What would you want the scientists to know who do research on Sanctioned Suicide?

[noname223]

My initial question for this thread was: Would you have a guilty conscience as scientist who does research on SaSu?
I mean we don't give consent for using our data.
I don't think it is that horrible. There was something that baffled me:

https://cisa.asu.edu/sites/g/files/litvpz691/files/2025-05/Palma_M_Jimenez%20Arista.pdf

I mean something like that feels weird. And people pointed out this theory isn't all that accurate.


Personally, I think scientists should use their leverage to speak out against the Manichaean media depiction when it comes to this topic/when they report about this place.

If you scientists need someone for a psy op project contact me. Or we can make an arrangement you kill me very quickly with not too much pain involved and I will stop posting content that contributes to your headaches when reading stuff on here.

I once did a research thread abou the influence of AI chatbots on suicidality but not that many people participated in it.

By the way I once did a similar thread not about scientists but dedicated to lurkers.

 

[Pluto]

 

[BrontesA]

My initial question for this thread was: Would you have a guilty conscience as scientist who does research on SaSu?
I mean we don't give consent for using our data.
I don't think it is that horrible. There was something that baffled me:

https://cisa.asu.edu/sites/g/files/litvpz691/files/2025-05/Palma_M_Jimenez%20Arista.pdf

I mean something like that feels weird. And people pointed out this theory isn't all that accurate.


Personally, I think scientists should use their leverage to speak out against the Manichaean media depiction when it comes to this topic/when they report about this place.

If you scientists need someone for a psy op project contact me. Or we can make an arrangement you kill me very quickly with not too much pain involved and I will stop posting content that contributes to your headaches when reading stuff on here.

I once did a research thread abou the influence of AI chatbots on suicidality but not that many people participated in it.

By the way I once did a similar thread not about scientists but dedicated to lurkers.

The fact that we hadn't consented as a group essentially invalidates anything a researcher could find and write up. Like it literally wouldn't matter if they were completely correct and we all also thought so, the 'scientific community' would just shoot it down as unethical. This sort of ethical blockading and red tape is essentially why research has been useless in the Western world in the last few decades. Sure we're "finding out" about things, but not a single person actually benefits apart from the money worshippers.

Take it from someone who formerly studied psychology; not a single person with the power to do so is interested in genuinely making people better. If anyone cared then we'd make SSRIs extinct, instead we turned it into a pharma industry.

 

[BradGuy123]

Most of the stuff in the media about this forum is very negative. They make us about to be people who actively encourage people to do it and give detailed instructions. Nothing can be further from the truth. I read this PDF and found it to be pretty objective. They didn't demonize anyone on here.

 

[Canto XIII]

I don't think most countries place any real obligation not to use data publicly available online without permission, as long as personal privacy is respected, right? Personally, I'm generally more in favour of leaving researchers the possibility of doing their job. That being said, I'm afraid scientific discourse about this forum has good chances of not being truly objective, or at least of painting it in a negative light, not necessarily out of malice or ignorance of the researcher.

 

[Fadenself00_]

Research horrible neuropsychiatric side effects from psych drugs please