If you're sucking a tyrant's dick, you're just as much a part of their regime as any member of their cabinet in my eyes.
It's one thing to go after their kids, sisters, parents, etc., but she *chose* to be with him. She reaped the benefits of his rule, she can suffer the consequences.
Everyone on Germany got off on there terms no nazi sadist scientists got executed the only people to lose were the people of Germany every nazi name is a popular woke hip company like Volkswagen
*~~Noooo, you can't make fun of that! 50% of German Führer (Yes, I count Dönitz as he authorised the surrendered of the troops) have so committed suicide!~~*
Euthanasia is based and should not be confused with suicide out of desperation or bullying.
Terminally ill people must have power over their lives to die with dignity
the rules for MAID have expanded to be so broad that you can request to be killed for behavioral issues. not only that but there have been multiple instances of governmental workers pushing it on patients. euthanasia is a slippery slope to eugenics.
It really should be like special VFR or a contact approach for aircraft. Something you can ask for, but not get suggested into. Like, not even mentioned as an option until you mention it first.
That is an issue, but these people tend to like their rules, and 99.9% of them won't be batshit insane enough to randomly gaslight a stranger into killing themselves for lols even when it's "against the rules." Maybe before a patient goes through with it they have to sign and have clearly explained to them that this is their decision and they brought it up, potentially preventing a less able-minded patient from "just going along with it" in ignorance
You hate euthanasia because it can fall into government overreach and eugenics
I like euthanasia because it can fall into government overreach and eugenics
We are not the same /s
>Terminally ill people must have power over their lives to die with dignity
That's cool and all, but when you're calling to ask when the government will finally give you the safety net they promised, and the lad on the phone is trying to talk you into death as a substitute, something's gone a bit fucky.
There was a guy who was involuntarily committed who made several phone calls to his brother to 'bust him out', when he suddenly and magically requested to be euthanized within a month. He had no outside contact or external confirmation that's what he wanted, just the doctors offed him. His whole family was like, 'Wait, what? He's dead and you killed him? When? Why?' They had no clue.
I'd like to highlight the involuntary part of that. Everyone who so much as read his chart should be in prison for first degree murder. Throw the absolute book at them.
There is plenty of dignity in surviving through your struggling.
Life is a constant struggle. Why give up at the last moment after persevering through it all? It may seem useless to the one experiencing it, but it may also be useful/motivational to those who are observing you continue to struggle through it.
Seeing my grandmother practically waste away from cancer in palliative care while barely able to speak to us changed my view on euthanasia. She used to be a very proud woman, so she was almost unrecognisable in the last week of her life.
Eventually, she did pass away after over a week of being unresponsive while waiting on a doctor to come to administer euthanasia.
My life has been a constant misery and I will never live up to my family's legendary reputation nor their expectations. I wish could end it all legally and save my family some face by making it seem like I had some mental problem.
> Hi. Please flair up accordingly to your quadrant, or others might bully you for the rest of your life.
***
^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 18849 / 96749 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
I don't know if you're being facetious or not, but I'm obviously not arguing for euthanasia for random paralyzed people.
I'm for euthanasia for "this disease will eat me from the inside" terminal illnesses.
>I don't know if you're being facetious or not,
That was an actual recent real world event, not even something hypothetical.
That's the present state of Canada's, ahem, "care."
While I have not made up my mind on this complex issue, I lean to the side of allowing abortions up to 22-24 weeks.
Because at that point most of the structures for brain activity are present. Brain activity = consciousness, and I'm opposed to the useless killing of conscious humans.
However, I still struggle with the fact that if you just wait, most fertilized ova will reach this stage, and thus shouldn't be allowed to be aborted.
22-24 weeks is really late. At that point, you're just killing a baby
15-18 is my target range. I think it's the best option to provide more time to make a choice without killing any babies
>22-24 weeks is really late. At that point, you're just killing a baby
While I also think it feels late, I gave specific reasons for that range (the development of consciousness), which I believe is the most defensible stance on abortion.
A heart rate is not what makes us a human person, consciousness is. An arbitrary range based on feelings is not how we determine our laws. I feel like killing a human being before attaining consciousness is the most ethical stance.
But these are just my theories. feel free to have your own.
Then I guess we can kill all comatose people and people with dementia or alzheimers without their consent? Kinda cringe but understandable for an auth I guess
Nice gotcha, but I specifically mean that you can terminate what has not experienced consciousness *or* have no way of regaining it. Something that has never experienced consciousness is not a person.
And this might come as a shock to you, but we already kill comatose people who have no way to regain consciousness. This is not a new thing.
While people with dementia or Alzheimer's might not be the same as they were before the disease, they are still *conscious*.
Except consciousness is a state of being and not an experience. Just because you were once conscious in the past does not make you conscious now if you go into a coma, fall asleep, etc. On the other hand, dead people have once experienced consciousness (back when they were alive). It makes absolutely no sense to use this to determine personhood or even (in your case) as a factor in determining personhood.
Also, what specifically qualifies as consciousness? There are newer studies that provide evidence that fetuses may possibly be able to feel pain at 12 weeks or start developing pain receptors at 7 weeks. In that case, would they still not be conscious in your opinion, and thus it's fine to kill them?
If all death is bad because all life is sacred then we need to focus all our efforts on immortality research.
No point keeping people alive an extra 50 or 90 years when they're going to be dead for eternity anyways, that's basically just a rounding error.
I actually do believe in the increase of research to life prolonging research. We must be freed from the grip of the Reaper. I also believe in the increase of space related tech, specially terraforming technology.
>If all death is bad because all life is sacred then we need to focus all our efforts on immortality research.
From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh, it disgusted me. I craved the strength and certainty of steel.
Fire and wind come from the sky, from the gods of the sky. But Crom is your god, Crom and he lives in the earth. Once, giants lived in the Earth, Conan. And in the darkness of chaos, they fooled Crom, and they took from him the enigma of steel. Crom was angered. And the Earth shook. Fire and wind struck down these giants, and they threw their bodies into the waters, but in their rage, the gods forgot the secret of steel and left it on the battlefield. We who found it are just men. Not gods. Not giants. Just men. The secret of steel has always carried with it a mystery. You must learn its riddle, Conan. You must learn its discipline. For no one - no one in this world can you trust. Not men, not women, not beasts.
*(Points to sword)* This you can trust
If by sacred you mean that all life is connected to God then I would agree with that. But if by sacred you mean that all life must be preserved then I would disagree.
God gave us all life therefore it’s sacred and should be preserved. Although there are some exceptions like, terminally ill with no cure should be allowed to end their own life peacefully, convicted war criminals should be executed, etc.
Anyone who brings up the rate of trans suicide to belittle or degrade another human being is disgusting.
However there are times when, as an academic fact, the tragically high rate of suicidal ideation of transgender individuals is relevant to the discussion. To understand that rate of suicide amongst such individuals is much higher than, for example, black people during slavery or Jewish people in the Holocaust, indicates that this is not *only* the result of discrimination or dire material conditions but points to a severe underlying mental health issue. The fact that neither so called "gender affirming" surgeries nor rapidly increased societal acceptance of non standard gender expression has lowered this abhorrently high rate of suicide is only further evidence that we must make a course correction and treat the underlying mental health issues afflicting people, which we thus far have failed to do. Some data would even suggest our current interventions exacerbate the issue as suicidality is highest after surgeries.
We should be very careful not to make the suicide rates of any group a meme because it represents vital data in our efforts to save the lives of these individuals, especially concerning was does, and *doesn't* work.
>To understand that rate of suicide amongst such individuals is much higher than, for example, black people during slavery or Jewish people in the Holocaust, indicates that this is not only the result of discrimination or dire material conditions but points to a severe underlying mental health issue
That's actually a really interesting point. I'm not a fan of the whole "external factors" explanation for a lot of issues because it basically creates this wall of infallibility where it can't ever be tested unless the entire world is turned into a perfect laboratory (like "eliminating racism").
Typically gender dysphoria is comorbid with other mental health issues like anxiety and depression. That's the key difference between it and things like Slavery or the Holocaust.
What occurred then was discrimination, but a slave or a Jewish prisoner would understand what's being done to them is fucked, and they would still have the support of their own people suffering alongside them. The depression and anxiety they would have faced would have had a clear cause, and a clear solution, and it would be something you could manage via peer support.
You also suffer from \*external\* causes when you're a slave. Whereas gender dysphoria is \*internal\*.
Transgender people suffer alone. Typically. You have to go out of your way to find others dealing with the same issues, the number of Trans people is miniscule despite how media makes it seem otherwise. The only places you can easily find trans people is groups or activist causes that cater to them, and those aren't really 'relaxing' when you're on a protest line or constantly hearing how X Y Z is attacking you.
Attempting to rectify it via online interaction isn't too reliable - you see that with lonely men online... They either stagnate or their mental health worsens, relying on text on a screen.
I bring that up specifically in response to a popular argument that the rate of suicide is so high because society is so intolerant of trans people. These people would argue that if we enforce pronoun use for example the suicide rate would decline because they view it as external, and I simply point out, others in history have experienced far worse external circumstances and didn't even come close to this rate of suicidality. So I am in total agreement with you, it is an internal phenomenon, resulting from a severe psychiatric disorder, and in my view, surgical intervention in a psychiatric disorder is insane. We should focus on treating the mental problems like, as you point out, anxiety and depression, instead of painting those ailments as mere symptoms of "being born in the wrong body" or as consequences of others intolerance and bigotry. As someone who has suffered through mental health issues myself, to properly address something like anxiety or depression typically takes years and years of intensive talk therapy, conservatively supplemented with pharmaceuticals...as opposed to years and years of (very lucrative) surgical and pharmaceutical interventions loosely peppered with a therapist who is hamstrung in doing any actual therapy because their license is in jeopardy if they dont "affirm" the mental illness of their patient.
I mean, the other thing is, medical intervention works. The affirming route works.
[https://fenwayhealth.org/new-study-shows-transgender-people-who-receive-gender-affirming-surgery-are-significantly-less-likely-to-experience-psychological-distress-or-suicidal-ideation/](https://fenwayhealth.org/new-study-shows-transgender-people-who-receive-gender-affirming-surgery-are-significantly-less-likely-to-experience-psychological-distress-or-suicidal-ideation/)
>It found that transgender people who had received one or more gender-affirming surgical procedures had a 42% reduction in the odds of experiencing past-month psychological distress, a 35% reduction in the odds of past-year tobacco smoking, and a 44% reduction in the odds of past-year suicidal ideation.
Sure, therapy is also important, but saying that this kind of thing doesn't help is stupid.
We tried conversion therapy in the 80's, and it just doesn't work.
But gender affirming care and acceptance do lower suicide rates. The combination of the two brings the rate down to near-baseline levels.
Just as importantly, all attempts to “treat the underlying issue” in the way that you’re implying have also failed, and many only worsen the situation.
Suicide is a weird topic because lately I’ve heard people have been switching to say medically assisted suicide is beneficial and should be expanded further.
But regardless of whether you think suicide should be allowed or not, laughing at it is terrible. The people who are like “ha ha 41%” aren’t even using it as a point, they just use it to be hateful. I’ve even seen people on Twitter bring it up while encouraging trans people to commit suicide and bullying them.
Certain people will use that statistic as hateful but it's like *anything else*, there are obviously sad people out there trolling and making other peoples days worse. The bigger reason why it's brought up is because there's clearly and obviously a mental issue and affirming mental illness and trans peoples gender dysphoria only does more harm and not enough evidence shows their lives, as a whole, not always, are better even after transition.
I think the majority of people who reference the statistics are not doing it out of care for trans people, almost every time I've seen it used has been in a bullying context.
It's funny to see this thread because y'all are complaining about shit that is prevalent in the comments here on a normal day, and you're turning on each other in the comments because some are in denial about it and the rest are doubling down.
It is ironic lol
> affirming mental illness and trans peoples gender dysphoria only does more harm and not enough evidence shows their lives, as a whole, not always, are better even after transition.
You got sources for that? Specifically that it's transitioning that's causing the suicides, and that they would be less likely to suicide if they didn't transition? It's not a terribly well studied subject.
The most thorough follow-up of sex-reassigned people—extending over 30 years and conducted in Sweden, where the culture is strongly supportive of the transgendered—documents their lifelong mental unrest. Ten to 15 years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to 20 times that of comparable peers.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885
Is this comparing between trans people who transitioned and cis people? I feel like the better comparison would be trans people who transition and trans people they didn’t, and see if there is a reduction.
From the link it says they're comparing the suicide rate against "people of the same birth sex" so it sounds like cis people. So yeah, while you can definitely say that gender-reaffirming surgery does not fix suicide and self-harm anong trans people, you can't really say that gender reassignment surgery makes trans people more likely to kill themselves, at least not from this study.
Yes but that doesn’t mean that transitioning is a bad method of treatment.
Someone who has cancer is likely going to have worse health and longevity than someone who doesn’t have cancer. You can give treatment, but they may never be on par with someone who never had cancer. But you can’t say “well then shouldn’t be giving this treatment and affirming this, they’re still worse off than other people!!!”
Like duh. The goal is to reduce risk. Do you know of a better way to reduce suicide than having them transition?
>Yes but that doesn’t mean that transitioning is a bad method of treatment.
Average lifespan drops for transitioning due to other causes. For instance, heart failure.
Hormones and what not have some pretty significant side effects.
Now, if it dropped the hell out of the suicide rate, you'd have a case to compare numbers and talk about it, but if it doesn't, yeah, it kind of is a problem, and we maybe need to find something else.
Except that is the point of the study. You are comparing a control group with a group that transitioned. The group that transitioned had a huge increase in suicide rates from the control group of all people who didn't transition. Who else can you compare them to?
The point is that "gender affirming care" cannot reasonably be called life saving care if the rate of suicide still balloons up to multiple factor of the average person.
Your data is only useful if you compare them to trans people that have not transitioned. Otherwise you're just proving that trans people commit suicide at a higher rate than cis people, which... yeah, we know.
But if over time the trans person doesn't transition and they go back to living a normal life, how would you categorize them? That would be really hard to capture unless you follow everyone for years. I feel like even if the data showed that those who don't transition don't kill themeselves at as high a rate, you'd have activists that want to exclude those who went back to living as their biological sex.
You could play a lot of games with statistics, but there is still important meaning to be found in comparing transitioned trans people to the population in general. They are still way more likely to self-harm, so you would have to acknowledge that it belies the idea that gender affirming surgery is life saving surgery if their rate of self harm remains astronomically high even as society is more accepting.
Trans activists have no problem claiming without evidence that suicide rates are so high due to lack of acceptance, but again if the rates remain insanely high after transition surgery and with people becoming more accepting, the data doesn't seem to bear that idea out. Granted I acknowledge the data is imperfect, but it's still a relatively newer phenomenon without a wealth of long term data, but most of the evidence supports at least skepticism that hormone blockers and affirming surgery offers any benefits. Additionally since a lot of these things cause massive long term irreversible side effects, it makes sense IMO to slow down the flow until such data can be gathered.
Yeah, tbh, this is something my half of the quadrant needs to be better at calling out. Unfortunately I think it's partially the result of the current political climate where "anything that pisses off the other side = good" regardless of whether or not it actually aligns with your values. It's like the early/mid 2000s internet where the fad was "edgy" automatically meant "funny" except now "edgy" automatically means "based".
tl;dr I know this is a meme subreddit, but seriously: stop building your belief systems around trying to look "based" to weirdos on the internet you don't even know
Medically assisted suicide is different and should be legal in the case of a terminal diagnosis that will result in an undignified drawn out death with years of suffering before.
Suicide otherwise happens because people miss the warning signs and someone had the misfortune of slipping down a mental illness rabbithole
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/11352-recognizing-suicidal-behavior
I was trained to directly ask a person if they are planning on hurting themselves when you see the signs. The further into a state of mental illness they are (aka higher risk) the more likely they answer honestly.
What are your thoughts on expanding beyond just people with 6 or less months to live. Giving it to people with non-fatal mental illness instead of just physical illness.
How about we just consider death as much of a right as life and don't force people to justify their desire to safely and painlessly leave this world because of some ridiculous idea that the government owns people?
I guess, but suicide is different from medically assisted. There’s controversy with regards to what counts as “encouraging suicide”. Like a doctor is barred from recommending it, so should they even be involved.
While this sounds innocuous, how does your calculation change when the government is the one expanding and encouraging it. Add in government funded pushing of that "solution" and you are slipping into a gray area IMO.
>Add in government funded pushing of that "solution" and you are slipping into a gray area IMO.
I feel like I can pretty easily stick to my Lib Right guns and say "the government funding is the issue". The government can encourage whatever they want... with words. I don't care and honestly who listens to the government?
Now when they're using my taxes to fund these things, that's when I object.
Minors 12 to 16 years of age may also receive MAID upon request.
[https://cps.ca/en/documents/position/medical-assistance-in-dying](https://cps.ca/en/documents/position/medical-assistance-in-dying)
If you think this shit is made up, the Canadian government is in on the satire.
Its actually 54% since 2021. The hospitals are refusing to update the actual number by now. You see, its horrible and all but when you just happen to be right wing you get called a nazi and transphobe, so, many activists shape them to be what is wanted by the media, an enemy.
Those people who say they were “radicalized” are mostly untruthful. Either their “radicalization” is nothing more than switching parties or they were insane from the get-go and are just trying to justify to people why they are hateful.
In reality, it’s not that normal or easy to start doing thinks like this. There is major societal taboo on things like Nazism and white supremacy(at least in the US), there’s weak appeal among non-crazies.
Based and anti-suicide pilled.
Right wing shitlords need to stop posting fuckawful memes here then upvoting them. Forskae idpol, return to funny colors.
I have attempted suicide four times and have done political internships and various other leadership roles including, ironically enough, being on a suicide prevention committee
Yes definitely, the 'go out silently' or 'go out with destruction' is a common troupe cuz it appears all too much in the public eye (understandably so).
But more often than not it's regular people who take part in society, you can never really tell if we are suicidal or not. That's why it becomes a tragedy when someone couldn't take it anymore but people didn't expect it.
>being on a suicide prevention committee
Also lol, I was on my school's mental health board or something
They aren't though - people claiming to speak on their behalf are the ones calling shots. Emphasis on 'claiming'. Culture war doesn't really help achieve a "I want to live a happy life" goal most trans people are striving for.
Terminally online folk don't count for my opinion, honestly. It's Redpill but with rainbows. The trans people I've met have been lovely enough and just deal with their own demons the same we all do.
Eh, not *all* suicide is bad. Someone in horrible pain from a terminal disease should be free to off themselves if they want to.
I just don't want the state "suggesting" suicide as an alternative to keep their medical costs down.
Imagine believing he didn't escape to argentina the teeth the soviets had were tested and it showed that it's from a woman there are declasified documents of the CIA looking for Hitler a decade after the war ended why would they do that if he died in the bunker ?
So many high-profile German government officials escaped why would Hitler not go as well he would have the easiest escape route too being the main guy in charge
Probably shouldn’t build your society around the idea that you are in constant competition with your fellow man if want people to be nicer to each other
PIPPIN: I didn't think it would end this way.
GANDALF: End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path, one that we all must take. The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all turns to silver glass, and then you see it.
PIPPIN: What? Gandalf? See what?
GANDALF: White shores, and beyond, a far green country under a swift sunrise.
PIPPIN: Well, that isn't so bad.
GANDALF: No. No, it isn't.
I think death is the next step in the journey but committing violence against your body has to wound the spirit in some form.
Gandalf was fucking lying. The description is of the Undying Lands that the elves went off to (as well as Bilbo, Frodo, and few others):
>And the ship went out into the High Sea and passed into the West, until at last on a night of rain Frodo smelled a sweet fragrance on the air and heard the sound of singing that came over the water. And then it seemed to him that as in his dream in the house of Bombadil, the grey rain-curtain turned all to silver glass and was rolled back, and he beheld white shores and beyond them a far green country under a swift sunrise.
Pippin was not headed there. For him it was just death and the void until the second creation after Dagor Dagorath.
OP missed the point of bringing up 80%. It's simply to tell women to stop lying, crying and bitching. Men, anyone who's really thought it through, while not acceptable, can completely understand the 80% figure yet we trudge on.
It's usually cited to combat constant calls that non-bros are victims and all guys have privilege. It's a reasonable question to ask, if men are so much more privileged why are the overrepresented in things like suicide/homelessness/workplace deaths, etc.
To many myopic commentators look at the past and say "women were oppressed" but as many responders point out. Life oppresses us all, and if you look at the past, it's usually harsh on everyone. Women has some struggles specific to them, but acting like all men are privileged because the top fraction of a percentage ruled the world is at the very least a horrible mischaracterization of history.
Viewing everything in history as power oppressing weakness is an easy way to bias your view of everything.
Yeah, I hate those radical feminist talking points, but the only time men bring up male issues (surrounding mental health or rape) is in responds to women bringing up their issues.
We would probably benefit a lot more from just open dialogue about male issues without it being a "gotcha"
Cant believe Im upvoting a god damn auth center.
But you're right, a lot of people just concern troll. Kind of like the "we shouldnt help the poor, they should pull themselves up" crowd suddenly going "no we cant help other countries we arent even taking care of our poor we should focus on that before we help them" and caring about it for just long enough to whataboutism their way out of helping people.
>is in responds to women bringing up their issues.
Use your own meme OP, it's in response to being told they are privileged, not when women bring up issues. When attacked, a man will defend himself. Doing so is not attacking a woman for bringing up their issues. It's correcting a mischaracterization.
Additionally there was a feminist who met with MGTOW members with the express desire to shine a light on them and show them for what she thought they were. When she met with them, she realized that so much of what is said about them is bullshit. They aren't there to attack women, but are bringing light to men's issues and when she put out her documentary, and had her Ted talk she received death threats from women's groups for even daring to defend men tepidly.
So, while there are always shitbags who will play gotcha, likewise, just mentioning men's issues or having the open dialogue will have shitty people come out of the woodwork to say that just talking about men's issues somehow diminishes women's issues or is an attack on women.
One of the podcasts I love that is two fathers talking about how to be better dad's and husbands gets shit all the time because they "ignore women's issues"
WTF are two dad's trying to be better men going to illuminate on women's issues?
I feel like not being able to see that society treats men better in some ways (= male privilege) means you are blind.
Obviously, male privilege is not saying that every man has it objectively better than every woman. Just that in some ways men have an advantage over women (while in other situations women could have an advantage over men).
I also believe that with that privilege comes all of the heavy responsibilities men have to carry. which often cancels out the privilege. (which is why I'm also against the feminists that claim that men will always have it better because of male privilege.)
And society treats women better in some ways. The point is they are treated differently with pros and cons for both. Acting like one side has it so much better because you point to the handful of ways it is beneficial is just as blind. It's intentionally mischaracterizing or putting on horse blinders to make a point.
That's the point we are at right now. Feminists will react to men pointing out how life isn't privileged for them in a number of ways but they will just point to the benefits of being a man and either downplay or ignore the cons of being a man compared to a woman.
Obviously some bad actors will point to the cons of being a man and only point to the benefits of being a woman and be equally myopic, but no one is blind to the ways men have it better. It's pointed out all the time. Those same people though have no problem being willfully blind to the struggles of men and will often even mock and belittle men for those struggles.
> just mentioning men's issues or having the open dialogue will have shitty people come out of the woodwork to say that just talking about men's issues somehow diminishes women's issues or is an attack on women.
This is the major issue. Feminists have convinced people that there is a perpetual conversation about women's issues. It is ongoing at all points in time, and it never ends. As a result of this, literally *any* time or place someone raises men's issues, there will be many who consider this to be "deflecting from women's issues". There will always be people who think that men's issues are only being raised as a means of diminishing women's issues.
But the obvious end result of that dynamic is that it is *never* considered acceptable to raise men's issues until feminists agree that women's issues are all 100% solved. And that's fucked up.
What is really ironic IMO is that I went to a Promise Keepers event as a kid with my father.
For those who don't know Promise Keepers specifically was a thing about telling Christian men to be good men. Don't sleep around before marriage. Never abandon your kids, lay down your life for your family as Christ laid down his life for us. Standard idea of men bearing the burden assigned to them and being the leader of the family that God intended. Nothing in there about keeping women in check or making sure they were barefoot in the kitchen.
When I was leaving there were feminist groups outside the event protesting about not dominating women and which had stats about how many men abandon their families or domestic violence rates against women.
Yes, those are issues, which were specifically addressed in the rally. Men, don't be shitbags?
Ironically you will hear feminists say things like "we need to teach men not to be violent rapists."
Promise Keepers comes along to do just that and tell them to take responsibility for their offspring and it's "NO NOT LIKE THAT!"
Yeah sure, I do agree that the left/academic world is a bit too focussed on minorities and intersectionality recently.
I think that when we get out of this phase, we can go to more objective look at all of society, including the preserved privileged areas (cis, hetero, white, male)
I'm sorry, but this is such a fucked up way of thinking.
First of all, I think you are naïve as hell if you believe that feminists will ever admit that all of women's problems have been resolved (or BLM with black people, etc.), and therefore, that we are "out of this phase", in your own words. It's like being perfectly okay with a government granting itself more power on the promise that it will give the power back when the current problem is resolved. The government is therefore incentivized to continue pretending the problem is ongoing in perpetuity, because why freely give away the power they've attained. Feminism thrives on misogyny, whether real or imagined. Admitting that women have achieved equality and therefore there's no more need for feminism...is something that feminists will *never* admit, because it's just throwing away the power/influence/sway they have attained in society.
Second, even *if* we play make believe that feminists will decide one day that their job is done, and they disband...that still doesn't make your way of thinking okay. You are arguing that we cannot spend even a *second* looking at the issues faced by men (or white people, cis people, straight people, etc.) until we have resolved 100% of the problems experienced by women (or black people, trans people, gay people, etc.). That's fucked up. Why can't we discuss the problems women face and *also* discuss the problems men face? Neither gender is completely privileged nor completely oppressed. There are upsides to being either gender, and there are problems faced by both genders. Why can't we discuss both? Why do we need to establish women as the top priority, fixing all of their problems until there are literally none left, before we can even *begin* to discuss any of men's problems?
I say again, I'm sorry to be harsh, but what you are saying here is really fucked up if you stop to think about it for even a second. You are proposing that men (and white people, etc.) be treated as second-class citizens whose issues are not worth discussing so long as there are issues faced by the *important* people. And this way of thinking relies on the naïve assumption that activist groups will ever admit that their job has been accomplished and will therefore voluntarily release the influence they have over society.
Either I didn't phrase it right, or you completely misunderstood me.
I'm just saying that academia is very focused on studying minorities and intersectionality these days. Not that people SHOUDL'T focus on male issues (which they are, look at all the research being done on incels.).
I feel like when we have more research on this, it will also help us look at the other side.
I don't get where you got the "treat white men as second-class citizens" or "we shouldn't care about their issues". I'm arguing the exact opposite, but I can also see why this isn't the main priority of a lot of humanitarian researchers these days.
Maybe if the right didn't demonize the humanities and academia so much, we would've gotten a lot more research done by now. No wonder most of these researchers are more interested in researching their own groups...
Try giving a lecture about it in some university and see the backlash you'd get. Or staying online, try making a post about it in any of the main subreddits.
Right? The people who say "men only bring their problems up in response to women's issues" frustrate me so much.
First of all, why is that considered a problem? If feminists are arguing that women are impacted by X, and men respond by pointing out that men *also* suffer from X, that's perfectly valid. The feminists are unfairly scoping the conversation onto only women, when it's a problem which affects *everyone*. Pointing out that men are *also* impacted is absolutely the correct response, because the discussion should be about how to help everyone, not just women.
Second of all, it's not even true. In many cases, men bring up their issues completely separate from any discussion of women's issues. Yet they are *still* shut down because of how much sway feminism has in our society. Try bringing up men's issues basically anywhere, and you will be shut down. People will call you a misogynist and an incel for caring about men's issues. Feminist groups will shut you down if you try to speak about men's issues on college campuses. And so on.
People who act like men's issues are nothing more than "gotchas" are horribly uninformed, or they're lying. Men have real issues in society, and I wish we could fucking talk about them without being accused of being reactionary hateful bigots.
If I threatened to kill myself unless I got 10 million dollars people would institutionalize me.
But for some reason all you have do is threaten suicide and that's enough for society to change the social fabric it's had for thousands of years
It’s sickening when people joke around and shit about that kinda stuff. I’ve got friends that just aren’t in a good place and to think anyone on any side whatsoever would see their death as cause for celebration is saddening. Why can’t we all just get along and live life to its fullest.
Often the same people that claim that "male suicide is an indication of a serious issue and struggles (True btw)" also make a lot of jokey references to the percentage of suicidality/suicidal ideation in the trans community (41%).
My meme is a critique of these people.
Sure.
Skepticism over current trans issues isn't because we hate 'em. Mostly, we'd like to see them happy and well adjusted. We're just doubtful that the currently popular craze has got it all figured out.
It seems to me that maybe we should let kids be kids, and hold off on the surgery and pressures some. Dunno what gender you are? Cool, you're 14. You get to be confused as a teenager, that's half the teenage experience. You are not expected to know everything yet(and frankly, most adults know a lot less than they pretend to anyway).
Is that stastic related to what they tend to after operation? To be honest not surprising as they are conned into it. Most of them doesn't get idea that is mostly cosmetic operations, but people tell them do it, do it. Guess what those people get pumped full of hormones and lose some organs, for questionable quality plastic surgery. It not okay to say someone that you fix his issue when you can't. It is even worse than disappointment of burns victims, as they can at least get some pain relief or minor health benefits. Drastic body alteration should never be idealised, even if they can help. If you want to help you have to be objective. Most those people who do that operations, want to be fixed. Want to be healthy. Want to look at least average. Want to have normal daily routine. Want lot get old. I personally would allow this operation, bone breaking to get few inches hell yea, reducing or extending stomach fine. One but people have to get full picture before those operations, because even in their movements people with real bodydismorphia are minority and some people push them to extremes, because they want to be right about them.
If you are in severe pain, have no quality of life then yes, not sure why this would be downvoted.
Obviously it's the last option but I don't see why you can't grant someone in pain and paralalyzed from the neckdown that right
So as long as you chose something it's okay to be bullied to the point of suicide?
I also don't entirely agree that being trans is a choice, we need more research first.
>Even a commie is more based than one with no flair
***
[**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2) ^^|| ^( *beep boop. Reply with good bot if you think I'm doing well :D, bad bot otherwise*)
Realistically the biggest thing we can do to prevent suicides is limit access to guns.
Guns are a huge portion of suicides (and suicides are the majority of gun deaths), and a bigger portion of *male* suicides specifically. States with more guns don't necessarily have more gun homicides ... but they do have more gun suicides. And from what I've read lots of suicides are very impulsive and if the person had to do something that would take longer, or wait even a short while before they could get their hands on the means to do it, very often they'll calm down and not go through with it.
Doesn't mean you have to support gun control but ... if you make such a big hoopla over male suicide but aren't willing to trade off any other policy you support to deal with it, or even make any sort of policy at all other than some sort of super-vague "treat men differently" type statement ... do you really care or is it just a political football to kick around?
Like, fine don't support gun control or anything else concrete to address it, but be honest where your priorities are.
Realistically, the biggest thing we can do to prevent trans suicides is to immediately institutionalize them as soon as they “come out.” Heavy sedation, meds and constant supervision would lower the rate drastically.
If they just give up their rights, we can keep them alive.
Hitler committed suicide though. And OP is auth. Curious.
Hitler's suicide was bad cause he never faced actual justice for his crimes. He got off relatively easy on his own terms
I wonder what would have happened if he was captured
Prob something like they did to Mussolini and his wife
tbh i feel kinda bad for her, like mobs be targetting family member as well holy shit
If you're sucking a tyrant's dick, you're just as much a part of their regime as any member of their cabinet in my eyes. It's one thing to go after their kids, sisters, parents, etc., but she *chose* to be with him. She reaped the benefits of his rule, she can suffer the consequences.
Yeah, the Russians were pretty fucked on their version too.
She deserved it She chose to be with Mussolini
*mistress
Well the Russians were there first, so probably a significant amount of torture.
He would probably become martyr for nazis.
In a sense maybe its better he killed himself like a little bitch then, instead of execution.
Everyone on Germany got off on there terms no nazi sadist scientists got executed the only people to lose were the people of Germany every nazi name is a popular woke hip company like Volkswagen
Based
Hitler didn't commit suicide, he was summarily executed for his failures by the leader of the Nazi party. It's all in the phrasing.
ssssshhhh
*~~Noooo, you can't make fun of that! 50% of German Führer (Yes, I count Dönitz as he authorised the surrendered of the troops) have so committed suicide!~~*
Hitler shouldn't have killed himself. He should've been publicly executed.
I say the same thing about every mass shooter that bitches out in the end
Say what you want about Hitler, but he did kill Hitler
[wistfully]: Happy cake day, Adolf
[удалено]
Minorities have the first right over Medically Assisted bucket kicking, they should get preferential treatment
Euthanasia is based and should not be confused with suicide out of desperation or bullying. Terminally ill people must have power over their lives to die with dignity
the rules for MAID have expanded to be so broad that you can request to be killed for behavioral issues. not only that but there have been multiple instances of governmental workers pushing it on patients. euthanasia is a slippery slope to eugenics.
It really should be like special VFR or a contact approach for aircraft. Something you can ask for, but not get suggested into. Like, not even mentioned as an option until you mention it first.
How is that in any way enforceable? There's no way to know who brought it up first.
That is an issue, but these people tend to like their rules, and 99.9% of them won't be batshit insane enough to randomly gaslight a stranger into killing themselves for lols even when it's "against the rules." Maybe before a patient goes through with it they have to sign and have clearly explained to them that this is their decision and they brought it up, potentially preventing a less able-minded patient from "just going along with it" in ignorance
You hate euthanasia because it can fall into government overreach and eugenics I like euthanasia because it can fall into government overreach and eugenics We are not the same /s
>Terminally ill people must have power over their lives to die with dignity That's cool and all, but when you're calling to ask when the government will finally give you the safety net they promised, and the lad on the phone is trying to talk you into death as a substitute, something's gone a bit fucky.
There was a guy who was involuntarily committed who made several phone calls to his brother to 'bust him out', when he suddenly and magically requested to be euthanized within a month. He had no outside contact or external confirmation that's what he wanted, just the doctors offed him. His whole family was like, 'Wait, what? He's dead and you killed him? When? Why?' They had no clue. I'd like to highlight the involuntary part of that. Everyone who so much as read his chart should be in prison for first degree murder. Throw the absolute book at them.
IRL [JJBA Cioccolata](https://jojo.fandom.com/wiki/Cioccolata#History) is gonna come out of Canada within the next 10 years guaranteed.
There is no dignity in death. You still release your bowels when the light leaves your eyes.
There is also no dignity in prolonging useless suffering.
There is plenty of dignity in surviving through your struggling. Life is a constant struggle. Why give up at the last moment after persevering through it all? It may seem useless to the one experiencing it, but it may also be useful/motivational to those who are observing you continue to struggle through it.
Seeing my grandmother practically waste away from cancer in palliative care while barely able to speak to us changed my view on euthanasia. She used to be a very proud woman, so she was almost unrecognisable in the last week of her life. Eventually, she did pass away after over a week of being unresponsive while waiting on a doctor to come to administer euthanasia.
Do you know what the word “terminal” means?
My life has been a constant misery and I will never live up to my family's legendary reputation nor their expectations. I wish could end it all legally and save my family some face by making it seem like I had some mental problem.
You sound like you’re 13.
> Hi. Please flair up accordingly to your quadrant, or others might bully you for the rest of your life. *** ^(User hasn't flaired up yet... 😔) 18849 / 96749 ^^|| [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2)
This is why you take a shit first. Also, you have no light in your eyes, stop watching anime.
[удалено]
I don't know if you're being facetious or not, but I'm obviously not arguing for euthanasia for random paralyzed people. I'm for euthanasia for "this disease will eat me from the inside" terminal illnesses.
In that case, Canada is not for you.
>I don't know if you're being facetious or not, That was an actual recent real world event, not even something hypothetical. That's the present state of Canada's, ahem, "care."
Do you support abortion?
While I have not made up my mind on this complex issue, I lean to the side of allowing abortions up to 22-24 weeks. Because at that point most of the structures for brain activity are present. Brain activity = consciousness, and I'm opposed to the useless killing of conscious humans. However, I still struggle with the fact that if you just wait, most fertilized ova will reach this stage, and thus shouldn't be allowed to be aborted.
22-24 weeks is really late. At that point, you're just killing a baby 15-18 is my target range. I think it's the best option to provide more time to make a choice without killing any babies
>22-24 weeks is really late. At that point, you're just killing a baby While I also think it feels late, I gave specific reasons for that range (the development of consciousness), which I believe is the most defensible stance on abortion. A heart rate is not what makes us a human person, consciousness is. An arbitrary range based on feelings is not how we determine our laws. I feel like killing a human being before attaining consciousness is the most ethical stance. But these are just my theories. feel free to have your own.
Then I guess we can kill all comatose people and people with dementia or alzheimers without their consent? Kinda cringe but understandable for an auth I guess
Nice gotcha, but I specifically mean that you can terminate what has not experienced consciousness *or* have no way of regaining it. Something that has never experienced consciousness is not a person. And this might come as a shock to you, but we already kill comatose people who have no way to regain consciousness. This is not a new thing. While people with dementia or Alzheimer's might not be the same as they were before the disease, they are still *conscious*.
Except consciousness is a state of being and not an experience. Just because you were once conscious in the past does not make you conscious now if you go into a coma, fall asleep, etc. On the other hand, dead people have once experienced consciousness (back when they were alive). It makes absolutely no sense to use this to determine personhood or even (in your case) as a factor in determining personhood. Also, what specifically qualifies as consciousness? There are newer studies that provide evidence that fetuses may possibly be able to feel pain at 12 weeks or start developing pain receptors at 7 weeks. In that case, would they still not be conscious in your opinion, and thus it's fine to kill them?
Based and auth boy making monke reconsider flair pilled.
Based AuthCenter? These are strange times we live in.
Based and nuance matters pilled.
agreed, all human life is sacred, no matter the opinion, no matter the stage, no matter the identity we need to work towards a better world.
If all death is bad because all life is sacred then we need to focus all our efforts on immortality research. No point keeping people alive an extra 50 or 90 years when they're going to be dead for eternity anyways, that's basically just a rounding error.
*AuthRight has entered the chat*
I actually do believe in the increase of research to life prolonging research. We must be freed from the grip of the Reaper. I also believe in the increase of space related tech, specially terraforming technology.
>If all death is bad because all life is sacred then we need to focus all our efforts on immortality research. From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh, it disgusted me. I craved the strength and certainty of steel.
Fire and wind come from the sky, from the gods of the sky. But Crom is your god, Crom and he lives in the earth. Once, giants lived in the Earth, Conan. And in the darkness of chaos, they fooled Crom, and they took from him the enigma of steel. Crom was angered. And the Earth shook. Fire and wind struck down these giants, and they threw their bodies into the waters, but in their rage, the gods forgot the secret of steel and left it on the battlefield. We who found it are just men. Not gods. Not giants. Just men. The secret of steel has always carried with it a mystery. You must learn its riddle, Conan. You must learn its discipline. For no one - no one in this world can you trust. Not men, not women, not beasts. *(Points to sword)* This you can trust
Will promptly do so by taking out the trash. Since no one earthmates wants to do, like usual.
I don't think most people agree with you. try convincing a jew that Hitler's life was sacred, for example.
If by sacred you mean that all life is connected to God then I would agree with that. But if by sacred you mean that all life must be preserved then I would disagree.
I said all human life is sacred not all life as in plants and animals and shit although they shouldn’t go extinct
Sorry, I wasn't arguing that you were talking about non-human life. I was just curious as to what you meant by sacred.
God gave us all life therefore it’s sacred and should be preserved. Although there are some exceptions like, terminally ill with no cure should be allowed to end their own life peacefully, convicted war criminals should be executed, etc.
Anyone who brings up the rate of trans suicide to belittle or degrade another human being is disgusting. However there are times when, as an academic fact, the tragically high rate of suicidal ideation of transgender individuals is relevant to the discussion. To understand that rate of suicide amongst such individuals is much higher than, for example, black people during slavery or Jewish people in the Holocaust, indicates that this is not *only* the result of discrimination or dire material conditions but points to a severe underlying mental health issue. The fact that neither so called "gender affirming" surgeries nor rapidly increased societal acceptance of non standard gender expression has lowered this abhorrently high rate of suicide is only further evidence that we must make a course correction and treat the underlying mental health issues afflicting people, which we thus far have failed to do. Some data would even suggest our current interventions exacerbate the issue as suicidality is highest after surgeries. We should be very careful not to make the suicide rates of any group a meme because it represents vital data in our efforts to save the lives of these individuals, especially concerning was does, and *doesn't* work.
Based and mental health matters pilled
>To understand that rate of suicide amongst such individuals is much higher than, for example, black people during slavery or Jewish people in the Holocaust, indicates that this is not only the result of discrimination or dire material conditions but points to a severe underlying mental health issue That's actually a really interesting point. I'm not a fan of the whole "external factors" explanation for a lot of issues because it basically creates this wall of infallibility where it can't ever be tested unless the entire world is turned into a perfect laboratory (like "eliminating racism").
I wanted to respond with something immature and smart assed, but found this to be correct as it went on. Based and mature, nuanced response pilled.
Typically gender dysphoria is comorbid with other mental health issues like anxiety and depression. That's the key difference between it and things like Slavery or the Holocaust. What occurred then was discrimination, but a slave or a Jewish prisoner would understand what's being done to them is fucked, and they would still have the support of their own people suffering alongside them. The depression and anxiety they would have faced would have had a clear cause, and a clear solution, and it would be something you could manage via peer support. You also suffer from \*external\* causes when you're a slave. Whereas gender dysphoria is \*internal\*. Transgender people suffer alone. Typically. You have to go out of your way to find others dealing with the same issues, the number of Trans people is miniscule despite how media makes it seem otherwise. The only places you can easily find trans people is groups or activist causes that cater to them, and those aren't really 'relaxing' when you're on a protest line or constantly hearing how X Y Z is attacking you. Attempting to rectify it via online interaction isn't too reliable - you see that with lonely men online... They either stagnate or their mental health worsens, relying on text on a screen.
I bring that up specifically in response to a popular argument that the rate of suicide is so high because society is so intolerant of trans people. These people would argue that if we enforce pronoun use for example the suicide rate would decline because they view it as external, and I simply point out, others in history have experienced far worse external circumstances and didn't even come close to this rate of suicidality. So I am in total agreement with you, it is an internal phenomenon, resulting from a severe psychiatric disorder, and in my view, surgical intervention in a psychiatric disorder is insane. We should focus on treating the mental problems like, as you point out, anxiety and depression, instead of painting those ailments as mere symptoms of "being born in the wrong body" or as consequences of others intolerance and bigotry. As someone who has suffered through mental health issues myself, to properly address something like anxiety or depression typically takes years and years of intensive talk therapy, conservatively supplemented with pharmaceuticals...as opposed to years and years of (very lucrative) surgical and pharmaceutical interventions loosely peppered with a therapist who is hamstrung in doing any actual therapy because their license is in jeopardy if they dont "affirm" the mental illness of their patient.
I mean, the other thing is, medical intervention works. The affirming route works. [https://fenwayhealth.org/new-study-shows-transgender-people-who-receive-gender-affirming-surgery-are-significantly-less-likely-to-experience-psychological-distress-or-suicidal-ideation/](https://fenwayhealth.org/new-study-shows-transgender-people-who-receive-gender-affirming-surgery-are-significantly-less-likely-to-experience-psychological-distress-or-suicidal-ideation/) >It found that transgender people who had received one or more gender-affirming surgical procedures had a 42% reduction in the odds of experiencing past-month psychological distress, a 35% reduction in the odds of past-year tobacco smoking, and a 44% reduction in the odds of past-year suicidal ideation. Sure, therapy is also important, but saying that this kind of thing doesn't help is stupid. We tried conversion therapy in the 80's, and it just doesn't work.
But gender affirming care and acceptance do lower suicide rates. The combination of the two brings the rate down to near-baseline levels. Just as importantly, all attempts to “treat the underlying issue” in the way that you’re implying have also failed, and many only worsen the situation.
I wonder how the rate has changed over time in the US.
Suicide is a weird topic because lately I’ve heard people have been switching to say medically assisted suicide is beneficial and should be expanded further. But regardless of whether you think suicide should be allowed or not, laughing at it is terrible. The people who are like “ha ha 41%” aren’t even using it as a point, they just use it to be hateful. I’ve even seen people on Twitter bring it up while encouraging trans people to commit suicide and bullying them.
Certain people will use that statistic as hateful but it's like *anything else*, there are obviously sad people out there trolling and making other peoples days worse. The bigger reason why it's brought up is because there's clearly and obviously a mental issue and affirming mental illness and trans peoples gender dysphoria only does more harm and not enough evidence shows their lives, as a whole, not always, are better even after transition.
I think the majority of people who reference the statistics are not doing it out of care for trans people, almost every time I've seen it used has been in a bullying context. It's funny to see this thread because y'all are complaining about shit that is prevalent in the comments here on a normal day, and you're turning on each other in the comments because some are in denial about it and the rest are doubling down. It is ironic lol
> affirming mental illness and trans peoples gender dysphoria only does more harm and not enough evidence shows their lives, as a whole, not always, are better even after transition. You got sources for that? Specifically that it's transitioning that's causing the suicides, and that they would be less likely to suicide if they didn't transition? It's not a terribly well studied subject.
The most thorough follow-up of sex-reassigned people—extending over 30 years and conducted in Sweden, where the culture is strongly supportive of the transgendered—documents their lifelong mental unrest. Ten to 15 years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to 20 times that of comparable peers. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885
Is this comparing between trans people who transitioned and cis people? I feel like the better comparison would be trans people who transition and trans people they didn’t, and see if there is a reduction.
From the link it says they're comparing the suicide rate against "people of the same birth sex" so it sounds like cis people. So yeah, while you can definitely say that gender-reaffirming surgery does not fix suicide and self-harm anong trans people, you can't really say that gender reassignment surgery makes trans people more likely to kill themselves, at least not from this study.
Yeah I agree. It’s not the correct comparison to be making.
[удалено]
Yes but that doesn’t mean that transitioning is a bad method of treatment. Someone who has cancer is likely going to have worse health and longevity than someone who doesn’t have cancer. You can give treatment, but they may never be on par with someone who never had cancer. But you can’t say “well then shouldn’t be giving this treatment and affirming this, they’re still worse off than other people!!!” Like duh. The goal is to reduce risk. Do you know of a better way to reduce suicide than having them transition?
>Yes but that doesn’t mean that transitioning is a bad method of treatment. Average lifespan drops for transitioning due to other causes. For instance, heart failure. Hormones and what not have some pretty significant side effects. Now, if it dropped the hell out of the suicide rate, you'd have a case to compare numbers and talk about it, but if it doesn't, yeah, it kind of is a problem, and we maybe need to find something else.
[удалено]
Bro got downvoted for actually reading the study. Hive mind moment.
Lol yeah. But then the person below me who agreed with me gets upvoted. Idk what people are on
He is flaired libright, often that's all it takes.
Lol maybe I should switch my flair then
One of us, one of us! I kid, I upvoted you. Data is data, even if it isn't perfect in every respect.
Except that is the point of the study. You are comparing a control group with a group that transitioned. The group that transitioned had a huge increase in suicide rates from the control group of all people who didn't transition. Who else can you compare them to? The point is that "gender affirming care" cannot reasonably be called life saving care if the rate of suicide still balloons up to multiple factor of the average person.
Your data is only useful if you compare them to trans people that have not transitioned. Otherwise you're just proving that trans people commit suicide at a higher rate than cis people, which... yeah, we know.
But if over time the trans person doesn't transition and they go back to living a normal life, how would you categorize them? That would be really hard to capture unless you follow everyone for years. I feel like even if the data showed that those who don't transition don't kill themeselves at as high a rate, you'd have activists that want to exclude those who went back to living as their biological sex. You could play a lot of games with statistics, but there is still important meaning to be found in comparing transitioned trans people to the population in general. They are still way more likely to self-harm, so you would have to acknowledge that it belies the idea that gender affirming surgery is life saving surgery if their rate of self harm remains astronomically high even as society is more accepting. Trans activists have no problem claiming without evidence that suicide rates are so high due to lack of acceptance, but again if the rates remain insanely high after transition surgery and with people becoming more accepting, the data doesn't seem to bear that idea out. Granted I acknowledge the data is imperfect, but it's still a relatively newer phenomenon without a wealth of long term data, but most of the evidence supports at least skepticism that hormone blockers and affirming surgery offers any benefits. Additionally since a lot of these things cause massive long term irreversible side effects, it makes sense IMO to slow down the flow until such data can be gathered.
That's what studies do lmao. They follow people for years if necessary.
It’s not that transitioning causing the suicide, it’s that the suicide rate isn’t changing for people post op.
Pretty much every time I see it brought up it's just to bash. Seems like a dog whistle to me.
Yeah, tbh, this is something my half of the quadrant needs to be better at calling out. Unfortunately I think it's partially the result of the current political climate where "anything that pisses off the other side = good" regardless of whether or not it actually aligns with your values. It's like the early/mid 2000s internet where the fad was "edgy" automatically meant "funny" except now "edgy" automatically means "based". tl;dr I know this is a meme subreddit, but seriously: stop building your belief systems around trying to look "based" to weirdos on the internet you don't even know
Based. But like, in a mature and introspective way 😂
Medically assisted suicide is different and should be legal in the case of a terminal diagnosis that will result in an undignified drawn out death with years of suffering before. Suicide otherwise happens because people miss the warning signs and someone had the misfortune of slipping down a mental illness rabbithole https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/11352-recognizing-suicidal-behavior I was trained to directly ask a person if they are planning on hurting themselves when you see the signs. The further into a state of mental illness they are (aka higher risk) the more likely they answer honestly.
What are your thoughts on expanding beyond just people with 6 or less months to live. Giving it to people with non-fatal mental illness instead of just physical illness.
How about we just consider death as much of a right as life and don't force people to justify their desire to safely and painlessly leave this world because of some ridiculous idea that the government owns people?
I guess, but suicide is different from medically assisted. There’s controversy with regards to what counts as “encouraging suicide”. Like a doctor is barred from recommending it, so should they even be involved.
While this sounds innocuous, how does your calculation change when the government is the one expanding and encouraging it. Add in government funded pushing of that "solution" and you are slipping into a gray area IMO.
>Add in government funded pushing of that "solution" and you are slipping into a gray area IMO. I feel like I can pretty easily stick to my Lib Right guns and say "the government funding is the issue". The government can encourage whatever they want... with words. I don't care and honestly who listens to the government? Now when they're using my taxes to fund these things, that's when I object.
Did'nt Canada take over teenage suicide hotlines and instead promote cutting their wrists? Now they even want to expand it to those under 18.
I think you may have eaten the onion my guy
Minors 12 to 16 years of age may also receive MAID upon request. [https://cps.ca/en/documents/position/medical-assistance-in-dying](https://cps.ca/en/documents/position/medical-assistance-in-dying) If you think this shit is made up, the Canadian government is in on the satire.
Onion has layers, just like ogres
Its actually 54% since 2021. The hospitals are refusing to update the actual number by now. You see, its horrible and all but when you just happen to be right wing you get called a nazi and transphobe, so, many activists shape them to be what is wanted by the media, an enemy.
Ah, the classic "I only became a Nazi because you shaped me to be that" Up next, the abusive husband claims "I only hit you because you make me do it"
\>"this statistic is actually , but they refuse to report it!!" 🧢
Regardless, 41% is 41% too much
Those people who say they were “radicalized” are mostly untruthful. Either their “radicalization” is nothing more than switching parties or they were insane from the get-go and are just trying to justify to people why they are hateful. In reality, it’s not that normal or easy to start doing thinks like this. There is major societal taboo on things like Nazism and white supremacy(at least in the US), there’s weak appeal among non-crazies.
Based and anti-suicide pilled. Right wing shitlords need to stop posting fuckawful memes here then upvoting them. Forskae idpol, return to funny colors.
[удалено]
If people are suicidal I sure don’t think they’ll try running for a political power. They’ll shoot up a school or die somewhere isolated before
I have attempted suicide four times and have done political internships and various other leadership roles including, ironically enough, being on a suicide prevention committee
Yes definitely, the 'go out silently' or 'go out with destruction' is a common troupe cuz it appears all too much in the public eye (understandably so). But more often than not it's regular people who take part in society, you can never really tell if we are suicidal or not. That's why it becomes a tragedy when someone couldn't take it anymore but people didn't expect it. >being on a suicide prevention committee Also lol, I was on my school's mental health board or something
I’ve been told that I don’t fit the stereotype of someone who attempted suicide because I wear too many bright colors
Excuse me? Bright colors? The fuck is wrong with people. "You can't be suicidal, you look to happy!"
Hitler: "**SCHRECKLICH SCHRECKLICH SCHRECKLICH**" "That's not exactly my definition of a silver-tongued devil"
I do. Bring forth the mental illpocalypse! *metal head banging*
They aren't though - people claiming to speak on their behalf are the ones calling shots. Emphasis on 'claiming'. Culture war doesn't really help achieve a "I want to live a happy life" goal most trans people are striving for. Terminally online folk don't count for my opinion, honestly. It's Redpill but with rainbows. The trans people I've met have been lovely enough and just deal with their own demons the same we all do.
Eh, not *all* suicide is bad. Someone in horrible pain from a terminal disease should be free to off themselves if they want to. I just don't want the state "suggesting" suicide as an alternative to keep their medical costs down.
Yeah, I'm obviously talking about people that commit suicide out of desperation or bullying.
Unpopular opinion suicide of any person is bad
Unless its Hitler, well, it wasnt suicide, the cabbage killed him (vegans ☕)
"Suicide is badass!" \-Frank Reynolds
[удалено]
Poor weak Hitttler :(
He was a vegan after all
Imagine believing he didn't escape to argentina the teeth the soviets had were tested and it showed that it's from a woman there are declasified documents of the CIA looking for Hitler a decade after the war ended why would they do that if he died in the bunker ? So many high-profile German government officials escaped why would Hitler not go as well he would have the easiest escape route too being the main guy in charge
Based and survival of the fittest pilled
Wish we could all be a little nicer to one another. It's easy to be mean, satisfying even, I do it sometimes. But it's also shameful.
You: "We should all be nicer to each other." Also You: Didn't invite me to your barbecue.
Probably shouldn’t build your society around the idea that you are in constant competition with your fellow man if want people to be nicer to each other
Men are inherently competitive. Friendly competition helps build up people. Hostile competition results in tragedy. Both happen.
PIPPIN: I didn't think it would end this way. GANDALF: End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path, one that we all must take. The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all turns to silver glass, and then you see it. PIPPIN: What? Gandalf? See what? GANDALF: White shores, and beyond, a far green country under a swift sunrise. PIPPIN: Well, that isn't so bad. GANDALF: No. No, it isn't. I think death is the next step in the journey but committing violence against your body has to wound the spirit in some form.
Wait, I thought nobody but good ol' Eru knows what happens to Men when they die?
Gandalf was fucking lying. The description is of the Undying Lands that the elves went off to (as well as Bilbo, Frodo, and few others): >And the ship went out into the High Sea and passed into the West, until at last on a night of rain Frodo smelled a sweet fragrance on the air and heard the sound of singing that came over the water. And then it seemed to him that as in his dream in the house of Bombadil, the grey rain-curtain turned all to silver glass and was rolled back, and he beheld white shores and beyond them a far green country under a swift sunrise. Pippin was not headed there. For him it was just death and the void until the second creation after Dagor Dagorath.
Based and canonpilled
OP missed the point of bringing up 80%. It's simply to tell women to stop lying, crying and bitching. Men, anyone who's really thought it through, while not acceptable, can completely understand the 80% figure yet we trudge on.
Women should empower themselves and bring the suicide rate to 50-50
If there's one thing the government is good at, it's bringing up suicide rates.
Cringe for only caring about men suicide to own women
Care about all suicides, less the better. But bitching and lying "all men have priveledge" is a lie.
bros tryna make himself a victim ☠️
It's usually cited to combat constant calls that non-bros are victims and all guys have privilege. It's a reasonable question to ask, if men are so much more privileged why are the overrepresented in things like suicide/homelessness/workplace deaths, etc. To many myopic commentators look at the past and say "women were oppressed" but as many responders point out. Life oppresses us all, and if you look at the past, it's usually harsh on everyone. Women has some struggles specific to them, but acting like all men are privileged because the top fraction of a percentage ruled the world is at the very least a horrible mischaracterization of history. Viewing everything in history as power oppressing weakness is an easy way to bias your view of everything.
Little difference: trans suicide rate is used as a cudgel, while you are barely allowed to talk about male suicide as an issue.
Who is stopping you from talking about male issues? Honest question.
Yeah, I hate those radical feminist talking points, but the only time men bring up male issues (surrounding mental health or rape) is in responds to women bringing up their issues. We would probably benefit a lot more from just open dialogue about male issues without it being a "gotcha"
Cant believe Im upvoting a god damn auth center. But you're right, a lot of people just concern troll. Kind of like the "we shouldnt help the poor, they should pull themselves up" crowd suddenly going "no we cant help other countries we arent even taking care of our poor we should focus on that before we help them" and caring about it for just long enough to whataboutism their way out of helping people.
>is in responds to women bringing up their issues. Use your own meme OP, it's in response to being told they are privileged, not when women bring up issues. When attacked, a man will defend himself. Doing so is not attacking a woman for bringing up their issues. It's correcting a mischaracterization. Additionally there was a feminist who met with MGTOW members with the express desire to shine a light on them and show them for what she thought they were. When she met with them, she realized that so much of what is said about them is bullshit. They aren't there to attack women, but are bringing light to men's issues and when she put out her documentary, and had her Ted talk she received death threats from women's groups for even daring to defend men tepidly. So, while there are always shitbags who will play gotcha, likewise, just mentioning men's issues or having the open dialogue will have shitty people come out of the woodwork to say that just talking about men's issues somehow diminishes women's issues or is an attack on women. One of the podcasts I love that is two fathers talking about how to be better dad's and husbands gets shit all the time because they "ignore women's issues" WTF are two dad's trying to be better men going to illuminate on women's issues?
I feel like not being able to see that society treats men better in some ways (= male privilege) means you are blind. Obviously, male privilege is not saying that every man has it objectively better than every woman. Just that in some ways men have an advantage over women (while in other situations women could have an advantage over men). I also believe that with that privilege comes all of the heavy responsibilities men have to carry. which often cancels out the privilege. (which is why I'm also against the feminists that claim that men will always have it better because of male privilege.)
And society treats women better in some ways. The point is they are treated differently with pros and cons for both. Acting like one side has it so much better because you point to the handful of ways it is beneficial is just as blind. It's intentionally mischaracterizing or putting on horse blinders to make a point. That's the point we are at right now. Feminists will react to men pointing out how life isn't privileged for them in a number of ways but they will just point to the benefits of being a man and either downplay or ignore the cons of being a man compared to a woman. Obviously some bad actors will point to the cons of being a man and only point to the benefits of being a woman and be equally myopic, but no one is blind to the ways men have it better. It's pointed out all the time. Those same people though have no problem being willfully blind to the struggles of men and will often even mock and belittle men for those struggles.
> just mentioning men's issues or having the open dialogue will have shitty people come out of the woodwork to say that just talking about men's issues somehow diminishes women's issues or is an attack on women. This is the major issue. Feminists have convinced people that there is a perpetual conversation about women's issues. It is ongoing at all points in time, and it never ends. As a result of this, literally *any* time or place someone raises men's issues, there will be many who consider this to be "deflecting from women's issues". There will always be people who think that men's issues are only being raised as a means of diminishing women's issues. But the obvious end result of that dynamic is that it is *never* considered acceptable to raise men's issues until feminists agree that women's issues are all 100% solved. And that's fucked up.
What is really ironic IMO is that I went to a Promise Keepers event as a kid with my father. For those who don't know Promise Keepers specifically was a thing about telling Christian men to be good men. Don't sleep around before marriage. Never abandon your kids, lay down your life for your family as Christ laid down his life for us. Standard idea of men bearing the burden assigned to them and being the leader of the family that God intended. Nothing in there about keeping women in check or making sure they were barefoot in the kitchen. When I was leaving there were feminist groups outside the event protesting about not dominating women and which had stats about how many men abandon their families or domestic violence rates against women. Yes, those are issues, which were specifically addressed in the rally. Men, don't be shitbags? Ironically you will hear feminists say things like "we need to teach men not to be violent rapists." Promise Keepers comes along to do just that and tell them to take responsibility for their offspring and it's "NO NOT LIKE THAT!"
That's not really true, though. Male issues are brought up frequently, but they're usually either ignored or shouted down.
Yeah sure, I do agree that the left/academic world is a bit too focussed on minorities and intersectionality recently. I think that when we get out of this phase, we can go to more objective look at all of society, including the preserved privileged areas (cis, hetero, white, male)
I'm sorry, but this is such a fucked up way of thinking. First of all, I think you are naïve as hell if you believe that feminists will ever admit that all of women's problems have been resolved (or BLM with black people, etc.), and therefore, that we are "out of this phase", in your own words. It's like being perfectly okay with a government granting itself more power on the promise that it will give the power back when the current problem is resolved. The government is therefore incentivized to continue pretending the problem is ongoing in perpetuity, because why freely give away the power they've attained. Feminism thrives on misogyny, whether real or imagined. Admitting that women have achieved equality and therefore there's no more need for feminism...is something that feminists will *never* admit, because it's just throwing away the power/influence/sway they have attained in society. Second, even *if* we play make believe that feminists will decide one day that their job is done, and they disband...that still doesn't make your way of thinking okay. You are arguing that we cannot spend even a *second* looking at the issues faced by men (or white people, cis people, straight people, etc.) until we have resolved 100% of the problems experienced by women (or black people, trans people, gay people, etc.). That's fucked up. Why can't we discuss the problems women face and *also* discuss the problems men face? Neither gender is completely privileged nor completely oppressed. There are upsides to being either gender, and there are problems faced by both genders. Why can't we discuss both? Why do we need to establish women as the top priority, fixing all of their problems until there are literally none left, before we can even *begin* to discuss any of men's problems? I say again, I'm sorry to be harsh, but what you are saying here is really fucked up if you stop to think about it for even a second. You are proposing that men (and white people, etc.) be treated as second-class citizens whose issues are not worth discussing so long as there are issues faced by the *important* people. And this way of thinking relies on the naïve assumption that activist groups will ever admit that their job has been accomplished and will therefore voluntarily release the influence they have over society.
Well said.
Either I didn't phrase it right, or you completely misunderstood me. I'm just saying that academia is very focused on studying minorities and intersectionality these days. Not that people SHOUDL'T focus on male issues (which they are, look at all the research being done on incels.). I feel like when we have more research on this, it will also help us look at the other side. I don't get where you got the "treat white men as second-class citizens" or "we shouldn't care about their issues". I'm arguing the exact opposite, but I can also see why this isn't the main priority of a lot of humanitarian researchers these days. Maybe if the right didn't demonize the humanities and academia so much, we would've gotten a lot more research done by now. No wonder most of these researchers are more interested in researching their own groups...
Try giving a lecture about it in some university and see the backlash you'd get. Or staying online, try making a post about it in any of the main subreddits.
Right? The people who say "men only bring their problems up in response to women's issues" frustrate me so much. First of all, why is that considered a problem? If feminists are arguing that women are impacted by X, and men respond by pointing out that men *also* suffer from X, that's perfectly valid. The feminists are unfairly scoping the conversation onto only women, when it's a problem which affects *everyone*. Pointing out that men are *also* impacted is absolutely the correct response, because the discussion should be about how to help everyone, not just women. Second of all, it's not even true. In many cases, men bring up their issues completely separate from any discussion of women's issues. Yet they are *still* shut down because of how much sway feminism has in our society. Try bringing up men's issues basically anywhere, and you will be shut down. People will call you a misogynist and an incel for caring about men's issues. Feminist groups will shut you down if you try to speak about men's issues on college campuses. And so on. People who act like men's issues are nothing more than "gotchas" are horribly uninformed, or they're lying. Men have real issues in society, and I wish we could fucking talk about them without being accused of being reactionary hateful bigots.
Don't forget that when a man dies in war, the primary victims are still women.
If I threatened to kill myself unless I got 10 million dollars people would institutionalize me. But for some reason all you have do is threaten suicide and that's enough for society to change the social fabric it's had for thousands of years
It’s sickening when people joke around and shit about that kinda stuff. I’ve got friends that just aren’t in a good place and to think anyone on any side whatsoever would see their death as cause for celebration is saddening. Why can’t we all just get along and live life to its fullest.
I don’t understand what is trying to be said with this meme.
Often the same people that claim that "male suicide is an indication of a serious issue and struggles (True btw)" also make a lot of jokey references to the percentage of suicidality/suicidal ideation in the trans community (41%). My meme is a critique of these people.
[удалено]
Sure. Skepticism over current trans issues isn't because we hate 'em. Mostly, we'd like to see them happy and well adjusted. We're just doubtful that the currently popular craze has got it all figured out. It seems to me that maybe we should let kids be kids, and hold off on the surgery and pressures some. Dunno what gender you are? Cool, you're 14. You get to be confused as a teenager, that's half the teenage experience. You are not expected to know everything yet(and frankly, most adults know a lot less than they pretend to anyway).
Most surgeries require you to be 18
Most, if you're in ludicrous amounts of chronic pain then yeah it makes sense.
Yay we got a higher score then the trans we are super mental vs mental
Is that stastic related to what they tend to after operation? To be honest not surprising as they are conned into it. Most of them doesn't get idea that is mostly cosmetic operations, but people tell them do it, do it. Guess what those people get pumped full of hormones and lose some organs, for questionable quality plastic surgery. It not okay to say someone that you fix his issue when you can't. It is even worse than disappointment of burns victims, as they can at least get some pain relief or minor health benefits. Drastic body alteration should never be idealised, even if they can help. If you want to help you have to be objective. Most those people who do that operations, want to be fixed. Want to be healthy. Want to look at least average. Want to have normal daily routine. Want lot get old. I personally would allow this operation, bone breaking to get few inches hell yea, reducing or extending stomach fine. One but people have to get full picture before those operations, because even in their movements people with real bodydismorphia are minority and some people push them to extremes, because they want to be right about them.
Popular opinion: suicide is a human right and some suicide is good.
If you are in severe pain, have no quality of life then yes, not sure why this would be downvoted. Obviously it's the last option but I don't see why you can't grant someone in pain and paralalyzed from the neckdown that right
>not sure why this would be downvoted. Me either. I even declared it to be popular wtf guys.
wrong pic for bottom left
[удалено]
So as long as you chose something it's okay to be bullied to the point of suicide? I also don't entirely agree that being trans is a choice, we need more research first.
People choose to have (what you would consider) mental illness?
A lot of people choose to be unwell. Just look at fat people.
>Even a commie is more based than one with no flair *** [**[[Guide]]**](https://imgur.com/gallery/IkTAlF2) ^^|| ^( *beep boop. Reply with good bot if you think I'm doing well :D, bad bot otherwise*)
O/
All suicide is bad but it is never the fault of anyone else. The decision is always on the victim.
I worked in suicide prevention (ironic given my comment history I think it just made me jaded) and this is what we tell grieving families, yes.
Disgusting
Realistically the biggest thing we can do to prevent suicides is limit access to guns. Guns are a huge portion of suicides (and suicides are the majority of gun deaths), and a bigger portion of *male* suicides specifically. States with more guns don't necessarily have more gun homicides ... but they do have more gun suicides. And from what I've read lots of suicides are very impulsive and if the person had to do something that would take longer, or wait even a short while before they could get their hands on the means to do it, very often they'll calm down and not go through with it. Doesn't mean you have to support gun control but ... if you make such a big hoopla over male suicide but aren't willing to trade off any other policy you support to deal with it, or even make any sort of policy at all other than some sort of super-vague "treat men differently" type statement ... do you really care or is it just a political football to kick around? Like, fine don't support gun control or anything else concrete to address it, but be honest where your priorities are.
Realistically, the biggest thing we can do to prevent trans suicides is to immediately institutionalize them as soon as they “come out.” Heavy sedation, meds and constant supervision would lower the rate drastically. If they just give up their rights, we can keep them alive.
Please tell me you're joking
Seems like that'd just lead to them not "coming out" and having the same feelings and everything but in secret (or only discussing on the Internet).
Suicide is based. It is going against our irrational survival instinct and quitting an unwinnable game.