Venting F*** off New York Times normies. Everyone else: We need to move

[thesighofleaves]

EDIT: If you want to see the article, don't even give them clicks. It has images and graphs and such, so I downloaded the thing as a PDF (bypass addons paywall will help you view their pages without the paywall, btw). Attaching.

Anyway, we're on the front page of the NY Times. I'm so mad. I'm so, so mad. Why can't they leave us alone? Why don't they understand that there is no where to talk about suicide without getting censored, banned, and if you're in the US, forced into hospitals where they treat you like animals and then make you pay literal thousands of dollars after that??

Why are these people so high on life hell bent on making our suffering worse??

If you're coming here from the NY Times and you think people who are suicidal need "help", F off and GTFO. News flash: not everyone is built for this shit show of a world we have made for ourselves. You're no better than evangelists christians forcing your religion down everyone else's throat and being convinced you're right. "Safe" for you means "excruciating pain" for a lot of us that you're too blinded by your do-goodism to ever understand. Imbeciles.

To everyone else: we need to prepare to move. And make sure the next site is paid for with cryptocurrencies. This line from the article was particularly troubling:

Reporters pierced together their identities and roles with the site from domain registration and financial documents, their online activity, public documents including court records, and interviews with seven people who had interacted with either of them [original site owners].

Obviously crypto paid for sites wouldn't fix everything, but being too out in the open is making us a target. This is the ONLY PLACE I feel safe. I don't post here much but I have found so much support reading the comments and knowing that when I'm ready to leave, I have this as a resource. They already banned us from fucking Reddit, for christ's sake.

At the very least, can we consider moving to something more decentralized, like Mastodon or something? Not sure how that would work, but clearly our days are numbered here and I don't want anything to happen to this place.

 

[LifeQuitter2018]

Please calm down. This isn't the only time SS got sponsored on news.
I believe SS mods team has already prepared for this kind of situation.

 

[Rayzieka]

I feel your anger.

 

[thesighofleaves]

Thought I added a venting flair. Will update.

I'll "calm down" eventually but it's still very frustrating. I just hate this culture of people who think suicidal people need to be saved. They are so backwards and confused and make life difficult. Hell, these people are why even people in debilitating physical pain struggle to have a peaceful way to die, yet we give it to dogs without a second thought. It's disgusting and it pisses me off.

Anyway, I know people will come and read this since we're in the news again today. Maybe, just maybe, it will make one of them stop and think.

Just allow me to fume. Please.

 

[blueclover_.]

We're on the front page of the NY Times. I'm so mad. I'm so, so mad. Why can't they leave us alone? Why don't they understand that there is no where to talk about suicide without getting censored, banned, and if you're in the US, forced into hospitals where they treat you like animals and then make you pay literal thousands of dollars after that??

Why are these people so high on life hell bent on making our suffering worse??

If you're coming here from the NY Times and you think people who are suicidal need "help", F off and GTFO. News flash: not everyone is built for this shit show of a world we have made for ourselves. You're no better than evangelists christians forcing your religion down everyone else's throat and being convinced you're right. "Safe" for you means "excruciating pain" for a lot of us that you're too blinded by your do-goodism to ever understand. Imbeciles.

To everyone else: we need to prepare to move. And make sure the next site is paid for with cryptocurrencies. This line from the article was particularly troubling:



Obviously crypto paid for sites wouldn't fix everything, but being too out in the open is making us a target. This is the ONLY PLACE I feel safe. I don't post here much but I have found so much support reading the comments and knowing that when I'm ready to leave, I have this as a resource. They already banned us from fucking Reddit, for christ's sake.

At the very least, can we consider moving to something more decentralized, like Mastodon or something? Not sure how that would work, but clearly our days are numbered here and I don't want anything to happen to this place.

I've been suggesting that we create a backup server on the dark web, but a person with the same idea got voted down to hell in the suggestion forum. Yeah it is more risky with shady people in there, that's why it's a backup not the main server. Shit on this idea and if this site goes down like lostallhope.com because yall are too scared of the dark web, I'll give you the biggest 'told you so'.

 

[idiotstillwantstodie]

I've been suggesting that we create a backup server on the dark web, but a person with the same idea got voted down to hell in the suggestion forum. Yeah it is more risky with shady people in there, that's why it's a backup not the main server. Shit on this idea and if this site goes down like lostallhope.com because yall are too scared of the dark web, I'll give you the biggest 'told you so'.

I don't see how it's any more risky as long as there are moderators keeping the peace. Of course it would make the site a little less accessible.

 

[blueclover_.]

I don't see how it's any more risky as long as there are moderators keeping the peace. Of course it would make the site a little less accessible.

Right? Maybe some minor cyber-attacks about the bitcoin donation, but I'm sure it's no worse than our current situation on the surface web. At least some people can still access the site and spread the information individually to other mainstream social medias before they get banned.

 

[Buffy5120]

Please calm down. This isn't the only time SS got sponsored on news.
I belive SS mods team has already prepared for this kind of situation.

yes I do want to say that we should all stop worrying. Mods should really try to set up new rules for new members joining, since I know half will be disguised pro-lifers.

 

[thesighofleaves]

One way or another we will eventually have to be less out in the open. I'm convinced of this. I didn't even realize the wiki had apparently been deleted--I had just been reading it in August. I'm sure there are backups, but still. It's gross enough we have to have that degrading suicide hotline banner.

The only thing protecting us is that the parents in that article are mostly people who don't spend a whole lot of time online and so waste their time trying to regulate us by making facebook groups and "going to washington" instead of learning how the internet works.

Not to get political but even when the Donald was banned on reddit, and when similar ideologies were banned from patreon, they went and made their own non mainstream sites. Piracy advocates have similarly figured this out.

We've had to change our links and move multiple times, I just think we should move to a decentralized platform or a tor/onion site for good.

 

[Zzzzz]

I'm reading the dubious NYT article now. How dare they blame us for BAD PARENTS. This is an ADULT website. WE are not responsible for parents who don't know how to do their job and keep their children off this forum. We adults should not have our FREEDOM of speech prohibited because of others mistakes.

Already I read some false narratives presented in this unquestionably biased article.

1. Just edited this point as I finished reading. They mention later in the article there is a little talk about recovery , but They still paint the site as one that Encourages people to die.

2. They lie and claim being supportive of someone's decision is the same thing as "egging someone on."

3. It says the site is "absolutely dangerous" . Dangerous in what way? We're talking a tiny minority of people who actually CHOOSE to suicide. How pathetically fragile the so-called DREAM of life is that one little website can be a threat to it. What a childish article.


4. They talk about protecting children.again. parents job to prevent their children from accessing this site. Also, they like to imply a 22 year old is a child. Then why aren't they protesting 18 year olds being enlisted in the army? I've never personally heard of any article protesting sending 18 year olds to DIE in war. They don't care about people's lives, they just hate the idea that someone could OPT out of life , maybe because they secretly wish they could opt out, who knows. They think violating people's consent is morally acceptable but choosing to die of your own free will? That's a no-no to them.

 

[Kobusu]

The wiki being down shocked me. I was reading it I think as recently as 2 weeks ago

 

[HeckingHecked]

I've been suggesting that we create a backup server on the dark web, but a person with the same idea got voted down to hell in the suggestion forum. Yeah it is more risky with shady people in there, that's why it's a backup not the main server. Shit on this idea and if this site goes down like lostallhope.com because yall are too scared of the dark web, I'll give you the biggest 'told you so'.

I miss lostallhope.

 

[Someone123]

It's a natural thing for this to be a part of the news, it's part of the debate. It is true that some people who consider ctb would be better off getting through the crisis and moving on with their lives. It's also true that for some people ctb is the best option, especially when it goes on and on over a longer time, just wanting to move on to the next life.

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

We're on the front page of the NY Times. I'm so mad. I'm so, so mad. Why can't they leave us alone? Why don't they understand that there is no where to talk about suicide without getting censored, banned, and if you're in the US, forced into hospitals where they treat you like animals and then make you pay literal thousands of dollars after that??

Why are these people so high on life hell bent on making our suffering worse??

If you're coming here from the NY Times and you think people who are suicidal need "help", F off and GTFO. News flash: not everyone is built for this shit show of a world we have made for ourselves. You're no better than evangelists christians forcing your religion down everyone else's throat and being convinced you're right. "Safe" for you means "excruciating pain" for a lot of us that you're too blinded by your do-goodism to ever understand. Imbeciles.

To everyone else: we need to prepare to move. And make sure the next site is paid for with cryptocurrencies. This line from the article was particularly troubling:



Obviously crypto paid for sites wouldn't fix everything, but being too out in the open is making us a target. This is the ONLY PLACE I feel safe. I don't post here much but I have found so much support reading the comments and knowing that when I'm ready to leave, I have this as a resource. They already banned us from fucking Reddit, for christ's sake.

At the very least, can we consider moving to something more decentralized, like Mastodon or something? Not sure how that would work, but clearly our days are numbered here and I don't want anything to happen to this place.

The mainstream media is coming after us . i guess i'd better start trying to back up any info i might need.

i agree we should be moving to something more decentralized, like Mastodon.

Unbelievable these controlling anti-suicide creeps can't let us have 1 website out of billions on the internet.

Many of us are suffering or will be soon in torture ( homelessness for example) and these creeps want us to suffer more and want to close the prison door to keep us in extreme pain. i have news for them we are all going to die anyway so what difference does it make if i just another monkey wants to off itself now instead of dying painfully later anyway? none absolutley none. The world population is nearing 8 billion.

 

[Buffy5120]

The mainstream media is coming after us . i guess i'd better start trying to back up any info i might need.

i agree we should be moving to something more decentralized, like Mastodon.

Unbelievable these controlling anti-suicide creeps can't let us have 1 website out of billions on the internet.

Many of us are suffering or will be soon in torture ( homelessness for example) and these creeps want us to suffer more and want to close the prison door to keep us in extreme pain. i have news for them we are all going to die anyway so what difference does it make if i just another monkey wants to off itself now instead of dying painfully later anyway? none absolutley none. The world population is nearing 8 billion.

i feel like if the pandemic didnt happen we wouldn't be dealing with this right now

 

[Jenjoh2358]

In case you guys and gals need the suicide wiki or the lost all hope website you can try the wayback machine
Here: https://web.archive.org/

 

[existtosuffer]

I hope it backfires on them, and attracts more suicidal people to the website.

 

[thesighofleaves]

I miss lostallhope.

Do you mean the dot com one? I don't know what this site is but I just checked and it's there.

 

[thesighofleaves]

In case you guys and gals need the suicide wiki or the lost all hope website you can try the wayback machine
Here: https://web.archive.org/

Suicide wiki doesn't show up. Gives crawl errors.
Fuck. I hope someone made a backup somewhere. If anyone does send it to me.

 

[Simba]

I miss lostallhope.

Only 2 links are 403 forbidden is suicide methods and things to consider :/

 

[marinekiwi]

Well, I see the reasoning behind this article: they don't want people to ctb. Most people are this way: they don't want their closest ones to die.

And then, the same old surfaces: let's just take this website off, let's ban this magazine, or music band, or whatever that they perceive as "promoting suicide", instead of actually doing something to prevent this in the first place.

Most people here is suffering terribly. They literally go each day through lives not worth living. This place is among the few places in which we can openly talk about how we feel, how we came to hate our lives, without being judged or simply ruled out as insane.

But it's much easier to just blame a website and flick off a button than to try and make some suffering person life a bit better.

 

[justsayin]

The wiki being down shocked me. I was reading it I think as recently as 2 weeks ago

Suicide Wiki

web.archive.org

I miss lostallhope.

Most lethal methods of suicide | Lost All Hope: The web's leading suicide resource

Information on most lethal methods of suicide, and how they have been ranked in terms of pain. Plus info on things to consider before trying popular methods.

lostallhope.com

 

[RainAndSadness]

This website and its content isn't illegal. I don't see any reason why the forum would disappear anytime soon. These journalists went all out and I think they blew their ammunition. They failed to establish their case and most of the article follows the idea that suicide is inherently bad - that's an absurd argument. Their failure becomes apparent when you actually look at their strategy and the most important arguments presented in their article.

First, they tried to establish that this website affects minors and that this is just shrugged off in the forum. They failed to make the case for that claim and completely ignored the fact that the responsibility for children lies on their parents. Minors are banned on sight, we do our job - they didn't mention that. And as I said in another thread, if the parents did theirs, we wouldn't have this conversation. Most people that are mentioned in that article as the "victims" of their own decision to end their lives are adults(!) and I do believe these people had the legal and moral right to end their suffering. The post history of these members, and some of them were mentioned in the NYT article, disprove the notion that these people involuntarily committed suicide because they were convinced or encouraged to do so in a weak state of mind. Nobody encouraged them. They weren't coerced. They gave clear and solid arguments as to why they chose to end their lives in various posts. The NYT completely ignored that and silenced the voices of the victims that were featured in their own article. Gross. That's the first point.

Second, they heavily emphasized on suicide in their article, as if that's the whole point of the forum. They cherry-picked aspects of this forum to support that framing. They neglected the fact that people actually find comfort in this community of mind-liked people. They didn't mention that this forum offers a lot of support and honesty in a way that doesn't exist outside in the real world. Members of this community show empathy and compassions because we know how it feels like to suffer. We all are in the same boat here. This is a community that lets you discuss your most personal struggles without judgenment and censorship. They ignored all of that and instead completely focused on the narrative that we're sinister and cultish, that we're embracing our own misery and they painted a very dark picture of this place in general. It's obvious they didn't actually read any of the threads and instead relied completely on impressions of people that oppose us for ideological reasons, such as anti-choice groups. It's why their voice gets so much space and ours doesn't exist in that article. It's a one-sided framing. The article therefore describes a heavily biased angle and that's obvious to anyone who does their own research. Instead of pointing out positive values of this community, they made the entire article about impulsive (very important!) suicides and portrayed suicide as an inherently evil act. They talk about suicide as some kind of disease that needs to be eradicated at all cost and this proves that they're completely out of touch with the reality of suicidal people. That's the result of talking over people instead of seeking a conversation that could provide insight into our point of view. Therefore they're unable to see the right to die as a concept that respects the dignity and autonomy of humans and that letting people go - if(!) they ask for it - is considered an act of mercy in many countries around the world. They ignore that many of us have suffered from suicide ideation for a long time, that we're contemplating this decision thoroughly and that we understand that this is a final decision only to be taken in extreme circumstances. For many of us, there is no recovery, there is no help. They didn't address this fact with one single sentence. That's just a fact. That's completely brushed aside. This article talks over us, it shreds light on this subject from a very condescening point of view and supports the notion that other people know what's good for us. That's the second point.

Third, they went after the site administrators in a very malicious manner. I've never seen journalism used as a weapon or even as a way to exercise vigilantism like that ever before. Like they went after individuals that didn't violate any laws - keep that in mind, these are innocent people. It's clear that the journalists already had their mind made up before they even started to work on that article and the fact that they exchanged information with the anti-choice group without questioning the validity of their statements once(!) proves that. Any journalist with integrity would not only inspect this community and gather information in the most unbiased way possible, they would also reach out to members and try to figure out their motives directly, right? Investigative journalism is supposed to be neutral, this isn't the case when they already picked a side before the investigation even started. They didn't talk with us, they talked about us. And the fact that they brought up alleged relations of the site admins to other communities when they don't have anything to do with SS in the first place is absurd. They even tried to invade their private space and leak personal information. This is a perfect example of character assassination. We can't win on the merits of the arguments so we're going to intimidate them, ruin their reputation and take them out that way. And they've suceeded in some way, people are gonna repeat the talking point that this forum is sinister and evil simply because a large news outlet made that claim with a fabricated narrative. They intentionally drew false conclusions. But this is just dirty and I don't count that as good journalism. They ruined their own reputation and people that do their research into this community will know that. That's the third point.

These are three very problematic points with the article that serve to attack this forum. I hope I could dismantle them from my point of view, obviously this post only reflects my personal opinion that's based on my experience in this community. I think that this NYT article failed on all fronts, they completely - and I can't stretch that enough - missed the chance to actually address systemic causes of suicide and how you can actually improve the lives of struggling people. They would have known if they talked to us. They chose to dismiss our voice completely, talk over us and silenced the voices of passed members. And that's the result: a bad smear piece without any substance other than "this forum bad, bad, bad". Congratulations.

 

[Simba]

This website and its content isn't illegal. I don't see any reason why the forum would disappear anytime soon. These journalists went all out and I think they blew their ammunition. They failed to establish their case and most of the article follows the idea that suicide is inherently bad - that's an absurd argument. Their failure becomes apparent when you actually look at their strategy and the most important arguments presented in their article.

First, they tried to establish that this website affects minors and that this is just shrugged off in the forum. They failed to make the case for that claim and completely ignored the fact that the responsibility for children lies on their parents. Minors are banned on sight, we do our job - they didn't mention that. And as I said in another thread, if the parents did theirs, we wouldn't have this conversation. Most people that are mentioned in that article as the "victims" of their own decision to end their lives are adults(!) and I do believe these people had the legal and moral right to end their suffering. The post history of these members, and some of them were mentioned in the NYT article, disprove the notion that these people involuntarily committed suicide because they were convinced or encouraged to do so in a weak state of mind. Nobody encouraged them. They weren't coerced. They gave clear and solid arguments as to why they chose to end their lives in various posts. The NYT completely ignored that and silenced the voices of the victims that were featured in their own article. Gross. That's the first point.

Second, they heavily emphasized on suicide in their article, as if that's the whole point of the forum. They cherry-picked aspects of this forum to support that framing. They neglected the fact that people actually find comfort in this community of mind-liked people. They didn't mention that this forum offers a lot of support and honesty in a way that doesn't exist outside in the real world. Members of this community show empathy and compassions because we know how it feels like to suffer. We all are in the same boat here. This is a community that lets you discuss your most personal struggles without judgenment and censorship. They ignored all of that and instead completely focused on the narrative that we're sinister and cultish, that we're embracing our own misery and they painted a very dark picture of this place in general. It's obvious they didn't actually read any of the threads and instead relied completely on impressions of people that oppose us for ideological reasons, such as anti-choice groups. It's why their voice gets so much space and ours doesn't exist in that article. It's a one-sided framing. The article therefore describes a heavily biased angle and that's obvious to anyone who does their own research. Instead of pointing out positive values of this community, they made the entire article about impulsive (very important!) suicides and portrayed suicide as an inherently evil act. They talk about suicide as some kind of disease that needs to be eradicated at all cost and this proves that they're completely out of touch with the reality of suicidal people. That's the result of talking over people instead of seeking a conversation that could provide insight into our point of view. Therefore they're unable to see the right to die as a concept that respects the dignity and autonomy of humans and that letting people go - if(!) they ask for it - is considered an act of mercy in many countries around the world. They ignore that many of us have suffered from suicide ideation for a long time, that we're contemplating this decision thoroughly and that we understand that this is a final decision only to be taken in extreme circumstances. For many of us, there is no recovery, there is no help. They didn't address this fact with one single sentence. That's just a fact. That's completely brushed aside. This article talks over us, it shreds light on this subject from a very condescening point of view and supports the notion that other people know what's good for us. That's the second point.

Third, they went after the site administrators in a very malicious manner. I've never seen journalism used as a weapon or even as a way to exercise vigilantism like that ever before. Like they went after individuals that didn't violate any laws - keep that in mind, these are innocent people. It's clear that the journalists already had their mind made up before they even started to work on that article and the fact that they exchanged information with the anti-choice group without questioning the validity of their statements once(!) proves that. Any journalist with integrity would not only inspect this community and gather information in the most unbiased way possible, they would also reach out to members and try to figure out their motives directly, right? Investigative journalism is supposed to be neutral, this isn't the case when they already picked a side before the investigation even started. They didn't talk with us, they talked about us. And the fact that they brought up alleged relations of the site admins to other communities when they don't have anything to do with SS in the first place is absurd. They even tried to invade their private space and leak personal information. This is a perfect example of character assassination. We can't win on the merits of the arguments so we're going to intimidate them, ruin their reputation and take them out that way. And they've suceeded in some way, people are gonna repeat the talking point that this forum is sinister and evil simply because a large news outlet made that claim with a fabricated narrative. They intentionally drew false conclusions. But this is just dirty and I don't count that as good journalism. They ruined their own reputation and people that do their research into this community will know that. That's the third point.

These are three very problematic points with the article that serve to attack this forum. I hope I could dismantle them from my point of view, obviously this post only reflects my personal opinion that's based on my experience in this community. I think that this NYT article failed on all fronts, they completely - and I can't stretch that enough - missed the chance to actually address systemic causes of suicide and how you can actually improve the lives of struggling people. They would have known if they talked to us. They chose to dismiss our voice completely, talk over us and silenced the voices of passed members. And that's the result: a bad smear piece without any substance other than "this forum bad, bad, bad". Congratulations.

I agree with every point. I also believe that there is a possibility that some members that ended up on their side and talk to journalists n such may have been coerced to say certain things instead of truth..

 

[todestrieb]

I wish I could live a life where the thought of ctb was so foreign I had to tell other people their bodily autonomy ends before the suffering does. Woof, NYT.

 

[AerieAire]

Thought I added a venting flair. Will update.

I'll "calm down" eventually but it's still very frustrating. I just hate this culture of people who think suicidal people need to be saved. They are so backwards and confused and make life difficult. Hell, these people are why even people in debilitating physical pain struggle to have a peaceful way to die, yet we give it to dogs without a second thought. It's disgusting and it pisses me off.

Anyway, I know people will come and read this since we're in the news again today. Maybe, just maybe, it will make one of them stop and think.

Just allow me to fume. Please.

So when I read about SanctionedSuicide in the NYTs yesterday afternoon I was delighted to learn about this group who sanctioned frank talk about suicidality and even had resources for those determined to take advantage of them. I have been suicidal since I was 8, the fact I am six months from my 50th birthday hasn't changed my desire for release from the cycles of living. I never have been in community with those who accept suicidality as a natural human condition. I have accepted that suicidality is natural for individuals, communities and perhaps larger groupings. Thank you to all the members, moderators and creators of this site, thank you for this community! I never would have known you existed without the NYTs article. I am sorry if the Public media machine exposes and threatens the viability of a site like this, I don't want that at all because this site clearly serves a deeply underseved group of people, the suicidal. I learned about sodium nitrate yesterday from the NYT article which promised more info. was available through the resources page, I told a good friend today about this site and she was encouraged that this site exsists because she has known her 70 plus years that suicide is a right no Constitution can supply or deny us. I am sorry that exposure to the public media threatens this site, conversely I am so grateful to have found you and I am not the only one. I wish I lived in a world where Euthanasia Clinics were a public resource for those determined to take advantage of them for their own, physically painless, extinguishment. Until then please keep this SanctionedSuicide community available to the public in a way that it can be seen! Thank you for being here! Thank you for letting me join you!

 

[WearyHSP]

I'm a new member here, only because I listened to The Daily Podcast the day the NYT article came out. I understand everyone's reservations and even anger, but I'm grateful to have found the site as a result.

As for the NYT, I can't imagine ANY journalists speaking about a suicide forum in neutral terms regardless of the company that put out the story; It's just the fact, at least in the US, that death is a bad word and suicide is unspeakable.

When I attempted in college after many years of thinking about it, overnight I was treated like an insane, lying, crazy person. I hadn't changed one iota. People's views on me had changed drastically. There's such fear and stigma around suicide - normal people just can't manage a simple conversation about it.

I've prayed for decades to have a lovely place I could go to and have an easy ending with support and kindness. It's going to be a very long time before that's available, at least where I live. There's just way too much judgement and fear around it.

 

[Judah]

Suicide wiki doesn't show up. Gives crawl errors.
Fuck. I hope someone made a backup somewhere. If anyone does send it to me.

Can this work?

Mi-suicidio-mi-eleccion.org

 

[Elegy]

Or we could Not budge an inch. Not scurry off like cockroaches or criminals.

 

[Disappointered]

Certain douchebag agitators will periodically use religions (taken over by same douchebags) or traditional conservatism to maintain a self-serving culture of polemical tension that helps them control everything (most obviously electoral politics). The douchebags at NYT probably lean toward pro-choice (as long as they feel like they're running that part of 'progress') but this was another opportunity...they like opportunities, or so they say when busted for outright conspiracy.

The silver lining is that they wouldn't write that article if they didn't feel the need to confuse anyone who might start seeing them as monolithic while assisted suicide gets more legally entrenched and culturally accepted every year. In a way this article might be a good thing in that it indicates that suicide is going to get increasingly approved by them. The site owners are just collateral damage along the way...because that's how they do things: they're shit.