US Politics: Courting Justice...or Disaster?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

9 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

It's not rational, but being irrational doesn't automatically make you mentally ill. Otherwise, anyone acting on emotion would be mentally ill.

Setting yourself on fire because you saw something on TV suggests previous underlying issues. That's not normal behavior in any way, shape or form. It screams out mental illness as a very likely possibility. 

[Jace, Extat]

The repeated use of martyr concerns me. Celebration of self-destruction by unaffected parties strikes me as both entitled and cruel.

[kissdbyfire]

Of course it's not rational, but as CP said above that doesn't necessarily mean mental illness. Maybe this man was mentally ill, maybe he wasn't; I'm sure we'll learn more eventually.

But I disagree w/ the notion that someone can't get so distressed over something they have no direct or indirect connection to that they act seemingly irrarionally in protest. B/c no matter how not connect one is, they'll always be connected through our shared humanity; and that's called empathy.

[Craving Peaches]

6 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Setting yourself on fire because you saw something on TV suggests previous underlying issues. That's not normal behavior in any way, shape or form. It screams out mental illness as a very likely possibility. 

That drastically understates exactly what he saw on TV. It was obviously incredibly distressing, and this was not a scenario where he saw a one off report, it was repeated exposure to seeing horrible events over a period of time. Some people cannot tolerate this as well as others. That does not automatically make them mentally ill. And again, he set himself on fire to protest, not just because he saw something on TV.

[Kalbear]

19 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Setting yourself on fire because you saw something on TV suggests previous underlying issues. That's not normal behavior in any way, shape or form. It screams out mental illness as a very likely possibility. 

This is a very classic definition of mental illness - something that is simply not in the normal behaviors. Gandhi, too, was strongly mentally ill by that token. As is anyone who has so much empathy for others' suffering. 

This kind of attitude massively stigmatizes mental illness. It also weirdly says that caring about other people is a mental illness, which is pretty remarkable. As I said above, it's interesting to think that you can look at altruism and say that it is the worst possible thing to do. 

[Zorral]

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/aaron-bushnell-self-immolation-what-we-know.html

He sure doesn't sound mentally dusturbed,

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

This is a very classic definition of mental illness - something that is simply not in the normal behaviors. Gandhi, too, was strongly mentally ill by that token. As is anyone who has so much empathy for others' suffering. 

This kind of attitude massively stigmatizes mental illness. It also weirdly says that caring about other people is a mental illness, which is pretty remarkable. As I said above, it's interesting to think that you can look at altruism and say that it is the worst possible thing to do. 

There's empathy and then there's taking it way too far. Plus there was nothing altruistic about his act. 

[Kalbear]

28 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

There's empathy and then there's taking it way too far. Plus there was nothing altruistic about his act. 

How is it not altruistic? He's literally giving himself for the benefit of others; it's not like he can get anything out of it. What a weird take! Unless your idea of altruism is that NO ONE gets a benefit, but again - weird take!

As to taking it way too far - sure! Again, so are many of the people we consider near-saints. Another word for the kind of person who takes empathy way too far is 'hero'. 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

How is it not altruistic? He's literally giving himself for the benefit of others; it's not like he can get anything out of it. What a weird take! Unless your idea of altruism is that NO ONE gets a benefit, but again - weird take!

As to taking it way too far - sure! Again, so are many of the people we consider near-saints. Another word for the kind of person who takes empathy way too far is 'hero'. 

 

Because he caused multiple officers to risk their safety at his expense, then took up a hospital bed that another might have needed, and it was all for nothing. This is like conflating toxic masculinity with healthy love. 

If he wanted to do something positive he could have donated money or volunteered for a charity or started a healthy form of online protest. It sounds like he got radicalized and then sought attention. That's not altruism. 

[kissdbyfire]

1 minute ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

If he wanted to do something positive he could have donated money or volunteered for a charity or started a healthy form of online protest. It sounds like he got radicalized and then sought attention. That's not altruism. 

All of this is being done already, for months and years and decades. Perhaps his desperation came exactly from realising that none of that was making any difference at all, and that in fact things got a whole lot worse lately.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

1 hour ago, Jace, Extat said:

The repeated use of martyr concerns me. Celebration of self-destruction by unaffected parties strikes me as both entitled and cruel.

Yeah. I can sympathize with the pain and anger behind it, but it's deranged. If not the mentally ill type of deranged, then the radical true believer type. Perhaps everyone has their breaking point with respect to what deranges them or radicalizes them, but I agree that veneration of this type of self-destruction, no matte the cause, is either insincere and gross or sincere and disturbing.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

All of this is being done already, for months and years and decades. Perhaps his desperation came exactly from realising that none of that was making any difference at all, and that in fact things got a whole lot worse lately.

Do what I want or I hurt myself.  Really?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

All of this is being done already, for months and years and decades. Perhaps his desperation came exactly from realising that none of that was making any difference at all, and that in fact things got a whole lot worse lately.

And so he killed himself in a way that would do nothing to help. Great job! 

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Because he caused multiple officers to risk their safety at his expense, then took up a hospital bed that another might have needed, and it was all for nothing. This is like conflating toxic masculinity with healthy love. 

Again, what a weird idea. First off the notion that it is 'all for nothing' is because...what, the war didn't end immediately when he burned himself? I'm pretty sure his goal was to get people talking about it which...he seems to have succeeded in quite well! Also, if you're going to consider someone who needs hospital care selfish for doing so that is another very odd take; is your viewpoint that anyone who needs care at any time for anything that they may have brought on themselves via any behavior they took to be selfish? I think I already know your answer but want to make sure you're stating that anyone, at any time, who knowingly or unknowingly costs any public resource is being selfish. 

But no, something does not need to cost no one nothing in order for something to be altruistic. By that weird take anyone jumping on a hand grenade is not being altruistic because they're wasting the training that they got as a soldier. So odd!

6 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

If he wanted to do something positive he could have donated money or volunteered for a charity or started a healthy form of online protest. It sounds like he got radicalized and then sought attention. That's not altruism. 

First there's no indication that he didn't do those things too. That said, a 'healthy form of online protest' - would you be talking about it if he did that? This gets back to the idea that the only way to protest is the way that makes it ignorable, and if you do anything to make anyone even think about it at all or does any inconvenience to anyone it is bad. 

Seeking attention for a cause and sacrificing your personal health and safety for it is altruism. It might not be altruism that you enjoy or like, but it doesn't change what it is. 

I get that you have a notion that altruism is noble and you don't personally consider this person to be doing something in the cause of something noble, but that doesn't make you right. 

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Do what I want or I hurt myself.  Really?

Again, literally this is Gandhi. 

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

And so he killed himself in a way that would do nothing to help. Great job! 

Would you rather that he killed himself as a suicide bomber against Republican house members? Serious question here, because that appears to be where you're going for it.

[kissdbyfire]

17 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Do what I want or I hurt myself.  Really?

 

16 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

And so he killed himself in a way that would do nothing to help. Great job! 

Like it, don't like it; approve it, don't approve it. It's irrelevant. The point is, self-immolation is an established form of protest that has been used for centuries. 

Alice Herz was the first person [known] to use self-immolation as a form of protest in the US; in her case, against the Vietnam War. But as I said, there's a long history of political protests through self-immolation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_self-immolations

Edited February 26 by kissdbyfire

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Would you rather that he killed himself as a suicide bomber against Republican house members? Serious question here, because that appears to be where you're going for it.

No, I would have rather he did exactly what I said, use his energy in a positive way that could have meaningful outcomes.

The only thing that's weird here is defending and/or rationalizing his behavior. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

 

Like it, don't like it; approve it, don't approve it. It's irrelevant. The point is, self-immolation is an established form of protest that has been used for centuries. 

Alice Herz was the first person [known] to use self-immolation as a form of protest; in her case, against the Vietnam War. But as I said, there's a long history of political protests through self-immolation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_self-immolations

Yes, I'm aware. Doesn't justify it. 

[Rippounet]

The inability to understand why someone might sacrifice themselves for a cause is telling, as is the oft repeated mantra that only some forms of protest are worthy of respect.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

No, I would have rather he did exactly what I said, use his energy in a positive way that could have meaningful outcomes.

So please, do show your work here - what of your suggestions has shown any meaningful outcome to what he was protesting? 

How many online protests have helped? Can you even point to one? How have donations helped when aid is being denied right now? 

As far as I can tell you're happy with the idea of working towards something that they can't possibly influence in any way as long as it doesn't inconvenience you in some way, but you're not okay with something that actually generates attention. 

2 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

The only thing that's weird here is defending and/or rationalizing his behavior. 

As @kissdbyfire pointed out this is a very old form of protest that has been done for quite a while across the entire world, and signifies a very specific kind of final message. I don't need to defend or rationalize his behavior because history has already done so, but I wasn't doing either; I especially don't need to wrongly state it isn't altruism because I don't like the cause it represents. 

I'll say it another way: in today's world where attention is one of the most highly sought-after resources that exist and things like online protest are quite possibly the least effective way of doing anything, doing something that generates front page news across the US is quite easily one of the most effective means of protest one can do; doing so in a way that harms no one else to any particular extent and is a form of nonviolent protest even more so.