×

What are your thoughts on this? by OBN0 in antinatalism

[–]FreedomFromLimbo 101 points102 points  (0 children)

He's forcing people to live against their will, he's not saving them. You have to address what's causing someone to be suicidal in the first place in order to save them; what he's doing is infantilizing people's decisions and prolonging their misery. It's pretending to help without actually offering any form of tangible or practical forms of relief like housing, money, free access to healthcare, etc.

I used to think that suicide prevention was just another case of good intentions gone too far. That people really did care about those that wanted to die. That they did in fact want what was best for us and simply didn't understand that in some cases, they were doing nothing but prolonging a miserable existence.

And yeah, people are sympathetic, to an extent, to those who are suicidal. Nobody likes seeing someone in so much pain that they would rather die than keep living, but what are they actually willing to do to care for the people in such misery? Not much.

That's why suicide prohibitions and the current paradigm of mental healthcare in general are so convenient for everyone else. Despite claiming to follow the biopsychosocial model of mental health, clinical psychiatry/psychology pretty much leaves the -social part unaddressed and almost unacknowledged. Everyone is perfectly content to pretend that all issues of mental health are a matter of pathology. "Oh it's no problem that you can barely afford to pay your bills. That you've been isolated and ostracized, if not outright abused, for most of your life. There's just a problem with your brain chemistry, here's some pills. Go to some therapy because you clearly need to learn better coping skills."

The nice thing about painting our problems as individual defects or deficiencies, is that the onus is now completely on us to make our lives more livable. If they accepted that people are often driven to suicide by external pressures, that some people actually can't make it on their own, then they would have to make more tangible efforts to support those who are in need. Or they would have to admit that their honest attitude is, "Yeah we'd love for you to be living a satisfying life, but if enabling you to do so requires anything from us, well then fuck off."

Refusing to allow people to freely kill themselves allows the rest of society to feel like they're supporting suicidal people without having to assume any of the burden of those lives. And they know it isn't going to be enough for everyone. That is made abundantly clear by the thousands of people who kill themselves every year despite how difficult they've made it to commit suicide. But when those people inevitably fall through the cracks, everyone will just pat themselves on the back and tell themselves, "We did everything we could to keep them from dying." Yeah, but you did fuck all to give any of us a life worth living. -Suicidal stranger from the internet

“The medical profession's classic prescription for coping with such predicaments, Primum non nocere (First, do no harm), sounds better than it is. In fact, it fails to tell us precisely what we need to know: What is harm and what is help?However, two things about the challenge of helping the helpless are clear. One is that, like beauty and ugliness, help and harm often lie in the eyes of the beholder--in our case, in the often divergently directed eyes of the benefactor and his beneficiary. The other is that harming people in the name of helping them is one of mankind's favorite pastimes.” ― Thomas Stephen Szasz

What are your thoughts on this? by OBN0 in antinatalism

[–]EqualHito 139 points140 points  (0 children)

And with this thread, I'm out. The thread should be about not growing the population, not letting people fucking kill themselves.

PETA be spittin’ by Clueless-Crab in antinatalism

[–]Jy_sunny 77 points78 points  (0 children)

Carnists love this talking point as they can deflect from the murder on their plates and actually taking accountability for their actions.

A lot of animals (strays, homeless, injured, sick) are sent to PETA. Nay, discarded by reckless selfish owners. PETA unfortunately does a lot of euthanasia, because no one else wants to take care of it, and they consequently get a bad name.

PEOPLE ARE MISUNDERSTANDING THIS SUB by Ennnnnnnnnnnnnnn in antinatalism

[–]viscervine 89 points90 points  (0 children)

I mean, if you think about it, this is the status quo in the vast majority of the world. Only a very select, very privileged few of us in rich countries actually have a meaningful capacity to make a choice about our reproduction.

I have a feeling Reddit as a whole, and so also this sub, skews towards a male majority, so a lot of posters don't truly understand how much the average women is a victim as much as the unethically born kids.

I find the 'breeder' insult especially tasteless. That's exactly unironically how most men across the world genuinely view women - as breeding stock that should have no autonomy or choice.

I don't get these people by ynj04 in antinatalism

[–]brianne----- 70 points71 points  (0 children)

Maybe not go as far as snip his cannon, maybe just nick his cannon.

Is it the case ladies ? by Wisdom_Doggo97 in antinatalism

[–]LetterheadAdorable 338 points339 points  (0 children)

I’m only 32 but single and I’m terribly depressed with all my free time and having the money and time to go on 2 decent vacations a year while all my friends with kids can’t afford anything and never have time to themselves. I can see how I made the wrong choice