Discussion Maybe it’s better to not correct mainstream bias on method efficacy? (Ignorance is bliss)

[TAW122]

There are various threads in the past on SaSu that talked about debunking popular Hollywood myths when it comes to method efficacy and what not. However, a recent thought I had as well as my personal stance on the matter, I thought I'd bring it up as a thread for discussion.

What do I mean by correcting mainstream bias on method efficacy? I'm referring to how most mainstream media and most normies (those who aren't on SaSu or even done their research and instead just accept whatever myth, Hollywood perception, or wrong information on the efficacy of various methods) take the information that is often incorrect and wrong and assume it to be true. There are times in my life where I overheard a conversation about people who talk about CTB or so, particularly when it comes to method discussion and knowing that I did not want to appear too knowledgeable for obvious reasons, I refrained from saying anything. Again, I wasn't a part of the conversation, but merely overheard the others' conversations or so.

One example was at a workplace lunch (at a former workplace, like over 5 years ago or so), I heard my workmates/coworkers talking about CTB, whether it is related to a movie or whether in real life and one of the persons in the conversation said "I wouldn't CTB via firearm, too afraid to mess it up and end up a vegetable", which technically is true if done wrong (either by the wrong caliber, wrong firearm, or even shot placement, and more), but I pretended not to hear that or even interact and just ate my food. I did not say much and mainly remained silent to avoid being helpful (and thus setting a target or red flag), but also I did not want to raise attention for social or even legal reasons (especially IRL) when discussing specifics about method efficacy, even if I knew it.

Another example was overhearing about people talking about how some people died as a result of OD'ing or what not (just in day to day conversations in public, not at a workplace but elsewhere), and that it was OTC medications that caused it. While not entirely wrong, it is still generally incorrect as someone who has done research and also been a part of SaSu along with being knowledgeable about method efficacy, I again do not speak up or try to correct them (for obvious reasons once again). I know that ODs in general have low success rate (unless talking about specific opioids and/or other substances, and even then, for reliability, it still requires planning, the right drug and right strength and quantity in order to be effective) and just quietly knew they were wrong. As a result, perhaps the "ignorance is bliss" on the topic of CTB methods and it's efficacies are probably for the best and maybe it's better for them, the normies to not know the real information?

So in conclusion, this thread is about whether or not it is better to educate or correct normies or those who are not well-versed in CTB method efficacies or held Hollywood related biases, prejudices, or myths about the methods in use. While I know I myself would choose to go the "ignorance is bliss" route (not out of spite but out of protection or safety for myself, avoiding liability both legally and socially, not to set off red flags, etc.), do you all feel similarly or the same?

 

[Dejected 55]

I don't know. I feel like so many people are oblivious of things and it becomes tiresome to try and educate them, especially when it isn't my responsibility anyway. I think where I draw the line is IF you hear someone you think is serious about committing suicide by a method you know will not be reliable or likely has risks they are not seeing... that's a person maybe you have an interest in helping point towards more accurate/useful information to save them problems down the road. You'll be either helping them to not die or helping them to avoid pitfalls of major trauma resulting from a failure that creates new problems.

But general people being wrong about shit that doesn't directly affect them because they are just yapping? I'm okay not bothering jumping in and trying to correct everything they are wrong about.

 

[EternalShore]

I mean, one can do what one wills~ There's not really a moral stance one way or another~ There's more important things to talk about in this world and making sure everyone knows everything about every little thing would be tiresome and destroy all curiosity~ Plus, well, one shouldn't risk getting warded irl~ >_< ofc, if one wants to, sure, but there are more important issues to educate others on than addressing method myths when they don't even plan on doing it/won't be directly harmed as a result of being a myth~

 

[Forever Sleep]

I can see it from different perspectives. On the one hand- absolutely- people are often treated very differently if their ideation becomes known. I probably wouldn't want to seem too knowledgable about methods in front of a whole group of people.

On the other hand though- in the case of people believing that overdoses on OTC medication are often successful- that feeds into the whole belief that suicide is easy or cowardly because it's the 'easy way out'.

I suppose if we want society to change its stance on suicide- maybe we should be challenging ideas like that. Because- there's no need to bring in legalised, assisted suicide if the DIY version is so easy and accessible.

It also ought to give them pause for thought that- seeing as DIY suicides are full of risk, can be painful, can result in maiming rather than killing- that it isn't a flippant, impulsive decision for someone most likely. The need to do it was likely born of pain and anguish, the choice of method was likely full of anguish too and the experience likely was in addition.

Maybe if they considered that the whole situation is a horror show- they might start warming to the alternative- that a (not impulsive) adult should have the right to exit with dignity and that a regulated programme would try to ensure cases were well thought out and reasonable.

There's also the issue that someone talking about it may be considering it themselves, either now or in the future. Or, another member of the group may be. If they are considering a paracetamol overdose say- isn't it better to warn them of the risks?

I'd most likely say that a friend of mine has failed twice trying to overdose- which is true. Depending on how close the friendship is, I might reveal that I've considered suicide in the past. That would give fair reason as to why I knew about some methods without necessarily meaning I am in 'danger' now.

Really though- while it's understandable we want to protect ourselves, if we simply carry on not talking about suicide, not putting forward reasoned arguments then- nothing will change.

I remember someone linked footage of a petition set up in the streets once. People there were stopping strangers and asking their opinions on the right to die. It made me wonder. Where they themselves suicidal? Or, was it maybe that they were advocating for others? It's pretty brave for a suicidal person to speak openly about suicide and their beliefs I think. It shines a pretty intense spotlight on them I imagine.

I actually thought at one time you were an activist- given your 'emissary of the right to die' description but then, I can understand that you are probably more reticent- I imagine most of us are. Not wanting to draw attention to ourselves. It carries big risks.

But again- it really shouldn't. Maybe people would change their ideas if they realised that some of their work colleagues were living with ideation. We can't expect anything to change if everything is kept invisible. If people go on with their same beliefs that accessing suicide is easy and safe. And that people who do it are so very different to them too.

Ironically, becoming more aware of the issues around suicide and suicidal people themselves, maybe would be effective in preventing more. There might be more effort to understand if we actually talked about it rather than sensationalizing it.

 

[TAW122]

@Dejected 55 Yes, that's how I feel too, hence I believed the concept of "ignorance is bliss" ends up being helpful for them and for those who know (us, pro-choicers and such). By this I mean, it's probably better for them (the pro-lifers, normies, and masses) to remain wrong in their beliefs (incorrect myths and what not) than to correct them and risk getting unwanted scrutiny.

@EternalShore Yeah I think it's probably better when most people have the wrong beliefs than to try to educate or correct them and end up complicating the situation, inviting unwanted scrutiny, and trouble. They are blissfully wrong and ultimately it's on them, but also we don't end up risking our freedom or privacy to try to correct them.

@Forever Sleep Good points and to address a few things. I believe that yes, perhaps sometimes while it may be better to educate the masses and dispel the incorrect myths, beliefs, notions of DIY CTB being easy or that some methods are 100% effective (which is categorically false of course, because no method is ever truly 100%, though with correct information, resources, and even application/execution of said method it can be pretty reliable or close to 100%), it is NEVER worth it when it invites unwanted scrutiny or puts one's own freedom and civil liberties at stake or on the hook.

I suppose in the case of paracetamol OD, one could perhaps (with careful framing and wording - to inform, but also protect oneself) state that it is unreliable and dissuade them from pursuing an unreliable method as it could cause permanent damage and very low chance of success (high chance of failure), but again framing is important because one doesn't want to give off the notion (to the masses or those IRL) that one is pro-mortalist or pushing for effective CTB (from the perspective of the masses and normies), but also appears to kind of trying to prevent the person from making the wrong decision and end up suffering more (not strictly anti-choice, but anti-suffering). So yes, wording and framing is important here.

With regards to the footage you are referring to, maybe it's this one by The Right To No Longer Exist (not sure if they are still active, but linked here) where they were out on the streets debating other strangers?

Also, yes while I consider myself an emissary of the right to die, I am more reticent probably due to my reserved nature but even more so due to the risks of speaking of the topic, at best, inviting unwanted scrutiny from others, and at worst, having unwanted intervention or help that only makes things worse. I do remember many years back I used to be angry and full of fury (and to a degree, I still am, especially at society at large) over the fact that people will violate bodily autonomy of suicidal people 'for their own good' and nothing screams more than tyranny and paternalism because if under any other context if someone did what these suicide preventionists did, they'd suffer legal consequences (kidnapping, assault and battery, false imprisonment, etc.). Sometimes I wished I could have my 'way of justice' against these tyrants but I digress...

On the last point, yes I suppose that could be true, but it would depend on how people interpret the information and the framing itself. If it is done in the way of portraying suicidal people as "victims" of 'mental illnesses' rather than a valid, possibly rational choice by an intelligent, cognizant and coherent individual making an informed decision. Of course, the other potential problem is when it becomes mainstream and the narrative gets shifted or changed to something it is not, and by that I mean how things change when it becomes mainstream, often diluted or misinterpreted from it's original form. This happens when something becomes popular and gets memed, but that's another topic altogether..