I'm just going to throw this thought out there: as far as I understand, anyone who actually chooses to take their own life and is committed to that decision would simply commit the act; they wouldn't waste time telling anyone about it. They don't make phone calls, they don't go over a friend's house, and they certainly wouldn't take the time to embroil themselves in a troll-war on the Internet (besides, anyone looking for sympathy on the Internet regarding anything is just wasting their time; far too high a saturation of trolls and assholes). They just simply do it. Speaking as one who had a former co-worker commit suicide, you won't even know that it's coming. It'll just happen, and you'll find out about it the next day. You'll see the person smiling and happy one day, and then the next day, you'll find out they committed suicide that night. No warnings, no notes, no nothing. Just dead.
It's the people who are still undecided and are reaching out for serious help that make a big todo about the whole affair. These are the people that do post on the Internet or stand on the edge of buildings and bridges. Some years ago, the DC beltway was shut-down for 3-4 hours while police talked a guy down from jumping off the Woodrow Wilson Bridge in a suicide attempt. They successfully convinced him not to jump and pulled him away from the bridge (but, I can tell you there were a lot of unsympathetic motorists that day). Such people are confused or having some kind of problem that they just don't know how to work through that puts them on the fence of committing suicide, but they are not yet fully convinced to commit to the act. As such, they are susceptible to being convinced to act one way or the other by a sufficiently persuasive argument or set of circumstances.
That's just my understanding. I could be quite wrong.
Spoiler: Click to ViewPGJsb2NrcXVvdGU+PHA+PGEgaHJlZj0nL2ZvcnVtcy9qdW1wLzcuMzY3MjQ4LjE0MzAzOTAxJz48c3Ryb25nPlJldm9sdXRpb25hcnlsb3Nlcjo8L3N0cm9uZz48YnIgLz48L2E+PC9wPgo8YmxvY2txdW90ZT48cD48YSBocmVmPScvZm9ydW1zL2p1bXAvNy4zNjcyNDguMTQzMDMwNjgnPjxzdHJvbmc+Y2lkYmFoYW11dDo8L3N0cm9uZz48YnIgLz48L2E+PC9wPgo8YmxvY2txdW90ZT48cD48YSBocmVmPScvZm9ydW1zL2p1bXAvNy4zNjcyNDguMTQzMDI4ODYnPjxzdHJvbmc+UmV2b2x1dGlvbmFyeWxvc2VyOjwvc3Ryb25nPjxiciAvPjwvYT48L3A+CjxwPkknbSBzYXlpbmcgeW91IGRvbid0IHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgd2hhdCBkb21lc3RpYyB2aW9sZW5jZSBpcy4gRG9tZXN0aWMgdmlvbGVuY2UgaXMgbGlua2VkIHRvIHRoZSBhYnVzZSBvZiBnZW5kZXIgcm9sZXMuIFdoZW4gYSBtYXJyaWVkIHdvbWFuIGF0dGFja3MgaGVyIGh1c2JhbmQgdGhhdCdzIGp1c3QgZ29vZCBvbGQgZmFzaGlvbmVkIHZpb2xlbmNlIGFuZCBpcyBwdW5pc2hlZCBhcyBzdWNoIGJ5IHRoZSBsYXcuPC9wPjwvYmxvY2txdW90ZT4KPHA+IkRvbWVzdGljIHZpb2xlbmNlIGlzIGRlZmluZWQgYXMgYSBwYXR0ZXJuIG9mIGFidXNpdmUgYmVoYXZpb3JzIGJ5IG9uZSBwYXJ0bmVyIGFnYWluc3QgYW5vdGhlciBpbiBhbiBpbnRpbWF0ZSByZWxhdGlvbnNoaXAgc3VjaCBhcyBtYXJyaWFnZSwgZGF0aW5nLCBmYW1pbHksIG9yIGNvaGFiaXRhdGlvbi4iPC9wPgo8cD5JIGZhaWwgdG8gc2VlIGhvdyB3aXZlcyBhdHRhY2tpbmcgaHVzYmFuZHMgaXMgZGlmZmVyZW50IHRoYW4gaHVzYmFuZHMgYXR0YWNraW5nIHdpdmVzLjxiciAvPkRvbWVzdGljIHZpb2xlbmNlIGlzIGRvbWVzdGljIHZpb2xlbmNlIGJybywgZ2VuZGVyIGlzbid0IGEgZmFjdG9yLjwvcD48L2Jsb2NrcXVvdGU+CjxwPkkgY2FuIGV4cGxhaW4gaXQgdG8geW91IGJ1dCBJIGNhbiBhbG1vc3QgZ3VhcmFudGVlIHlvdSB3aWxsIGVpdGhlciBub3QgYmUgaW50ZWxsaWdlbnQgZW5vdWdoIHRvIHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgaXQgb3Igd2lsbCBqdXN0IHN1Y2N1bWIgdG8gY29nbml0aXZlIGRpc3NvbmFuY2UgaW4gb3JkZXIgdG8gbm90IGxlYXZlIHlvdXIgY29tZm9ydCB6b25lIG9mIGJsaW5kIHBhdHJpYXJjaGFsIHdvcnNoaXAuPC9wPgo8cD5UaGUgcmVhc29uIHdlIHRha2UgdmlvbGVuY2UgYWdhaW5zdCB3aXZlcyBzbyBzZXJpb3VzbHkgaXMgYmVjYXVzZSBpbiBvdXIgY3VsdHVyZSB0aGVyZSBpcyBhIHZlcnkgZGVlcGx5IGluZ3JhaW5lZCBiZWxpZWYgdGhhdCBodXNiYW5kcyBvd24gdGhlaXIgd2l2ZXMgYXMgcHJvcGVydHkgYW5kIGFzIHN1Y2ggdGhleSBhcmUgZW50aXRsZWQgdG8gZG8gd2l0aCB0aGVtIHdoYXRldmVyIHRoZXkgbGlrZSAoU2VlOiBKb2huIGFuZCBMb3JlbmEgQm9iYml0dCBpLmUuIEl0J3Mgbm90IHJhcGUgd2hlbiBJIGZvcmNlZnVsbHkgaGF2ZSBzZXggd2l0aCBteSB3aWZlIGJlY2F1c2Ugc2hlIGZvcmZlaXRlZCBoZXIgcmlnaHQgdG8gc2F5IG5vIGJ5IG1hcnJ5aW5nIG1lKS4gQSBsb3Qgb2YgbWVuIHJlc29ydCB3aXRoIHJlbGF0aXZlIGVhc2UgdG8gdmlvbGVuY2UgaW4gbWFyaXRhbCBkaXNwdXRlcyB0aGFua3MgdG8gdGhlIGJlbGllZiB0aGF0IHRoZXkgc29tZWhvdyBoYXZlIGEgcmlnaHQgbWFrZSB0aGVpciBwb2ludCBjb21lIGFjcm9zcyB0aHJvdWdoIHZpb2xlbmNlLiBXb21lbiBhcmUgYWZmZWN0ZWQgYnkgdGhlIHNhbWUgYmVsaWVmIHRvIHRoZSBleHRlbnQgdGhhdCBtb3N0IHdvbWVuIHZpY3RpbXMgb2YgdmlvbGVuY2UgYnkgdGhlaXIgaHVzYmFuZHMgYXJlIGluY2FwYWJsZSBvZiBhZG1pdHRpbmcgdGhhdCBpdCBpc24ndCBub3JtYWwgdG8gYmUgbWFuaGFuZGxlZC4gRnVydGhlciBtb3JlLCBnZW5lcmFsIGJ5c3RhbmRlcnMgYXJlIGFsc28gYWZmZWN0ZWQgYnkgdGhpcyBiZWxpZWYgYnkgcmVmdXNpbmcgdG8gaW50ZXJ2ZW5lIGFuZCAvb3IgY29udGFjdCB0aGUgcG9saWNlIGFmdGVyIGV4cGVyaWVuY2luZyBhbiBpbGxlZ2FsIHVzZSBvZiB2aW9sZW5jZSBieSBhIGh1c2JhbmQgdG93YXJkcyBoaXMgd2lmZS48L3A+CjxwPkdpdmVuIHRoYXQgIG5vdCBhbGwgdGhlIGp1ZGdlcyBhbmQgbGVnaXNsYXRvcnMgaW4gdGhlIHdvcmxkIGFyZSBwb28gc25pZmZpbmcgcmV0YXJkcywgYSBsb3Qgb2YgdGhlbSByZWFsaXplZCBzb21ldGhpbmcgaGFkIHRvIGJlIGRvbmUgYWJvdXQgdGhlIGZhY3QgdGhhdCBodXNiYW5kcyBiZWF0aW5nIHRoZWlyIHdpdmVzIHRvIGRlYXRoIHdhcyBjb25zaWRlcmVkIGFkZXF1YXRlIGJlaGF2aW91ci4gQXMgc3VjaCwgaXQgd2FzIGRlY2lkZWQgdGhhdCBpbiBvcmRlciB0byBwcm90ZWN0IHdvbWVuIHdobyBmb3VuZCB0aGVtc2VsdmVzIGluIGEgcHN5Y2hvbG9naWNhbCBhbmQgc29jaW9sb2dpY2FsIHBvc2l0aW9uIG9mIGRlZmVuY2VsZXNzbmVzcywgbWVuIHdobyB0b29rIGFkdmFudGFnZSBvZiB0aGF0IGRlZmVuY2VsZXNzbmVzcyB3b3VsZCBiZSBwdW5pc2hlZCBtb3JlIGhhcnNobHkgZm9yIHRoZWlyIG9mZmVuY2UuPC9wPgo8cD5JdCdzIGEgYml0IG1vcmUgY29tcGxpY2F0ZWQgdGhhbiB0aGF0IGJ1dCBpdCdzIGEgcHJldHR5IGdvb2QgZXhwbGFuYXRpb24gaWYgSSBzYXkgc28gbXlzZWxmLiBPZiBjb3Vyc2UsIHRoaXMgaXMgeW91ciBjdWUgdG8gcG9pbnQgb3V0IGhvdyBJIGNhbid0IHByb3ZlIHRoYXQgdGhlcmUgaXMgc3VjaCBhbiBpbmdyYWluZWQgYmVsaWVmIGFuZCBjb25zZXF1ZW50bHkgZXZlcnl0aGluZyBJIHNhaWQgYW5kIHN0YW5kIGZvciAoYW5kIGV2ZXJ5dGhpbmcgdGhlIGp1c3RpY2Ugc3lzdGVtIG9mIHRoZSBVUywgYW5kIG1vc3Qgb2Ygd2VzdGVybiBjaXZpbGl6YXRpb24gc3RhbmRzIGZvcikgaXMgYSBsb2FkIG9mIGxpZXMgYW5kIGJ1bGxzaGl0LiBBdCBsZWFzdCwgSSBjYW4gYmUgc2FmZSBpbiB0aGUga25vd2xlZGdlIHRoYXQgeW91IGFyZW4ndCB3cm9uZyBiZWNhdXNlIG9mIGlnbm9yYW5jZSwgYnV0IGJlY2F1c2Ugb2YgZGVlcGx5IGluZ3JhaW5lZCBiaWdvdHJ5IGFuZCBpbnNlY3VyaXRpZXMgdGhhdCBldmlsIHdvbWVuIHdpbGwgdGFrZSBvdmVyIHRoZSB3b3JsZCBpZiBlIHN0b3AgYmVhdGluZyBhbmQgcmFwaW5nIHRoZW0uPC9wPjwvYmxvY2txdW90ZT4=
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here, maybe what motivates our society to treat domestic violence committed by men differently than domestic violence committed by women?
That doesn't really change the fact that domestic violence is not defined explicitly as a husband attacking his wife. Go reread the definition I posted. Domestic violence is entirely independent of gender.
"Domestic violence is defined as a pattern of abusive behaviors by one partner against another in an intimate relationship such as marriage, dating, family, or cohabitation."
I fail to see how wives attacking husbands is different than husbands attacking wives. Domestic violence is domestic violence bro, gender isn't a factor.
I can explain it to you but I can almost guarantee you will either not be intelligent enough to understand it or will just succumb to cognitive dissonance in order to not leave your comfort zone of blind patriarchal worship.
The reason we take violence against wives so seriously is because in our culture there is a very deeply ingrained belief that husbands own their wives as property and as such they are entitled to do with them whatever they like (See: John and Lorena Bobbitt i.e. It's not rape when I forcefully have sex with my wife because she forfeited her right to say no by marrying me). A lot of men resort with relative ease to violence in marital disputes thanks to the belief that they somehow have a right make their point come across through violence. Women are affected by the same belief to the extent that most women victims of violence by their husbands are incapable of admitting that it isn't normal to be manhandled. Further more, general bystanders are also affected by this belief by refusing to intervene and /or contact the police after experiencing an illegal use of violence by a husband towards his wife.
Given that not all the judges and legislators in the world are poo sniffing retards, a lot of them realized something had to be done about the fact that husbands beating their wives to death was considered adequate behaviour. As such, it was decided that in order to protect women who found themselves in a psychological and sociological position of defencelessness, men who took advantage of that defencelessness would be punished more harshly for their offence.
It's a bit more complicated than that but it's a pretty good explanation if I say so myself. Of course, this is your cue to point out how I can't prove that there is such an ingrained belief and consequently everything I said and stand for (and everything the justice system of the US, and most of western civilization stands for) is a load of lies and bullshit. At least, I can be safe in the knowledge that you aren't wrong because of ignorance, but because of deeply ingrained bigotry and insecurities that evil women will take over the world if e stop beating and raping them.
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here, maybe what motivates our society to treat domestic violence committed by men differently than domestic violence committed by women?
That doesn't really change the fact that domestic violence is not defined explicitly as a husband attacking his wife. Go reread the definition I posted. Domestic violence is entirely independent of gender.
Et voila! Monsieurs et mademoiselles. Le prestige.
...congratulations Reddit, I didn't think you had it in you. You're supposed to be the nice guys of the internet, my /b/rothers and I are supposed to be the horrible bastards of the internet.
I am amazed. Part of me is happy that there was not a real suicide from those comments.
Another part is, oddly, sad. I was hoping that the lawsuit would bring real change to the Internet. That people would abandon the absurd notion of anonymity. I hope this incident made people stop and think more on their actions at least.
It is a tragic story, but the Reddit users are not at fault for his death. Doesn't "freedom of speech" mean anything anymore?
Actually there are many limitations to freedom of speech. It isn't just a golden ticket you can use everytime. To quote from the Wikipedia page: the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity and incitement to commit a crime.
OT: I think people that encourage suicide are bastards. And people do it because they are pretty certain it's just a troll. A Cracked article i once read put it best (not 100% correct quote, but you get the idea): So what if the person claiming he will kill himself is just a troll? Oh no! The troll proved to EVERYONE you actually have a heart and care!
What I'm not getting is the amount of comments along the lines of 'suicidal people do this'.
You can't just throw all suicidal people into a group and say they all act and think alike and have the same reasons for considering their own end.
While now I've considered it more, I'm against the law getting involved, I at least hope some of the trolls thought about the consequences that could have been. As if maybe being partly, if indirectly responsible for someone's suicide isn't enough reason not to be a dick.
You're outraged, and you're allowing that outrage to overwhelm your judgement. You're coming to conclusions that are heavily distorted. Please calm down and take another look at the situation and try to see the implications of what you're saying.
This is the problem with the internet. With no discernible facial features it can be very hard to decipher a person's tone from a message. So for that reason it might be a good idea to assume that my tone was neutral, which it was. But because you incorrectly assumed that I was outraged, you called my judgement clouded on the basis of an unfounded statement, which I have taken offence to. I will therefore not be continuing this discussion with you, but if you're genuinely interested in me expanding my ideas on this subject, I aim your attention to the post above me.
You're offended by that? That doesn't sound like the reaction of a person who can remain emotionally neutral on topics like this.
What you said sounded more to me like an initial reaction than a carefully considered opinion. I probably shouldn't have speculated on why or how you arrived at your viewpoint, but I think assuming that you were understandably outraged about the incident is one of the more charitable assumptions I could make. If that one offended you, I probably shouldn't even name the others.
Still, I'm skeptical that you are actually offended by me if you weren't offended by the topic of the thread. All things considered, I think it's likely that it was more convenient for you to choose to be offended than to respond to the points I made.
Not surprise that this happened in the Men's Rights Subreddit. These are the same people that recently were declared by the Southern Law Poverty Center to be a 'hate group'. Same people who were supportive when a 'young man' posted on the same reddit, 'afraid that he was going to go to jail because he had punched his girlfriend in the stomach when she tried to steal his sperm from a used condom' (it was a hoax).
Just like this sister suing Reddit users story. A hoax.
At the time I posted this, I had no idea that it was a hoax. Which makes the discussion on this forum surrounding this issue even more interesting.
Therumancer: Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, I disagree with limiting it for this, hate speech, or any other reason.
Look out, guys! Watch your heads! The merit of that post just shot out the window before it even started.
Or rather yours did. Freedom of speech is not "the freedom for people to say what I happen to like or agree with" which is why you can make cracks like that, and we can engage in discussion of contreversial topics over the internet. Once you start imposing limits on free speech based on specific points of view, you lose it. Freedoms come with a lot of pros and cons, and truthfully we've already lost far too much of our right to free speech as it is.
You might just want to say "I disagree with Therumancer" rather than trying to argue against the right to free speech, because by doing that you kind of shoot yourself in the foot. As sure of yourself as you might be on many issues, understand that most of the big ones have the country very divided. The idea of being able to ban people you don't like for "hate speech" or whatever sounds really great, and is appealing when you see your side as having enough of a momentary lead to perhaps getting it passed, but remember when the wind changes the other side can turn around and do the same thing to you. The end result is that by making exceptions you rapidly wind up with nobody being able to say anything on any matter of import, on any scale from personal to political.
I in general will always argue that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The overall need for free speech, outweighs the abuses. Even if someone actually did malevolently push some weak willed guy to suicide without any of the other issues I mentioned, I'd still say that as sucktastic as that is it's a price worth paying in the big picture. Nothing in in reality comes without cost, and it's a lesson you might want to learn. As sad as it is a utopia is impossible.
Therumancer: trying to argue against the right to free speech
Therumancer: Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, I disagree with limiting it for this, hate speech, or any other reason
I'm arguing against your opinion that hater speech is part of free speech and shouldn't be limited. Hate speech isn't covered under free speech, yo, and is entirely illegal. Anyone with a basic understanding of the laws would know that.
Therumancer: trying to argue against the right to free speech
Therumancer: Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, I disagree with limiting it for this, hate speech, or any other reason
I'm arguing against your opinion that hater speech is part of free speech and shouldn't be limited. Hate speech isn't covered under free speech, yo, and is entirely illegal. Anyone with a basic understanding of the laws would know that.
Actually it is, even though it has been being chipped away at which is wrong. I actually know the laws involved quite well. In part because it's been my job to know these kinds of things for purposes of dealing with people trying to solicit/pass out fliers and similar things in the past.
There are efforts by the left wing to curtail this, but if you've ever paid attention:
That's one example, but if you just do searches for things like "Police Protect Klan rally" you'll run into tons of similar examples.
The basic point is that the freedom of speech goes so far as yo allow people to get together and decide to single out groups like ethnic minorities, homosexuals, etc.. and talk about how much you hate them and wish they were all dead, and encourage people to work to ban their very existance, and so on and so forth. It might be destestable, but it's supposed to be one of your rights, and attempts to curtail it are just wrong. The reason being that once you start doing things like this, it opens doors for anything that society doesn't like at the moment to be banned, and differant groups to wind up silencing their opposition.
As I said, freedom of speech is not "the freedom to say what I happen to agree with". I might not agree with the extremism of the Klan (all peanut gallery comments about how as someone generally on the right wing that I'm a natural fit aside) I agree with their right to say that crap, just like I agree with the right of anyone else saying something I don't like (including people from the opposite end of the spectrum from the Klan) to say the same thing.
Deciding to not take someone seriously who is contemplating suicide, or even telling someone that you think the world is better without them, is not illegal. It might be tasteless, rude and all manner of other things, but it's not a crime. You might get kicked off a forum for it, but your not, and should not, going to wind up going to jail for it.
I understand the logic and why people hate this, heck I've have prefered certain people not being allowed to express themselves at various times, and disliked the use the freedom was put to, but I ultimatly view it as the lesser of evils.
The very fact that you ARE seeing developments of the sort that are leading towards issues like this (pushing sucide victims, hate speech, etc...) becoming illegal is a problem to me, not because I love those things or anything, but because I believe freedom of speech has to remain free of such qualifiers, and recent changes, interpetations, and other things are a problem.
Also, don't confuse the principle, and how people have been trying to reinterpet the laws, and what some of the more recent changes have been, and the changes people want to make.
You're outraged, and you're allowing that outrage to overwhelm your judgement. You're coming to conclusions that are heavily distorted. Please calm down and take another look at the situation and try to see the implications of what you're saying.
This is the problem with the internet. With no discernible facial features it can be very hard to decipher a person's tone from a message. So for that reason it might be a good idea to assume that my tone was neutral, which it was. But because you incorrectly assumed that I was outraged, you called my judgement clouded on the basis of an unfounded statement, which I have taken offence to. I will therefore not be continuing this discussion with you, but if you're genuinely interested in me expanding my ideas on this subject, I aim your attention to the post above me.
You're offended by that? That doesn't sound like the reaction of a person who can remain emotionally neutral on topics like this.
What you said sounded more to me like an initial reaction than a carefully considered opinion. I probably shouldn't have speculated on why or how you arrived at your viewpoint, but I think assuming that you were understandably outraged about the incident is one of the more charitable assumptions I could make. If that one offended you, I probably shouldn't even name the others.
Still, I'm skeptical that you are actually offended by me if you weren't offended by the topic of the thread. All things considered, I think it's likely that it was more convenient for you to choose to be offended than to respond to the points I made.
Well, I'm glad you just spent an entire three paragraphs speculating about how I may or may not feel, but I don't know why you're telling me, because I already know how I feel.
^Doesn't know what hate speech is. ^Thinks white supremacy rallies are hate speech. ^Thinks hate speech is covered under freedom of speech.
So wait, with a straight face, your going to try and claim that Klan rallies, which is the kind of thing prohibitions against "hate speech" were intended to address are not in fact hate speech (boggles).
Now, you might even have some semantic arguement to back that one up, but that's really the most you could have. Really, you might want to drop the trolling, it's cute at tunesm but derails serious discussion.
^Doesn't know what hate speech is. ^Thinks white supremacy rallies are hate speech. ^Thinks hate speech is covered under freedom of speech.
^Thinks rallies where speeches are held aimed against ethnic groups of people, people with a different sexual orientation, a different religion or simply immigrants into the country as, is the case with the Nazi's in Russia, do not fall under the definition of hate speech.
^In short does not know what hate speech is.
The internet and dictionary say:
Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, color, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or other characteristic.
In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.
Before you argue a point READ A FUCKING BOOK! The word your thinking off might have more than one meaning.
^Doesn't know what hate speech is. ^Thinks white supremacy rallies are hate speech. ^Thinks hate speech is covered under freedom of speech.
^Thinks rallies where speeches are held aimed against ethnic groups of people, people with a different sexual orientation, a different religion or simply immigrants into the country as, is the case with the Nazi's in Russia, do not fall under the definition of hate speech.
^In short does not know what hate speech is.
The internet and dictionary say:
Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, color, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or other characteristic.
In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.
Before you argue a point READ A FUCKING BOOK! The word your thinking off might have more than one meaning.
It's not worth the time, having run into "Gray Day For Ellcia" in a few threads now I get the impression it's a troll, a very good troll, but a troll. I probably made a target for myself by taking a minority position on a lot of issues and then showing I'll follow through and keep talking to people even when I shouldn't, making me a good target to drum up drama-traffic, which this was an attempt to do, by pretty much running off the deep end with my comments about free speech, knowing there was a good chance I'd discuss the point no matter what kind of nonsense was said in response. I'm just slow to catch on.
The updates to this situation have if anything made me more cynical. My "shocking" attitude about why I don't take suicide claims over the internet seriously, was kind of reinforced by what this turned out to be: a phrank intended to generate attention and drama.
It's a sad world when people do things like this, which makes it so genuine cases aren't taken seriously, but I can only call it how I see it, and react appropriatly. You can only get burned so many times before your going to treat everything with skepticism.
I tend to look at this through the eyes of one of my favorite comments, which I believe came from Churchill "If your not a liberal when your young, you have no heart, if your not a conservative when your old you have no brain". While about politics it's sort of a metaphor for this kind of thing, when your young and inexperienced, it's easy to show the best aspects of humanity through naivity. As you become older, more experienced, and see the world as it really is, you tend to lose your ideals and react practically, and through experience, perhaps wishing the idealistic ways could work, but realizing they can't. That is why I think a lot of more worldly, and jaded people tend to be so dismissive of things like claims of sucicide, especially when you see it over the internet.
Sites like "Encyclopedia Dramatica" tend to have write ups on known suicide trolls and attention seekers, which, allowing for it's style sort of summarizes exactly why people like me think the way we do. The way this turned out has happened before, and will happen again, and as much as that sucks, you have to go with the odds.
Therumancer: trying to argue against the right to free speech
Therumancer: Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, I disagree with limiting it for this, hate speech, or any other reason
I'm arguing against your opinion that hater speech is part of free speech and shouldn't be limited. Hate speech isn't covered under free speech, yo, and is entirely illegal. Anyone with a basic understanding of the laws would know that.
In America hate speech is entirely LEGAL. The KKK even has marches and makes speeches, Amazon sells a book advocating white power. How did you become sooo ignorant about US law?
For good measure, here is a Wikipedia quote(I know it is not a great source to cite but I am too lazy to cite anything else): "In the United States, hate speech is legal (except for obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words).[52] Laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States; the United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech."
"No law" means no law. What about that is so hard to understand? (I'm quoting the constitution in case you don't get it, I wouldn't expect you to have read it.)
Grey Day for Elcia: ^Doesn't know what hate speech is. ^Thinks white supremacy rallies are hate speech. ^Thinks hate speech is covered under freedom of speech.
^Thinks rallies where speeches are held aimed against ethnic groups of people, people with a different sexual orientation, a different religion or simply immigrants into the country as, is the case with the Nazi's in Russia, do not fall under the definition of hate speech.
^In short does not know what hate speech is.
The internet and dictionary say:
Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, color, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or other characteristic.
In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.
Before you argue a point READ A FUCKING BOOK! The word your thinking off might have more than one meaning.
It's not worth the time, having run into "Gray Day For Ellcia" in a few threads now I get the impression it's a troll, a very good troll, but a troll. I probably made a target for myself by taking a minority position on a lot of issues and then showing I'll follow through and keep talking to people even when I shouldn't, making me a good target to drum up drama-traffic, which this was an attempt to do, by pretty much running off the deep end with my comments about free speech, knowing there was a good chance I'd discuss the point no matter what kind of nonsense was said in response. I'm just slow to catch on.
He is either a troll or an idiot. I've already told him why he is wrong, you can read my post just above this if you are interested in seeing it. I really hope he is just a troll, b/c otherwise I fear for America's future.
frizzlebyte: I don't think Reddit should be held *liable* for their users actions, but they should be required to give the personal information to the authorities in this case, and I think that some sort of charges should be filed against these despicable people who would goad a man who was clearly in crisis.
Should such actions be taken for every case of "trash-talk"? No, that is ridiculous, but this is a wee bit different.
As has been pointed out before, how did they know this guy was being serious? How would ANYONE know that ANYONE over the Internet is planning on doing something serious?
If I told you earlier I was planning on bungee jumping off a skyscraper, do you think I'm really going to do it? No, you'd think it was ridiculous and say something like, "Pics or GTFO!"
Most of those people were probably just trolls who didn't know any better, and there's no way you can prove that any of them might've actually known he was going to go through with it and were egging him on out of a true desire to have him kill himself.
That's where the problem comes from. These people may have been scum for the end product (which we now know was a hoax), but at the end of the day they were only being standard assholes.
I'm just going to throw this thought out there: as far as I understand, anyone who actually chooses to take their own life and is committed to that decision would simply commit the act; they wouldn't waste time telling anyone about it. They don't make phone calls, they don't go over a friend's house, and they certainly wouldn't take the time to embroil themselves in a troll-war on the Internet (besides, anyone looking for sympathy on the Internet regarding anything is just wasting their time; far too high a saturation of trolls and assholes). They just simply do it. Speaking as one who had a former co-worker commit suicide, you won't even know that it's coming. It'll just happen, and you'll find out about it the next day. You'll see the person smiling and happy one day, and then the next day, you'll find out they committed suicide that night. No warnings, no notes, no nothing. Just dead.
It's the people who are still undecided and are reaching out for serious help that make a big todo about the whole affair. These are the people that do post on the Internet or stand on the edge of buildings and bridges. Some years ago, the DC beltway was shut-down for 3-4 hours while police talked a guy down from jumping off the Woodrow Wilson Bridge in a suicide attempt. They successfully convinced him not to jump and pulled him away from the bridge (but, I can tell you there were a lot of unsympathetic motorists that day). Such people are confused or having some kind of problem that they just don't know how to work through that puts them on the fence of committing suicide, but they are not yet fully convinced to commit to the act. As such, they are susceptible to being convinced to act one way or the other by a sufficiently persuasive argument or set of circumstances.
That's just my understanding. I could be quite wrong.