivement. Years of research and everyone is still stuck at ‘suicide is irrational’ and then wonder why people kill themselves.

The most radical approach of the show is how it overturns the communal argument against suicide. The communal argument is one of the few argument that are valid against suicide. It points out that since the person is a part of a community, the community owes them and the person owes the community. The result is symbiosis, a ‘no one gets left behind’ approach that forces people to comply but rewards for being a part of society.

Yet the community of Giles is different. It’s meant to allow people to tie up loose ends and exit painlessly and cleanly. At the same time, the person is obligated to contribute to this society in order to make their exit. If they won’t, they will be doomed to a long life of isolation – a common complaint of suicidal people.

This ‘painless clean exit’ is important. Notice how the characters whose view is negative have a different exit. They hate themselves and are filled with guilt. The only exit they can imagine is a violent one. Yet the source of their guilt is causing harm ot others, which is exactly what they’re doing. The harsh suicide causes a paradox. Both parties refuse to accept and forgive.

We also get a harsh view of the people left behind. Suicide prevention is, by nature, selfish. People who stop people from killing themselves only do it to benefit themselves. In a moment of suicide, all the good attributes that Rakka mentions are good ones. She can tell the person how they benefit the world, but that’s the only thing she experiences. She doesn’t experience how the suicidal person experiences themselves, the inner demons of guilt and self-hatred.

This is just one interpetation. In many places Haibene Renmei suffers from the same flaws of Texhnolyze and Lain. It’s rich in symbolism and clear signs of depth, but it’s vague. Even if suicide is made slightly obvious by the end, it’s still hard to connect every thread to it. Nevertheless, the slight vagueness isn’t a problem this time around. The anime is deeply humane.

Nothing in serenity or in the Fantasy genre prevents it from being character driven. It may be serene for most of its first half, but every character reacts to the situations in their unique way. Their personalities are established quickly and stay consistent. Their character design is according to their personalities.

ABe is mostly a dull designer and not good at creating the unique touches that make each face different. Here his style works for him. It’s still subtle and minimalist, but meaningful. Rakka’s messy brown hair fits her confused persona. Kana’s more muscular look fits with her rougher nature.

haibane1

The setting of the series also gives him more to do. While the color grey still dominates, there are contrast to it. It’s not the barrage of grimdarkness that was Texhnolyze. There is warmth in those greys. The peaceful setting and characters make the grey slightly gloomier, but it still looms just like death. The animation is sometimes too choppy, but such technical difficulties can be forgiven when the art is so beautiful.

ABe needed a balance between life an death in the art. Haibane Renmei is dominated by characters who are clearly alive and feel real. The events are often cheery and carefree. The contrast between the greys and the cheerful part isn’t obvious. It’s not a bad thing happening after a good one. Rather, the two opposites are right next to each other. We see the good times the Haibene experience, we see the kindness of the people next to the caging walls.

It’s so lifelike that despite the vagueness, it’s a powerful drama story. The emotions run deep with living characters and setting. The Fantasy setting is taken advantage of – it’s fantastical, clearly symbolic and not just a set of rules. There a lot of confusing anime which are confusing on purpose, just to look cool. If Haibene Renmei is confusing, it’s only because of how original it is. I hope to return to it soon with more to say.

4 angels out of 5

Willaim Styron – Darkness Visible: A Memoir of Madness

darknessvisible
I shouldn’t be too harsh on William Styron. The book was published in 1989. Benatar hasn’t published his antinatalist manifesto yet. Alt-suicide-holiday probably didn’t exist back then. If it did, it was still fairly obscure. As Styron admits, suicide was a huge taboo at the time of writing. Many considered it shameful and tried to erase it out of the stories of people they admire. Pessimistic philosophy always existed, but Styron is oblivious to it.

Depression is harsh. It’s a disease and chemical imbalance has things to do with it. Yet Styron never confronts the question of whether his depression was right. Often you hear about how depression lies to you, but that’s the end of it. We’re hard-wired to believe depression is indeed a liar. Our genes don’t care about us so long as they can continue to exist. Love and affection also result in a chemical reaction, yet does that make them invalid? Not wanting sex with someone can easily be written off as a chemical imbalance. With the right chemicals, you can make anyone attracted to anyone.

Styron clearly suffered a lot. This is a slim volume and every line is dripping with pain and humility. Some snobs will scoff at Styron for feeling bad while winning awards, but depression’s grip on him is so strong. He’s aware of his privileges. He’s smart enough to complain about his state of mind, rather than how horrible it is when you win awards. Most of the book isn’t so much a recollection of events but salvaging a few thoughts from the depression era in order to understand it.

Yet how can you understand depression if you don’t address the perspectives it brings? How can you argue against depression and ‘defeat’ it, if you just write it off as a liar? Calling anyone a liar without proving it is barely an ad hominem. This is how it feels like when you attack someone’s depression. In fact, this is closer to gaslighting than helping.

Gaslighting is a technique of mental abuse that makes someone doubt their perception. By constantly insisting that the depressed person is wrong, that the world and their situation isn’t so bad you’re doing something remarkably close to this. If Jerry said his room is full of spiders but everyone else told him they don’t exist, yet he sees it, how will we feel? Of course he’ll feel even worse, since maybe his mind is so wrecked he’s seeing things that are not there. This idea is effective in horror stories, and the brilliant video game series Five Nights at Freddy’s uses it effectively.

He should know more than to write off depression so quickly. He admits constantly that depression is a mystery, one that we can know more about but never truly solve. The book’s best parts are when he details what depression feels like. At its worst, depression is a crippling disease. Yet it’s not a huge wound bleeding for everyone to see. It affects behavior and mood, which are dynamic and can’t be measured easily. The account of depression – the inability to get out of bed, anhedonia, the grinding hopelessness is addressed. Even as a fairly depressed (undiagnosed) individual whose worldview is pessimistic, Styron’s account was valueable in helping me understand it better. Many in my camp – the right-to-die supporters and antinatalists – view depression as another invented disease. Darkness Visible is a decent argument against it.

The last part of the book deals with recovery, and it’s also a disappointment. That’s not surprising, since recovering from depression also means defeating it in an argument. Styron didn’t address the philosophy behind the depression. What the pessimistic philosophers claim, which is often ignored, is that depression is a reaction. Just as you can’t blame someone for bleeding when they’re cut, you can’t blame someone for being depressed when their mother dies or they reach old age or lack of sex.

Unlike bleeding, what causes depression is varied and all over the place. Pro-choice suicide forums have people with all kinds of troubles – from people who have it all and are bored, to chronically ill to ugly outcasts. Your problems are right there in front of you. Listen to these people, listen to why exactly they’re so depressed. Styron is wise enough to admit that each person needs a different kind of treatment, but why is that? That’s because depression isn’t just a chemical reaction but a conclusion. The account of recovery is empty since either Styron couldn’t understand why he was depressed. Dependency takes most of the blame, but the death of his mother and old age get mentioned too.

If only he delved deeper into what these things mean. Things don’t just make us sad – that much he knows. Even sadness can be hard to communicate since it affects us differently. Sometimes it gives us a drive to fight, sometimes it makes us hate someone or something or another. Sometimes it makes everything around it seem pointless. There will never be enough words. We will never reach complete understanding of our anguish and sadness and all the other negative emotions, but we must try.

I forgive Styron, because his depression was clearly severe. Every lines feels like he went through great pains just to write it. Maybe his pain was too great for him to stare into the abyss. We’re wired for pleasure, so it’s reasonable for Styron to want more to escape his depression than confront its meaning. It’s enjoyable enough and worthwhile, but every mental disease deserves a much better book for its defining literary work. I hope writing this helped Styron, but it won’t contribute much to our understanding of suicide, depression and pessimism.

3 awards out of 5

The Suicide Philosopher Vs. Cliches

suicidebingo
Someone compiled all the cliches people use against suicide in a picture. If you’re trying to convince yourself not to die, don’t read this. All of these cliches are wrong and it’s time to compile the arguments against them in one place.

1. But there’s no going back. You can never change your mind.

You can’t change your mind after you’re dead, that’s true. That also means you don’t experience regret. Some people may kill themselves in order not to experience regret.

Any other choice you make keeps you alive, so you will live to regret it. There are many choices you can’t go back from. In fact, pretty much every choice is irreversible – there’s no time travel. You can’t go back one year ago and choose to eat a hamburger instead of steak. If you forced a child into existence, you can’t turn it around.

2. Quit your job, sell everything and move to the other side of the world. Then see how you feel.

This is extremely difficult, both psychologically and physically. There is no guarantee it will be better. It can be worse and the person may lose the opportunity to die. It’s a gamble, just like anything else in life. Some people kill themselves because they’re tired of gambling.

3. There are people who have it far worse than you do

And? There are also people who have it far better than you do. If there are people who have it worse, then it means life can get worse. If life is now unbearable and it can get worse, sounds like dying is the best way to stop this madness.

Also, a world with so much misery may not be a world worth living in.

4. You just need medication/therapy

Not addressing the arguments why someone should die or not. At least all the other cliches are actual arguments.

5. It’s a coward’s way out

Suicide is extremely difficult. Many people on SancSuicide and A.S.H. express difficulty in going through with it. We’re hard-wired to survive so overcoming this survival instinct demands the greatest of strengths.

If suicide is for coward and you’re not a coward, will you play Russian roulette?

So what if suicide is for cowards? Isn’t it reasonable to run away from a problem, assuming running away gets rid of it? Isn’t it logical to run away from a predator if you can outrun him?

6. You may think you want to die but you really don’t.

Our bodies do want to live, but we sometimes want to kill and rape and break stuff. It doesn’t mean we’ll do it. Humans are often ambivalent about our desires – that’s a sign of intelligence. We question our desire and ask ourselves if it’s really good for us.

We must never tell someone what they ‘really think’. If you can decide for someone whether they really want to live or die, you can decide for them any other thought. This is dangerous territory.

7. Your friends/family will be devastated.

Sound argument. Anyone who thinks people will be ‘better off without me’ should read threads of those left behind. Suicide may be the worst way to lose a person.

Of course, how important it is changes from person to person. Break-ups and divorces also leave people devastated. Yet if you leave person X for person Y, who’s much better, people will say it’s your right and your body. Why can’t these friends and family respect the person’s decision to exit life?

8. You might fail, and then you could end up as a vegetable.

That’s true. That’s why we need assisted suicide so people won’t fail and suffer even more.

It’s also recommended to read about methods before choosing and using one.

9. Just take a break. Take time off, relax and think about what you want in life.

It’s wise to hold off suicide for a while. As I said, we’re often ambivalent about our choices. If suicidal thoughts are new to you, don’t hurry. Let it sink. Read about different arguments for and against. So long as you got a method secured, you don’t have to hurry. Do it when it really feels right.

10. There’s always another answer and you just haven’t found it yet.

Maybe the answer is suicide, and you haven’t found it?

This sort of vague, ‘stuff might get better’ doesn’t help. Anything can happen. Your abuser can turn around tomorrow and realize they were a scumbag. You might find 1000 dollars on the street. Someone might kill your best friend. Anything can happen, including bad stuff. Life is a gamble and suicide is refusing to gamble.

11. You’re just depressed

It’s reasonable to be depressed when bad stuff happens. It’s how we recognize there is a problem. It’s also reasonable to bleed when someone cuts you.

12. You just need to find your passion in life.

Passions are a great thing. I’m passionate about many things – role-playing, anime, philosophy, swordfighting, suicide, sex, literature and other stuff. Most people I know don’t have any passions and none of them are suicidal. I don’t know how much of it has to do with wanting to die. I don’t know what goes through the head of people without passions.

13. If you were serious, you would have done it by now.

See also: Humans are naturally ambivalent about their decisions.

See also: The difficulty of overriding survival instinct.

The reason suicidal people talk about suicide is because it’s a big decision. Humans are social animals and we like to share stuff, especially what weighs heavily on us. That’s why suicide communities and suicide pacts exist.

14. If you’re at rock bottom now, it can only get better from here.

To quote Insane Clown Posse:

“I hit rock bottom & then I fell in a hole
And then I fell through the floor of that hole some more,”

Besides, is there any guarantee it will be worth it? Things improving isn’t enough. It needs to be worth the pain.

15. It’s a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

I have written a post dealing more in-depth with the topic of suicide as a solution.

I’ll just say here that all problems are temporary since life is temporary. A permanent solution is desirable. We don’t want just to cure a disease, we want it to never return.

16. You need to have a baby. A child will complete your life.

If you hate your life and consider it worth living, it’s sadistic to force another person to live.

17. It’s just a temporary thing, you’ll get over it.

See also: Rock bottom cliche. ‘Getting over it’ isn’t guaranteed and won’t necessarily make things better. People’s reasons for suicide are more complex than something they can just ‘get over’.

18. Life has a way of getting better

See also: Life is a gamble. Suicide is refusing to gamble.

19. Most Golden Gate survivors said they regretted it right after they jumped.

Any clear research that proves it that’s not made by pro-lifers?

Our pro-life attitude censors suicidal people automatically. Many people might express wanting to live despite being suicidal. Suicidal people have huge social repercussions – you’ll be cast out and possibly locked up.

I also found a Reddit thread where many suicide suvivors said things didn’t get better. A history of suicide attempts also increases the chance of trying suicide again.

20. You could win the lottery tomorrow

Your best friend might also die tomorrow

21. If you’re going to do it anyway, why not rob a bank/try drugs? You have nothing to lose.

Why make the world shittier on purpose for others? Suicide is selfish, but it’s not about being a parasite.

Besides, criminal activity can get you in prison. It’s harder to kill yourself there and your situation gets worse.

22. You just need to talk to someone. Talking helps more than you’d expect.

Is that admitting the only thing you’re willing to do is talk? Is that admitting you’ll listen to the suicidal person for a while, but expect them to do all the hard work of improving a life they never asked for? Talking about selfish.

23. What if hell is real?

You have no way of proving this.

24. I know how you feel, but I got over it and so can you.

People are different. My ex got over it, but she’s beautiful and charismatic. Of course the world will welcome her with open arms. It won’t necessarily happen for a disfigured person, or an anorexic, or a person who wasted most of his life shut in home.

Be wary of thinking what’s good for you is necessarily good for others. Suicidal people don’t force you to die, so don’t force us to live.

The Three Types of Suicide Prevention

Since I’m an asher, I obviously object to suicide prevention. I find it to be a violation of bodily autonomy. It is taking someone else’s death and cancelling it, as if it were your own. Pushing yourself to the edge, overriding survival instincts is very hard. Once a person manages to do that, stopping them by force is condemning them to a miserable existence they don’t want.

But suicide prevention, like many things, comes in different forms. These are the three main types I’ve seen. They are all fairly immoral, but some are more than others.

1. Suicide Prevention by Force

This is the cruelest of all types. It shares similarities with rape and murder. ‘By force’ means in a prettier language, ‘rescuing someone from suicide’. Suicide prevention by force is holding back a person from jumping, taking away the gun when they aim it, stopping a suffocation process. When the person is already in the process of dying, intervening is cruel. Surviving an attempt is a traumatic experience. The person will have to live on with the memories of it. Surviving some methods will lead to permanent damage (Especially in suffocation methods). Not only that, but preparing the method and doing it is a lot of hard work. By stopping it, you throw all that work in the trash.

Most importantly, this type of prevention doesn’t address the underlying causes of suicide. It’s not about helping the person with what drives them to die. It’s merely about keeping them alive. If you ever used force in order to stop a suicide, you’re a horrible person.

2. Direct Suicide Prevention

This type of suicide prevention is fairly immoral, but not as harmful as Type I. Whereas Type I should be considered a crime, Type II is merely being an inconsiderate moron.

The mistake many people make is that suicidal people don’t want to die. They think that deep down inside suicidal people want to live and want help finding a reason to go on. Some people are like this. Death, for them, isn’t a desired choice but just the better of two evils. If they can, they will avoid it.

Many suicidal people don’t think this way. Death is something they’re excited about, it’s a liberating thought. Telling people that they shouldn’t die is pointless. There is a whole arsenal of argument why suicide is valid. In the end, unless you can prove non-existence isn’t better than existence, you cannot stop a suicide.

Moreover, telling people they shouldn’t die changes the conversation. It’s no longer about the suicidal person, but about the people left behind. Everyone knows suicide hurts everyone around, but that’s not the suicidal’s problems. If life is as good as you say it is, you will get over this grief.

Suicide is already stigmatized, and Type II reinforces it. It doesn’t matter how much you say ‘we need to talk about suicide’. The mere fact you reject suicide as a valid option makes you hostile. It means you disregard the person’s bodily autonomy and basic rights, that you don’t respect their choices. Groups like ASH and Sanctioned Suicide exists to get away from these people. You cannot talk people out of dying because people who are against suicide are one reason people commit suicide.

This isn’t helpful. We don’t need who you think you are. It’s pointless to talk someone out of dying when they don’t consider dying a bad thing, when life is more harmful to them.

3. Indirect Suicide Prevention

This is the type of suicide prevention that is moral. In fact, it actually benefits everyone.

Indirect suicide prevention is attempting to build a society that won’t drive people to kill themselves. Building a society that makes people want to stay won’t guarantee people won’t exit, but it be better for everyone.

Attempts to build such a society are varied. Some focus on reaching out to mentally ill people, helping them with their depression, anxiety, trauma and other things. Some focus on creating a more communal lifestyle. Some help with the economical problems. Either way, building a welcoming society is the only moral way to try to prevent suicide. Even if a person still exits, such a society will be able to provide support to those left behind.

It’s important to note that perhaps assisted suicide is necessary in such a society. A society that accepts suicide as a valid option actually welcomes suicidal people, instead of alienating them. It doesn’t push them over the edge and gives them full agency. It’s possible that by accepting suicide, you can actually lower them.

Of course, all these types exist on a scale and what people do is somewhere on them. A person who talks to a jumper on the Golden Gate bridge is between Type I and Type II – an asshole, but not a criminal. Look at this and think what you’re doing, and how you talk to suicidal people. It’s possible that all this time you were encouraging them to die by telling them not to die.

You cannot, and should not, prevent suicide. Suicide prevention is selfish. True selflessness is helping a person go through with it despite how much it hurts you. If you find this odd, wait until someone bullies you or gaslights you. Unless you’ve been to Sanctioned Suicide or A.S.H., you haven’t spoken with suicidal people honestly.

Suicide: An Introduction to the Discussion

Suicide is a messy subject. There are a thousand angles to talk about, so many topics and sides that it’s easy to get lost. Debates can easily lose their direction with both parties talking about different things. Here I list the 3 main discussions around suicide. It’s important to know which of these we’re discussing. Each of these can be split up into more subjects, but I’m sure these are the main ones.

The discussion around the right to die is about the morality of suicide. The main question is whether people are morally obliged to live against their will, or whether they should be free to die. The most fundamental discussion is whether suicide has any moral weight at all. In general, here in the West we don’t view suicide as ‘immoral’, but we also don’t see it as a moral right like the right to live. What exactly the right to die means depends on who you ask. The most common definition is a painless, clean exit by euthanasia/assisted suicide. Most of the discussion about this right revolves around AS. Talking about the right to die says nothing about whether suicide is a good or bad option. It merely asks whether people should be able to do so, and how freely. It’s also connected to the right to self-harm.

  • Philosophical Suicide

This discussion is darker, less popular but it’s all over suicide networks. This is the discussion whether, in general, suicide is benefecial or harmful to the person committing it. It’s a general discussion that’s tied closely to antinatalism and Benatar’s asymmetry argument. The main question is, is non-existence always better than existence? It deals not with specific situations, but the nature of existence versus non-existence. Although a lot of suicidal people may not consider this question consciously, I don’t think you can talk about suicide without addressing them. Now with the more exposure antinatalism has and suicide communities, this discussion is integral to talking about suicide.

  • Personal Suicide

Whenever someone mentions suicide, the discussion will most likely slip into this. Considering the emotional weight of the subject, it’s for it not to. The discussion of personal suicide is about whether a specific person should commit suicide. Although it’s tied to the previous discussion, this one takes into account the person’s situation. Suicide networks generally avoid this part because they’re pro-choice, so they’re not out to convince anyone whether to live or die. This is the main (and possibly only) discussion suicide preventionists engage in. Many of the anti-suicide don’t seem to understand the difference between this debate and the former one, so they mix the two up and the discussion goes void. When talking to a suicidal person, it’s important to notice what they’re talking about, philosophical (general life vs. death) or personal (situations specific to them that make them want to exit). If you can’t distinguish what the person is talking about, you’re not really listening. Then again, if you’re against suicide you’re not listening anyway.

There are a lot of other topics involved and each of these can be split up into more and more specific debates. I don’t see anyone pointing out the existence of these. In truth, it’s the suicide prevention brigade that is doing the most harm. They do not discuss any of these. They handwave suicide, dismissing it as terrible and trying to use force to stop it instead of noticing the complexity beneath it. Only when we’ll acknowledge the variety of topics inside suicide we will be able to talk about it. All the research funds and we still get empty platitudes. So far, if anyone wants to actually talk about suicide, go to suicide communities. Be warned, especially if you work in suicide prevention. It’s harrowing.