Venting The dreadful CTB prevention net on the GGB was recently completed!

[TAW122]

This is just infuriating and of course, no surprise to how there is no limit of the lengths of paternalism, censorship, and denial of methods (let alone any peaceful ones) that pro-lifers go to in order to ensure maximum oppression and suffering, all the while hand-waving away all the issues that may cause people to want to CTB!

See this news article here:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/03/golden-gate-bridge-suicide-prevention-net-completed

In the reddit thread, EG as usual gave good rebuttals and counterarguments towards the ignorant and sadistic pro-lifers with regards to those preventionists who only seek to placate their own moral sensibilities while ignoring the plight of those who are suffering.

Here are some responses from EG that I find really good:

Post 1

This is circular reasoning and a Kafkatrap designed to justify depriving people of their fundamental liberties, without even allowing them a fair hearing to advocate for themselves. Anyone committing suicide must be "mentally ill", because only a mentally ill person would ever choose to opt out of life. You're just boldly asserting that there are no conceivable circumstances under which a rational person would reject life, despite the fact that suicide has been a contested issue in philosophy for thousands of years, and despite the fact that nobody has ever demonstrated that there's anything actually bad about death (in contrast to life, in which there are an unimaginably vast array of ways in which things can go horribly wrong).

It's a cowardly way of oppressing your fellow man - to discredit them as "mentally ill", so that they won't be taken seriously when they try to resist your paternalistic tyranny.

Post 2

Define what you mean by "healthy" in this context. Throwing yourself off a bridge can certainly be the act of a rational person, if one considers that none of us ever had a single bad day for the billions of years that preceded our births, but many of us have had a seriously bad time of it since we were born.

"Mental illness" just seems to be a way of saying that these people who killed themselves by jumping off the bridge didn't have any real problems in their lives, and that the only possible explanation for why they might not have been enjoying life is that they just have a broken brain.

Labelling certain groups within society as "mentally ill" has a long history of being used to justify the disenfranchisement and oppression of minorities. For example, homosexuality being in the DSM up until the early 1970s, and back in the Victorian era when men could have their wives involuntarily sectioned in lunatic asylums based on only their word, just because their wives were too assertive and therefore subverted gender norms.

It should not be anyone's decision to compel another human being to remain alive (and suffering) against their will. The idea that it is something to be "allowed" shouldn't even come into it. Those people aren't your property, and you aren't paying their bills to keep them fed, sheltered and comfortable. Therefore you should have no right to overrule their decision if they have decided that life isn't worth the struggle.

Post 3 (the italics and colored quotes are the ones stated by pro-lifers)

If even one person who is mentally ill kills themselves there that is a permanent and unacceptable loss of life.

Firstly, it would be impossible to determine that unless we have some kind of falsifiable way of determining which ones are actually "mentally ill". Currently, we don't have that. Secondly, you are applying a particular value judgement which assumes that preserving life at all costs must always outweigh all other considerations, such as the suffering that they will continue to experience if they are stopped, respect for the person's autonomy, and so on. Calling them "mentally ill" is kind of a way of trying to short-circuit these other considerations by saying that a) their suffering is all in their head anyway, and b) they aren't really acting autonomously because they're "mentally ill" (but conveniently for suicide proponents there is absolutely no way of falsifying such a claim).

If trampling someones right to kill themselves in front of random bystanders on public infrastructure is what it takes to stop them so be it. These are the same arguments people make against vaccines, seatbelts, and gun control just dressed up in a way to make it sound deep.

If the concern is with traumatising bystanders on public infrastructure, then we should allow people to access the means of committing suicide more cleanly in a private environment. As long as people have access to this, then it doesn't matter (apart from for aesthetic considerations) if the bridge has safety nets on it, because nobody would have their right to self determination denied them, or be compelled to continue enduring intolerable suffering.

It really sounds like you believe that mental illness is general is not a real thing, in which case I will believe the combined consensus of the global medical and scientific community over a reddit nihilist.

That consensus isn't as strong as you think it is, even within psychiatry: https://archive.ph/bhDfM. It has not gone unobserved that the diagnostic process in psychiatry does not operate in accordance to the scientific method, and psychiatric diagnoses have been found to have no scientific validity: https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2019/0...c-diagnosis-to-be-scientifically-meaningless/.

My take on this is, no, it wouldn't prevent people from (trying or even attempting) CTB, but rather just force them to look for other ways, perhaps even desperately and causing more collateral damage elsewhere. (Some examples include, but are not limited to: those who CTB by cop, CTB by train, and/or other brutal, public methods – which of course, I don't endorse nor condone). I believe EG did an excellent job pointing out the fallacies and ignorance of the pro-lifers and advocates of CTB prevention by exposing their flawed arguments, and of course, the pro-lifers really have no other good argument other than the tired old, atavistic arguments that are appeals to nature and religion. While there may be a few comments and responders who are a bit cynical and less pro-life in their responses, overall, the thread reeks of just infuriating responses defending the completion of a CTB prevention net.

 

[FuneralCry]

I find it so hellish and cruel how many humans do all they can to try and make existence into a prison where one cannot reliably escape on their own terms. It disgusts me how many believe that the suffering of others should be prolonged no matter what even know none of us consented to this existence in the first place, it was imposed on us.

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

Someone could be under imminent threat of extreme torture. These nets then take away their escape . A dog which has 92% same genes is allowed an escape from pain but a human has to suffer and then die anyway a torturous death. We all die anyway .

These controlling creeps taking away people's escape are evil .

They want to keep the prisoners / slaves in the prison

This gets me so angry

 

[piryohae3]

"It's stainless-steel wire rope netting, so it's like jumping into a cheese grater," Dennis Mulligan, the general manager of the bridge district, told the Associated Press. "It's not soft. It's not rubber. It doesn't stretch. We want folks to know that if you come here, it will hurt if you jump."

What a sadistic thing to say. The cruelty of humanity knows no bounds.

 

[TAW122]

I find it so hellish and cruel how many humans do all they can to try and make existence into a prison where one cannot reliably escape on their own terms. It disgusts me how many believe that the suffering of others should be prolonged no matter what even know none of us consented to this existence in the first place, it was imposed on us.

Yes, after reading the article it just made me angry and upset, but not surprised that pro-lifers would (undoubtedly) go to great lengths to impede our options of escaping this prison that is sentience itself.

Someone could be under imminent threat of extreme torture. These nets then take away their escape . A dog which has 92% same genes is allowed an escape from pain but a human has to suffer and then die anyway a torturous death. We all die anyway .

These controlling creeps taking away people's escape are evil .

They want to keep the prisoners / slaves in the prison

This gets me so angry

Yes indeed, and it's really messed up how animals are treated better than humans when it comes to the right to die and free from suffering.

What a sadistic thing to say. The cruelty of humanity knows no bounds.

Yeah, that pro-lifer is sadistic and should be ashamed of their comment. It is downright insulting to insinuate that people who wanted to escape and end their suffering be subjected to more suffering. I'm certain that these pro-lifers pat themselves on their backs when they prevented someone from escaping suffering and how they saved someone's life, but in fact, only make said person endure more suffering while doing jackshit to improve the conditions that cause the suffering.

 

[lament.]

I hate the fact that people believe those with mental illness aren't capable of making their own choices.

"If even one person who is mentally ill kills themselves there that is a permanent and unacceptable loss of life."

Just say you don't see mentally ill people as human and move on.

 

[HouseofMortok]

"Heather Quisenberry, who lost her son to suicide at the bridge, described the completion as bittersweet. "On the one hand, I'm grateful that the net that we fought for, for so long will be complete and that it will stop future suicides from happening on that bridge," she said. "But on the other hand, if some suicide deterrent had been installed sooner, my son and others may have not had to die."

How do they not see the fallacy on that logic?.. Another place would be the focus of attention as a suicide hotspot.

It's also a horizontal fence, so you'd just crawl from that jump to jump again. My partner pointed out, you may change your mind though when hitting the net. Possibly (especially if someone cruelly said it's going to hurt when you land on it, the added pain though may fuel you more to crawl to the edge).

What i find wierd in my thoughts, "its already working" whilst probably hiding the news of a suicide elsewhere resulting from not using the bridge.

 

[TAW122]

I hate the fact that people believe those with mental illness aren't capable of making their own choices.

"If even one person who is mentally ill kills themselves there that is a permanent and unacceptable loss of life."

Just say you don't see mentally ill people as human and move on.

Yeah it's just infuriating how many pro-lifers won't accept even one casualty and would rather just deny all access to the right to die because it can be abused. A lot of liberties and freedoms can be abused, but we rarely hear about people banning certain items or means because some bad actors abuse them.

"Heather Quisenberry, who lost her son to suicide at the bridge, described the completion as bittersweet. "On the one hand, I'm grateful that the net that we fought for, for so long will be complete and that it will stop future suicides from happening on that bridge," she said. "But on the other hand, if some suicide deterrent had been installed sooner, my son and others may have not had to die."

How do they not see the fallacy on that logic?.. Another place would be the focus of attention as a suicide hotspot.

It's also a horizontal fence, so you'd just crawl from that jump to jump again. My partner pointed out, you may change your mind though when hitting the net. Possibly (especially if someone cruelly said it's going to hurt when you land on it, the added pain though may fuel you more to crawl to the edge).

What i find wierd in my thoughts, "its already working" whilst probably hiding the news of a suicide elsewhere resulting from not using the bridge.

True, it's like these pro-lifers assume that sweeping things under the rug and handwaving them away will just magically solve it! (Which in the case of CTB, won't. It will just exist underground and people will still attempt (the very desperate ones) and possibly cause inconveniences that the very pro-lifers despise about). In the case of the mother who lost her son to CTB, yes it may be possible that her son may have chosen another (perhaps equally brutal and barbaric) method to end his own life, or possibly causing collateral damage while doing so. So all the prohibition does is really just shift people from going from one method to another, sometimes more/equally barbaric, sometimes less traumatic. It doesn't solve the core problem of "why people CTB" or examine that perhaps "life isn't a gift and life isn't always great".

 

[Slow_Farewell]

It's because cleaning up after people is something that's time consuming and a pain in the behind.
I mean, it's the GGB. A public place with a lot of traffic.
Am I annoyed at what they did? Yes.
Am I surprised? No.
Do I understand why they did it? Yes.

 

[todienomore]

Yea imagine having to go fish a smashed body out of the water thirty times a year, might get old.

Very narcissistic method choice in my opinion.

 

[TAW122]

It's because cleaning up after people is something that's time consuming and a pain in the behind.
I mean, it's the GGB. A public place with a lot of traffic.
Am I annoyed at what they did? Yes.
Am I surprised? No.
Do I understand why they did it? Yes.

Yea imagine having to go fish a smashed body out of the water thirty times a year, might get old.

Very narcissistic method choice in my opinion.

I would claim that people who go to such methods to begin with is the consequence of a prohibitive society that not only stigmatizes the talk of CTB (or any good faith and meaningful dialogue), limit/outright ban peaceful means to CTB (without traumatizing the public and/or minimize the trauma to those who discover it), and even interfere with people who are just desperate to end their own suffering. While I don't ever endorse nor agree with people doing so in a barbaric and traumatizing manner to unwilling participants (and would prefer them to find a less traumatizing, impactful way to CTB if possible), sadly, this is just the result of not allowing people who are suffering the escape that they desperately seek. It's akin to the war on drugs, the alcohol prohibition of the early 20th century, and even abortion rights (especially in places where the right to an abortion has been rolled back or either still prohibited).

 

[Spike Spiegel]

Its ironic adjusted for inflation the nets costs more then the total price of the bridge. Can't help but think of a million other uses for that money.

 

[Gonnerr]

You can always dress as a construction worker , just wear a safety vest and hard hat , bring a telescopic ladder, very easy to carry. And reach the net safely and jump anyway.

 

[TAW122]

Its ironic adjusted for inflation the nets costs more then the total price of the bridge. Can't help but think of a million other uses for that money.

Agreed, and it's sad that it is an absolute waste of money that could have been used to actually help make others' quality of life a bit better. Eye Doubt's video linked here actually shows him talking about how it is such a waste of money to put up barriers to prevent CTB. Instead of it actually preventing CTB, it is only trapping those who are desperate to die, and instead of people going to the GGB, they will just find another place or even another method (perhaps even more traumatizing in an effort to exit suffering).

You can always dress as a construction worker , just wear a safety vest and hard hat , bring a telescopic ladder, very easy to carry. And reach the net safely and jump anyway.

That could be plausible, but there might be people who may be on the look out for suspicious behaviors. Additionally, it depends on where one jumps and how far out, assuming the net doesn't extend far enough to catch the jumper, it is possible for a jumper to still fall into the net, injuring themselves in the process. Overall, I would think it would be easier just to find another location.