Discussion What if there was actual accountability/consequences for those pro-lifers, anti-choicers spewing “It gets better” or similar platitudes?

[TAW122]

Most of us here on SaSu have heard of the common annoying platitude of "It gets better" or any similar sounding platitude before, and in many cases it simply isn't true! Then of course, there is a common retort that many pro-lifers, anti-choicers like to use, which is (albeit paraphrased differently) "But it takes [real] effort to get better!" and what not. While this is preaching to the choir here, one thought I had was "What would happen if there was actual consequences (social, legal, or even some cost, be it reputation, dignity, or financial, etc.) for those who say it, and it turns out they were WRONG in the end?" This means that the unknowing person has believed, taken to heart, and really went for it only to waste one's own time, resource, and/or end up in a worse predicament than before, while the commenter walks away scot free.

Normally in certain professions, if someone is NOT qualified or licensed to say or do such actions, such as an non-attorney or legal expert giving legal advice, they could be sued or face other consequences. Similarly, if someone who is not medically trained tried to render aid (not counting good Samaritan laws), they too, would face legal consequences such as lawsuits and/or other damages. So in this thread, I am wondering, what happens if the people who say such platitudes end up risking actual consequences, whether it is legal (through laws and policy) or even social shunning, such as reputation loss or even ostracization (assuming that society ever changes to reflect that)? Also, as a bonus, what happens if pro-choicers do end up having similar protections similar to LGBTQIA or other protected groups such as minorities or those with special statuses and what not? Could there be a major shift in how people will behave, maybe the cessation of such statements or so perhaps?

Here is an example scenario: Suppose characters C and D. C is a character that is down and doesn't believe things will get better for C. C decides that they will CTB or give up on thriving because C has already done their best and things that makes C's life worth living are not likely to happen or become solved, thus C has elected to CTB. However, D on the other hand, does not believe in giving up, is stubborn and wants to impose D's views and values to others, even if results in C being harmed from said advice. D tells C "Noooo don't CTB, never give up because it gets better!" (lie) and then in this hypothetical world, where there are actual consequences for platitude pushers including social and legal consequences. So C mistakenly took D's word at face value and worked to try to improve their own situation. However, after years of effort, and possibly hundreds or a few thousands spent, not counting the emotional turmoil and mental fortitude (also resource costs too if one were to be specific), C not only got no where, but ended up with less money and even more (emotional and maybe other) harm. Assuming there is actual consequences, it may change D's behavior and maybe D would be more reluctant to spew such platitudes freely.

So in conclusion, while we do not live in a society or reality in which this is possible, I do believe that if such a society existed, it would result in more honest words. Perhaps the words may be less sugar-coated (could be bad for some, but beneficial for others) such that "it may get better" rather than "it gets better". Of course, it could also have a more profound impact such that people would just refrain from the usual old and tired slogan of "gets better" and instead just silent acknowledge instead. In this hypothetical society, perhaps people may also be more reluctant to give false promises and one less slogan that can be weaponized to give 'false hope' towards people who are already forlorn. Sure, while other slogans can come, I do believe that with the added penalty and consequences, people will certainly not be as quick to dish out such platitudes and maybe more reticent in their approach to strangers or people they don't know. What are your thoughts, do you think society would respond in that manner, or not?

 

[TransilvanianHunger]

Maybe I'm naive, but I think that most of the people who say such things mean well.

They might be misguided, naive, and they can certainly be absolutely terrible at conveying their message, coming across as preachy or mean. But I sincerely doubt they secretly want to deceive people to make them suffer more. Some people do have a very visceral reaction to the notion that someone might choose to end their own life and, not knowing how to react in a compassionate and humane way, they instead hit you over the head with empty platitudes. I don't think they're correct, but I can understand where they might be coming from, and I think it's a tad harsh to wish they would face social or legal "consequences" for believing the things they believe.

For most of them, the thought of suicide is incomprehensible—they literally cannot comprehend how or why someone would come to support it or consider doing it. And, in a sense, I think many of us on this "side" of the argument have a tough time imagining why someone would oppose a fundamental freedom so vehemently. We are coming at this issue from two, diametrically opposed conceptions of the world, and the position of the "other side" baffles and angers us.

It is not my goal to convince anyone of anything here, but I would suggest a more nuanced approach to this topic. Wishing for "consequences for pro-lifers/anti-choicers" is, in an important sense, no different than them pushing to take down this website and others like it, or to criminalise people who support a pro-choice position.

 

[Pluto]

 

[SarahThrowsGin]

This (original post) reminds me of concept by Nassim Taleb called "skin in the game". Using that concept, I in fact concluded that when therapist starts trying to show that my fears are "irrational" their arguments can be dismissed precisely because they don't have it (skin in the game), that is bad things won't happen to them if they happen to me. In other words, risks are not to be evaluated by those who don't share them or don't take at least some disadvantage if the negative scenario manifests, which is what I think you are indeed saying.

Society with more "skin in the game" would definitely be a better thing (Taleb has shown that it is practical epistemology first and foremost, not just subjective justice), and yes, the argument for pro-lifers being exposed thus to negative consequences when their advice turns wrong, does hold then.

 

[locked*n*loaded]

What are your thoughts, do you think society would respond in that manner, or not?

Not in the current society. Only if C were somehow forced by D. Otherwise, C makes own decisions over C's own life and, if C decided (keyword 1) to follow D's advice (keyword 2), that was C's choice (keyword 3). No law was broken. Free speech laws give people rights to disseminate thoughts, ideas, etc and try and convice others of those ideas. Ofc recipient of those ideas is free to reject them, or not. If they accept them, that and any repercussions is on them.

And it's really no different than if someone gives you a "tip" on a horse race to bet on SureWinner, you bet all your life savings, and SureWinner loses. No one forced you to make a bet.

 

[TAW122]

@TransilvanianHunger I don't necessarily wish for bad things for pro-lifers or anti-choicers, but I mainly wrote this thread out of curiosity to how society may/would change if the same kinds of consequences apply to those who make false promises or platitudes. Of course, I don't think society would ever change to become like that nor do I believe that pro-lifers will suddenly change course tomorrow or anytime soon, but I only wanted to know how things may change if the State banned false promises or unhelpful platitudes and actually had some consequence, like in the hypothetical example for characters C and D (fictional ones), where D ended up having to pay a fine or say compensate C for misinformation, bad information and whatnot.

Also, I am aware that most people mean well, or are benevolent, and in the end, yes in our current, real world society, I don't see things changing and in reality, the best we could do is ignore the people who spew platitudes or so.

@SarahThrowsGin That's an interesting concept for sure, and I might have seen a post there in the past, not entirely sure... Anyways, I think it's similar to what I'm saying, except the slight difference is the fact that perhaps the pro-lifers and anti-choicers who just say "it gets better" may either refrain or be less willing to just performatively say it like it would suddenly make the intended target (pro-choicer) feel better. Additionally, yes, it is true that risks are not evaluated by those who don't share them or take at least some disadvantage to the scenario or so.

@locked*n*loaded Yes, what you said is definitely true from a legal standpoint. I do think we don't really have many options for people who say "it gets better" other than to ignore those people IRL or at best, briefly acknowledge it as a virtue signal or performative gesture.

 

[TransilvanianHunger]

I only wanted to know how things may change if the State banned false promises or unhelpful platitudes and actually had some consequence

That's a fair thought experiment, though I am very suspicious of States in general, and I would not trust them with deciding what counts as "false promises" or "unhelpful platitudes" in this particular topic.

Another thing that came to mind is that, undeniably, things sometimes do get better for people. Hell, for the past three years I've spent my time, effort, and money on a life path that depends on the idea that things can get better. I know it's not easy, or quick, or even guaranteed to happen. But I like to think that my own personal experience, as well as the myriad experiences of others I've encountered on this site, justify that belief. And, if that is so, then it becomes rather difficult to judge whether any given statement is a false promise or an empty platitude. Still, I see what you're getting at.

That being said, I do find the "skin in the game" idea that @SarahThrowsGin brought up to be relevant, and I think it sort of gets at what I was trying to convey in my own reply—it's easier to push for or against any given idea when you don't stand to lose anything. Ideally, I would hope that an understanding could be developed out of simple human kindness and empathy rather than fear of being burned yourself, but that's a bit too idealistic.