Consider this: Self harm and suicide will hurt most those who care the most for the perpetrator, not only close friends and family but also the medics and emergency personnel who do the job because they care for other people, bystanders who witness the action and are affected because they aren't psychopaths, even the poor bloody workman who has to hose down the street.

Self harm or suicide as a form of protest (as opposed to a cry for help, act of desperation, result of psychosis, etc) has to be one of the most selfish acts of violence, encompassing contempt for all those who care for the perpetrator along with a sanctimonious assurance and lack of self-doubt that "the cause" is right beyond any question in the mind of the offender. It is a form of fanaticism that disregards the pain caused to others, worst of all those closest to the person doing it.

Infer what you like about the depths of contempt I have for people who self harm with a selfish disregard for the effect it will have on others beyond promotion of "the cause".

(And in case you haven't guessed yet, yes, I have had to deal with the fallout from such actions. albeit very peripherally.)

Tortured_Genius wrote:Consider this: Self harm and suicide will hurt most those who care the most for the perpetrator, not only close friends and family but also the medics and emergency personnel who do the job because they care for other people, bystanders who witness the action and are affected because they aren't psychopaths, even the poor bloody workman who has to hose down the street.

Self harm or suicide as a form of protest (as opposed to a cry for help, act of desperation, result of psychosis, etc) has to be one of the most selfish acts of violence, encompassing contempt for all those who care for the perpetrator along with a sanctimonious assurance and lack of self-doubt that "the cause" is right beyond any question in the mind of the offender. It is a form of fanaticism that disregards the pain caused to others, worst of all those closest to the person doing it.

Yes, you regard self-harm as an act of selfishness. I got that already. The question remains: Are all people who harm themselves selfish exhibitionists or are their actions motivated by a higher cause, whatever that may be?

Consider the first responders at Chernobyl. They knew they were going to die very soon after their work so near to the core of the radiation. They knew they going to leave those near and dear to them grieving. Nobody made them do what they did. They did what they did just the same. Namely, they sacrificed themselves for the sake of the larger community.

This is what people like Tim Hewes may have been motivated by, only the community he thought he contributed to saving was much larger than the population of Kiev and its surroundings. It was the entire human species. The suffering of those near and dear would be an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence.

Bravo Hermit, calm, logical, thoughtful and veracious posts. I was/am incapable of addressing the issues in this thread in such a, dare I say it, academic fashion due to being all uber emotionally invested in the subject matter, amongst other reasons most likely, so thanks and kudos to you.

Might as well drag Extinction Rebellion into the thread - London "Impossible Rebellion" starting in London on the 23rd and all (I'm probably going to attend but....long story). Deliberately siting in a road and getting arrested/imprisoned/fined/criminal record and also having to wear adult nappies if "locked on" for more than a few hours etc etc etc...exhibitionism? Or trying to fight for the voiceless victims of climate change in the Global South and the future of humanity/children etc? The latter is the case, in my (significant) experience.

Good grief - what part of the phrase "Self harm or suicide as a form of protest" do you people not understand?

What were the first responders at Chernobyl protesting about exactly? (Rhetorical - the comparison was obviously complete bullshit, as you should well know).

I'm obviously not going to dissuade the likes of KIR, but please, please watch that rabbit hole and where it leads. It can lead to rationalising all sorts of fanatical crazy shit that ultimately makes no sense at all. (Want to protest against the experimentation on a herd of sheep through selective breeding? One group I came across burned the flock to death in protest).

I'd just say think through very, very carefully about what you are doing and the FULL ramifications and effects of your actions on ALL the people around you and what your actions look like to people not privy to the convoluted thought processes of "the movement's" leaders.

All too often you'll look like these guys:

Keep It Real wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:LOL

There we have it folks: hunger striking = hilarity. That's me taken to school.

Keep It Real wrote:Wrong TG, I'm not trolling you, I'm just trying to work out how you've arrived at this bizarre "self harm protest actions are just exhibitionism and should be ignored" position. Yes my blood runs hot on this issue, probably largely as I've actually done a (painful and traumatic) hunger strike in protest at gov inaction on global warming last year.

I predict it's futile, as you've painted yourself into a corner so can't answer, but I'll try one last time anyway: is hunger striking exhibitionism and to be ignored? Please try and wrench yourself away from the persecution/misrepresentation/personalisation narrative and discuss the actual issues raised in this thread calmly/logically/on topic...futile probably but had to give it one last stab...

Wait, what? You went on a hunger strike?

Yes - and it sucked, big time, but I (think I) made some positive impact/impression and also lost 2 stone of flab to boot so...

The Serpent wrote:
Wait, what? You went on a hunger strike?

That's nothing. I actually killed myself by setting myself on fire. Some of us are just more committed than others.

Tortured_Genius wrote:Good grief - what part of the phrase "Self harm or suicide as a form of protest" do you people not understand?

Oh, I understand what you mean by it:

Tortured_Genius wrote:Protest is fine. Public self-flagellation is more a weird form of exhibitionism.

What you need to do is to provide a criterion by which we can determine this to be the case in every instance. I did ask you to do so here:

Hermit wrote:...what makes you certain that non-fatal self-harm is not motivated by a sincere belief an individual can think of as the most effective action to help a cause / fight a problem?

Hermit wrote:

Tortured_Genius wrote:Good grief - what part of the phrase "Self harm or suicide as a form of protest" do you people not understand?

Oh, I understand what you mean by it:

Tortured_Genius wrote:Protest is fine. Public self-flagellation is more a weird form of exhibitionism.

What you need to do is to provide a criterion by which we can determine this to be the case in every instance. I did ask you to do so here:

Hermit wrote:...what makes you certain that non-fatal self-harm is not motivated by a sincere belief an individual can think of as the most effective action to help a cause / fight a problem?

OK - but only on the condition that first you must list absolutely each and every single historic individual instance so that it can checked and rated accordingly.

Since this is for your benefit I don't see why you shouldn't do the hard work of researching and categorising several hundred million individual instances and exceptions as a starting point.

I'll check back in a century or so to see how you are getting on.

Seriously though, you are arguing semantics here and demanding a statement based on a lifetime of disparate work, activism and experiences which would require a major dissertation to codify and express. Not feasible.

Tortured_Genius wrote:

Hermit wrote:

Tortured_Genius wrote:Good grief - what part of the phrase "Self harm or suicide as a form of protest" do you people not understand?

Oh, I understand what you mean by it:

Tortured_Genius wrote:Protest is fine. Public self-flagellation is more a weird form of exhibitionism.

What you need to do is to provide a criterion by which we can determine this to be the case in every instance. I did ask you to do so here:

Hermit wrote:...what makes you certain that non-fatal self-harm is not motivated by a sincere belief an individual can think of as the most effective action to help a cause / fight a problem?

OK - but only on the condition that first you must list absolutely each and every single historic individual instance so that it can checked and rated accordingly.

Since this is for your benefit I don't see why you shouldn't do the hard work of researching and categorising several hundred million individual instances and exceptions as a starting point.

I'll check back in a century or so to see how you are getting on.

Seriously though, you are arguing semantics here and demanding a statement based on a lifetime of disparate work, activism and experiences which would require a major dissertation to codify and express. Not feasible.

I need not do anything. You made the claim that "Protest is fine. Public self-flagellation is more a weird form of exhibitionism." It is up to you to provide the criterion which makes you certain that non-fatal self-harm is not motivated by a sincere belief an individual can think of as the most effective action to help a cause / fight a problem.

I'll refer you to the original post at the top of this thread:

Keep It Real wrote:The below image of the priest with his lips sewn shut may be very disturbing for some, so I've spoilerd it. Chilling, yes indeed.

A priest has sewn his lips together to protest against the “suppression” of climate science in Rupert Murdoch's media outlets.

Reverend Tim Hewes, 71, carried out the symbolic act outside News UK’s office in Central London yesterday. It's home to the UK arm of Murdoch’s global news empire, News Corps.

In a video released on YouTube, Hewes calls Murdoch a “climate change denier, dissembler and delayer” and says the media mogul has influence over governments which has led to a lack of meaningful action on the climate crisis.

https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/08/03/priest-sews-his-mouth-shut-over-muting-of-climate-science-by-mainstream-media

I'm personally torn between expressing admiration for the man's...courageous...actions, and heaping disapproval on them due to the barbaric and ostensibly insane nature of the action. Probably leaning on the side of the former, but, well, undecided fully. Thoughts?

KIR asked for "Thoughts?". That's it.

I gave them.

If there was a requirement to provide a full backgrounder including personal history, knowledge and experience and a demand to justify those thoughts then you should have said so at the outset and I wouldn't have bothered since life is too short.

So, no.

Tortured_Genius wrote:I'll refer you to the original post at the top of this thread:

Keep It Real wrote:The below image of the priest with his lips sewn shut may be very disturbing for some, so I've spoilerd it. Chilling, yes indeed.

A priest has sewn his lips together to protest against the “suppression” of climate science in Rupert Murdoch's media outlets.

Reverend Tim Hewes, 71, carried out the symbolic act outside News UK’s office in Central London yesterday. It's home to the UK arm of Murdoch’s global news empire, News Corps.

In a video released on YouTube, Hewes calls Murdoch a “climate change denier, dissembler and delayer” and says the media mogul has influence over governments which has led to a lack of meaningful action on the climate crisis.

https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/08/03/priest-sews-his-mouth-shut-over-muting-of-climate-science-by-mainstream-media

I'm personally torn between expressing admiration for the man's...courageous...actions, and heaping disapproval on them due to the barbaric and ostensibly insane nature of the action. Probably leaning on the side of the former, but, well, undecided fully. Thoughts?

KIR asked for "Thoughts?". That's it.

I gave them.

If there was a requirement to provide a full backgrounder including personal history, knowledge and experience and a demand to justify those thoughts then you should have said so at the outset and I wouldn't have bothered since life is too short.

So, no.

Nobody asked for a personal history or experience, but OK, you don't feel the need to give reasons for why you think what you think. So, why do you post in what is meant to be a site for rational discussion?

What's it to you?

Hermit wrote:
I need not do anything. You made the claim that "Protest is fine. Public self-flagellation is more a weird form of exhibitionism."

For clarity: that's not a 'claim' in the sense of stating it as fact. It's clearly an opinion and stated as such. 'Fine', for example, is not an objective criterion - it's obviously subjective. Now it may be debatable, and you may disagree, but I don't think you can expect rigorous standards of evidence-based support for something that is about a person's values.

Hermit wrote:
Nobody asked for a personal history or experience, but OK, you don't feel the need to give reasons for why you think what you think. So, why do you post in what is meant to be a site for rational discussion?

Allow me to help. The question you should've posed TG is 'Why do you think that?' If you want rational discussion, I would say you have to engender it yourself too.

Tortured_Genius wrote:What's it to you?

Basically, I would just like to hear the reasoning behind your opinion. No skin off my nose just because you are incapable or unwilling to provide it.

Spearthrower wrote:

Hermit wrote:
I need not do anything. You made the claim that "Protest is fine. Public self-flagellation is more a weird form of exhibitionism."

For clarity: that's not a 'claim' in the sense of stating it as fact. It's clearly an opinion and stated as such.

Ah, the Fox News defence. Can't question opinions. Got it.

Hermit wrote:

Tortured_Genius wrote:What's it to you?

Basically, I would just like to hear the reasoning behind your opinion. No skin off my nose just because you are incapable or unwilling to provide it.

Well why the hell didn't you just ask that instead of being confrontational and backing KIR's asinine accusations? You'd have got a far quicker answer whilst causing less stress.

I'm unwilling to provide a detailed answer because my reasoning is based on life experiences that are far too personal and complex to go into on a public forum. The answer would be far too long to write down simply for the prurient delectation of those who I indicated earlier might well just be trolling me.

My attitude is based on experience as someone who has had to personally deal with the fallout from acts of self-harm and suicide, you will not get any more detail than that.

Hermit wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Hermit wrote:
I need not do anything. You made the claim that "Protest is fine. Public self-flagellation is more a weird form of exhibitionism."

For clarity: that's not a 'claim' in the sense of stating it as fact. It's clearly an opinion and stated as such.

Ah, the Fox News defence. Can't question opinions. Got it.

Go join KIR in the dopey corner.