TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 7,405
Many of us throughout our lives, especially growing up have seen the ever-growing and increasing CTB or suicide prevention rhetoric, PSA, and much content throughout our lives that we are numb, sick, and/or really irritated by such spiel! This article (as well as vent) is going to address why such rhetoric and programming is not innocuous, but rather insidious, as it reinforces and infantilizes the recipient (person being preached, lectured, or otherwise talked down, condescended towards). This is especially true even in cases where such rhetoric is unsolicited or even wrongfully (and falsely) given whether it is a mistake, misunderstanding, or false pretense towards the recipient.
Furthermore, it certainly doesn't help that psychiatry and psychotherapy along with the paternalistic nature of CTB prevention itself has on the person and it's fields. No other field (barring perhaps legal and pertaining to law and authority) has anything that is considered really potentially infringing (interference with one's negative liberty rights) as that of psychiatry, psychotherapy, the State, and the law. Therefore, CTB prevention itself, especially given that it is done often on unfalsifiable grounds and little due process (act first, ask later) catch-22's and more, but I digress. So with something so paternalistic and restrictive, it by default already makes it far from being 'innocuous' and very paternalistic, tyrannical, especially for those who have done no (substantial, real) harm (emotional damage isn't a valid reason to infringe on other's civil liberties because that would also imply that no one can make ANY decision that could have any negative consequence to ANY party, which in reality would be considered absurd, unrealistic, and insane).
Disclaimer: While I am an atheist, I have experienced and learned about the 'Christian' (an Abrahamic) religion because I had grown up and lived with people who were 'religious', thus I know a lot about it despite being an atheist myself. I am merely using the argument (not because I agree nor endorse it but) because it illustrates the gripe and notion that I have with such rhetoric. I am writing this for informative and educational purposes.
So now imagine that someone is a theist (who believes in Christianity) and tells others "You need God! You need to pray harder! You must do (xyz related to religion)" (or any similar phrases and statements) not limited to, and including those who don't share the same beliefs (Christianity), or even those who are also non-believers themselves. Of course, society would lose their minds, and almost certainly socially shame the 'religious' people who push their religions on other believers (of different religions) or even non-believers! Society (at least in the modern world, where it is mostly secular, notwithstanding various enclaves or certain regions, or parts of the world) would certainly see those who preach and push those values or proselytize one's own religion onto unwilling participants or groups or individuals as being insidious, and thus CTB prevention rhetoric itself is far from innocuous and rather insidious while hiding under the guise of benevolence!
This religion analogy shows how CTB prevention rhetoric is really insidious because historically and even in the modern world, the religious people use religion in a similar manner! In conclusion, whenever a pro-lifer or anti-choicer (even if they falsely identifies or mistaken the situation) tells someone of CTB prevention even if done so without any context, pretext, or anything, it is certainly harmful due to the risks (up to and including unwanted paternalism, detainment under the guise of help) for the person, it is not innocuous, but rather insidious and malignant towards the person they are claiming to help. This is true even if the person isn't planning on CTB or had any CTB ideation. Therefore, there is harm to a person's (the recipient's) reputation for having such measures and the way the recipient is treated afterwards. It is also an scarlet letter, brand, mark, blackmark, on the person's character (similar to how certain labels or status on a person affects how others treat said individual).
Edit: I changed the title to make my article clearer.
Furthermore, it certainly doesn't help that psychiatry and psychotherapy along with the paternalistic nature of CTB prevention itself has on the person and it's fields. No other field (barring perhaps legal and pertaining to law and authority) has anything that is considered really potentially infringing (interference with one's negative liberty rights) as that of psychiatry, psychotherapy, the State, and the law. Therefore, CTB prevention itself, especially given that it is done often on unfalsifiable grounds and little due process (act first, ask later) catch-22's and more, but I digress. So with something so paternalistic and restrictive, it by default already makes it far from being 'innocuous' and very paternalistic, tyrannical, especially for those who have done no (substantial, real) harm (emotional damage isn't a valid reason to infringe on other's civil liberties because that would also imply that no one can make ANY decision that could have any negative consequence to ANY party, which in reality would be considered absurd, unrealistic, and insane).
Disclaimer: While I am an atheist, I have experienced and learned about the 'Christian' (an Abrahamic) religion because I had grown up and lived with people who were 'religious', thus I know a lot about it despite being an atheist myself. I am merely using the argument (not because I agree nor endorse it but) because it illustrates the gripe and notion that I have with such rhetoric. I am writing this for informative and educational purposes.
So now imagine that someone is a theist (who believes in Christianity) and tells others "You need God! You need to pray harder! You must do (xyz related to religion)" (or any similar phrases and statements) not limited to, and including those who don't share the same beliefs (Christianity), or even those who are also non-believers themselves. Of course, society would lose their minds, and almost certainly socially shame the 'religious' people who push their religions on other believers (of different religions) or even non-believers! Society (at least in the modern world, where it is mostly secular, notwithstanding various enclaves or certain regions, or parts of the world) would certainly see those who preach and push those values or proselytize one's own religion onto unwilling participants or groups or individuals as being insidious, and thus CTB prevention rhetoric itself is far from innocuous and rather insidious while hiding under the guise of benevolence!
This religion analogy shows how CTB prevention rhetoric is really insidious because historically and even in the modern world, the religious people use religion in a similar manner! In conclusion, whenever a pro-lifer or anti-choicer (even if they falsely identifies or mistaken the situation) tells someone of CTB prevention even if done so without any context, pretext, or anything, it is certainly harmful due to the risks (up to and including unwanted paternalism, detainment under the guise of help) for the person, it is not innocuous, but rather insidious and malignant towards the person they are claiming to help. This is true even if the person isn't planning on CTB or had any CTB ideation. Therefore, there is harm to a person's (the recipient's) reputation for having such measures and the way the recipient is treated afterwards. It is also an scarlet letter, brand, mark, blackmark, on the person's character (similar to how certain labels or status on a person affects how others treat said individual).
Edit: I changed the title to make my article clearer.
Last edited:
