Programming Suicide

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Choose the peoples you dislike, learn how to program people, and program/convince those unchosen into accepting the following:

1) Your fate is Your fault
2) The right to and of suicide
3) A hopelessly miserable future.

What do you think would happen?

Those people will commit suicide while claiming all the while that no one is to blame but themselves. The perfect murder.

But is there a guilty party? Is it murder if you don’t get caught? “I only pulled the trigger. It isn’t my fault if the man wasn’t strong enough to take the bullet.”

Of course, you think that such is merely a fantasy, certainly no one ever really does that. “No one can be hypnotized without their permission”, or so you have been convinced. Yet it is being done all around you right now and every day. You just don’t see how. The how is with films and forums (of varied sorts) along with varied medical, psychological, and legal trickery. It is a type of hypnosis, influencing a person without their knowledge. It is real.

The DVD released for the film Dude Where’s My Car had a menu as most DVDs do. The background sound in that menu was of dribbling rain. And embedded in that sound were the words, “The world is falling apart and there is no escape” (that “hopeless future”). The film itself targeted the audience of young white males. Who had the authority, money, incentive, and right to make that DVD menu?

The film Sunset is a story of a man who has already committed suicide but is magically given the choice to rethink it. In the story, the man gives every seemingly proper argument for his right and righteousness to kill himself. Also in that same film, the Christian preacher trying to talk him out of it ends up perplexed as to why he never hears from Jesus. The man sticks with his choice and dies. And the preacher finds just cause to doubt his faith. The suicide victim is a white male. The preacher is a black male.

The recent Robert Redford film, All is Lost is about a man alone at Sea with everything going wrong. He finally decides to just give up. Apologizing to the world (“his fate is his fault”), he just decides to sink into the Sea. He is then magically taken up “into the light” (a subtle, “try it you might like it”).

Those are merely a very few of the psych films being released daily. And in forums such as this one, there is this preponderance of people who seem to want to talk positively about suicide, the good of it and the “right to do it”. Of course merely talking about it at all is its own subtle influence because once confused, the mind heads toward its most recent thought, the very essence of advertising.

None of the people who have committed suicide because of such subtle influence injected into their lives actually asked to be programmed into doing that. And that includes our own member and moderator Abstract.

So who is it that has the right to program and convince people without express permission to take their own life? Who has the right to pull the trigger, yet be free of guilt?

And which of these have you already been convinced of such that you try to convince others?

1) Your fate is Your fault
2) The right to and of suicide
3) A hopelessly miserable future?

2

To my understanding, Abstract suffered from psychological problems.

Would you also say those were programmed with intent?

I’d say they weren’t.

There’s adversity in life, and in the moment, we react as we know how.

Can’t there be tragedy that is unwilled and avoidable?

I believe suicide in general isn’t due to manipulation. And I find it insulting that you’d say all those who have done so, were manipulated. Perhaps you don’t think all, but that’s not how I interpret it.

People are often ignorant. When confused, it’s common to let it out. I interpret the messages of ‘all hope is lost’, to be signs of desperation of those who subscribe to the position. Not propaganda.

There’s many life affirming films that give out the message that in spite of adversity, existing is good and worth it.

Programming perpetuation?

You’re here asking people to consider if they have beliefs that make them susceptible to suicide, and I respect that, but I feel that you’re accustomed to seeking ulterior motives, even if none are there. That this thread is partially a representation of finding agenda where none exists.

Is this helpful? I’ve no idea. Just my reaction.

3

So you are convinced of (1).
And by other threads of yours, beginning to suspect (3).

How do you stand on (2)?

4

As a determinist, I deny 1.

I say we are completely the product of our past and only have the illusion of control.

I don’t blame anyone, including myself, for whatever shit happens.

Yet, that doesn’t mean I don’t will for my ideals.

2 - Yes. I don’t believe we ought deny each other the right to affect our path or lack thereof.

3 - In spite of my whining, I’m an optimist. I need an outlet to let out my negative energy, because in my day to day life, I’m constantly being optimistic and constantly fighting pessimism and people who have indeed given up hope.

Do you believe me? Do you think me naive?

5

Okay, so on (1) you believe that it is all just circumstance and that no one is at fault.
That still works.

And you are convinced of (2).

And with (3), you are struggling, else there would be no “whining” as you put it. You are pitting your desire to be optimistic against… what? Nothing? Coincidental circumstances? Getting any significant assistance from others with that?

So, I’d have to give you a 2.5 out of 3.
And 3 strikes, your out of the game.
That doesn’t seem very positive.

And while you are struggling with (3), are you also helping to promote 1 and 2?
Are you helping to convince others that they have the “right” to kill themselves (and perhaps its righteousness as well) and that no one is to be blamed other than their own choice in doing so?

You do know what an anti-natalist is, right? - “Save the Earth by eliminating the humans”.
“Nihilism”, pretty much the same thing.
“Anarchy”, not that much different.
“Uncertainty”, certainly adds to the hopelessness.

6

I am pitting my optimism against my family, society, self. The adversity I was born into and what is thrown at me. I’m not confident in my own capacity, yet I improve day by day.

Assistance? Nope. The only input I get from others is criticism and anger. Or degradation and condescension from relevant societal authorities.

But I do not need others to lift me up. I’m finding balance and pace, and will grow stronger.

I am definitely not promoting either of those for anyone in my day to day life.

But I concede, those who frequent these boards will find a degree of validation within my posts for suicide. Not always, since I don’t believe all suicide is rationally justified, but sometimes, yes.

My belief is that we have the capacity to influence our lives. Therefore, we play our part in the result. I don’t will people to feel shame, regret or pain for their past, but to learn from it and understand how to go forward without repeating the same mistakes.

Would you give yourself a 0 out of 3?

7

With certainty.

The whole point in hypnosis is to get around the conscious, the awareness of threats and hopes, leaving the person easily susceptible to subtle suggestions and programmable.

But back to the question in the OP.
Who has the right to do such things without the permission of the people being influenced?

8

I don’t understand your item 1, James. Isn’t that the main idea behind many arguments against suicide? Your fate is up to you?

Ironically, your post reads like it was written by someone who thinks the government has planted a computer chip in his brain.

Suicide is a serious problem. I hate to see it discussed in such a silly way.

9

If you feel largely frustrated and hopeless and you believe that it is ONLY because of a fault in yourself, you do not look to see where your hope lies because you are already aware of your poor condition. And you don’t believe arguments concerning positivity.

If one feels that he is reasonably strong and hasn’t bothered to look for opportunities, then of course, telling him that he can make a difference is not only positive, but true.

So it becomes an issue of who you are talking to. If you broadcast a film or DVD out to the entire nation, you are not being responsible to that concern. If you were to inform the entire public as to how to make nuclear weapons out of common garage materials, would you consider it responsible to broadcast it to literally everyone? You know what would happen. And why are specific groups being advertising targeted?

When people broadcast, especially subtle hypnotic sentiments, to an entire nation, they are affecting both the strong and the weak. You can claim that the weak just shouldn’t have been so weak. But the question is, “How did they get that weak?” And of course the proper answer is, “It’s no ones fault but their own. Certainly we can’t blame broadcasters for what people do with the information they broadcast. I just pull the triggers. I don’t make anyone die”. Yet we do exactly that all the time… unless we are promoting suicide; insecurity, hopelessness, and the right to die on a whim.

People don’t need a computer chip. They already have one. It is called “their brain”.

I don’t like seeing it discussed at all. But I’m getting a bit tired of the conspicuous promotion of it. It is a “serious problem” ONLY because it is being promoted.

So I take it from your reply that you are convinced of (1).

How about your stance of (2) and (3)?

And still the prime question;
“Who has the right to implement such effects (clearly being done) without the public’s knowledge or consent?”

10

Why would you think I’m convinced of item one? I think it promotes the idea of inescapable victimhood, just as the opposite yet identical argument does - “you can do it, it’s all up to you!” - so that when someone thinks that obviously doesn’t apply to himself, because he can’t do it, and he is alienated and alone… well obviously he gives up.

11

Then why did you say;

There is a big difference in;
1) Your fate is Your fault, and
2) Your future is in your capable hands.

How often on this site do you see (2) as opposed to (1)?
Just look at the number of insults vs compliments, “can’t do’s” vs “can do’s”.

And you still haven’t answered any of the questions asked.

12

Because its your fault is the natural conclusion if you’ve been told its up to you and things don’t look so good.

There’s no reason to answer your other questions. Your style here makes me feel like I’m being interrogated by a lawyer. I see no reason to enable that particular neurosis. I haven’t said anything that should cause you to treat me that way.

13

Alienation is the main problem. And alienation is encouraged in many ways. The idea that there are these vast conspiracies involving Hollywood or Jews or blacks or whatever is a perfect example of such destructive thinking. Alienation from other people, from the past and future, from the natural world, from one’s own emotions… these are fundamental problems.

14

Alienation is the symptom, not the problem. And hiding the fact that it is being done intentionally ensures that the problem will continue. If no one believes that anyone ever conspires, why not go ahead and do it? And of course, if you are doing it, why not keep them believing that no one does that?

The same with hypnosis. Why not first convince them that they can’t be hypnotized without their express permission? Then go ahead and do whatever you want.

But we aren’t talking about conspiracies. We are talking about the obvious efforts to cause suicide, whether conspiratorial or not. Or are you going to try to support the notion that there simply are no bad guys at all? You might want to take that one up with Homeland Security, the most “paranoid” people on the planet (not to mention legally bound to be conspiratorial).

15

I’ll probably regret asking this, but why do “they” want to kill “us”, James?

16

You came onto this thread whining about the OP and then espouse that you feel attacked by being asked questions directly pertaining to the OP. You don’t want to answer my questions, disregarding the OP. Why do you think I should answer yours.

And you have confirmed that you believe (1).

I really don’t care that you are so naive as to believe that conspiracies don’t happen nor that anyone would actually go to the trouble of influencing you without your awareness. It has become way too blatant.

17

I take serious, sober exception to your OP. I think it is misguided. Nonetheless, the hyped up lawyer attitude has to go, before we can have a conversation about suicide. We have to proceed step by step. Step 1: I think your item 1 is misguided for the reason I have clearly stated.

18

Your effort to defend the serpents and their methods is of no interest to me.
I asked of their rights.

19

James, the issue isn’t one that can be approached with a neat little list to check off and tally. It is much more personal and subtle than that. It is about a person’s self-value, which cannot be narrowed down in the manner you indicate.

As for Abstract, I’m betting you barely even knew him, if even at all. Yet you pretend to know his circumstances intimately enough.

Suicide is not an issue well suited at all to an objectivist approach.

20

Presumptuous, false, and accusing on all counts.

(1) is entirely about Self-valuing and perceived guilt.
(2) is entirely about independent valuing for oneself.
(3) is about PHT, the ability to value constructively.

…and I had extensive private conversations with Abstract concerning the pressures he felt and his inability to find certainty in anything hopeful.

Where do you get off making such an insulting accusation as that.