Discussion What would happen if a vigilante targeted actual CTB preventionist leaders?

[TAW122]

Disclaimer: I do NOT encourage nor endorse violent or illegal acts, and this thread is for educational and discussion purposes only.

With that out of the way, most of us who followed the news know about the CEO Shooter who targeted the CEO of one of the biggest insurance companies in the US/world. As a result, even though he was captured and is pending a trial as well as the social reception from many people around the US. The reactions from the public vary, but a significant amount of people (especially the ones who were victimized by health insurance companies either though lack of coverage, poor coverage, or similar ills), ended up lauding and praising the said individual for committing such a serious crime. So this thread asks the question, "What would happen if someone similar to that of a CEO Shooter or hitman, or assassin went and attacked a CTB preventionist leader or one of the organizations, or some pro-lifer, anti-choice organization?" Assuming that the current general view of CTB prevention is still a net positive, it may alter the reaction or outcome.

Now, on the contrary, if suppose the culture around CTB changes, people value bodily autonomy over blanket labels and diagnoses as the latter seeks to infringe on personal liberties and such, how would the outcome change? What this means is when CTB prevention has gone too far and even the average everyday people are getting negatively impacted by such actions, in other words, more than just inconveniencing their day to day life and personal freedoms. How would the public perception be if there was someone who took it upon themselves to take drastic action? Would the said individual end up with sympathy from the public similar to that of the CEO shooter, or would there be other reactions? Additionally, how would the CTB preventionists react, would they perhaps scale back their paternalism and impingement of bodily autonomy due to the extreme backlash?

Finally, as I reiterate once more, this is just a discussion thread for educational and hypothetical purposes and I do NOT endorse nor encourage any acts of violence, illegal actions, or anything that may be against the policies of this platform or community. I just wanted to get others' thoughts on what would happen if someone targeted actual people in charge of CTB prevention policies and programs, and what the fallout or aftermath would be.

 

[soapgoat]

I'm not too sure who the anti ctb leaders are. Advocating for anti suicide is pretty universal so there really isn't anyone behind that. Like 90% of doctors are against assisted dying. If someone were to kill a leader then nothing would change and they'd probably be viewed As a terrorist. If the culture did change (basically impossible) I doubt there would be much approval anyway. Suicidality isn't a major issue in society. Many people got screwed by insurance companies but not many people have been prevented from suicide or at least the ratio is very different.

 

[NotCreativeName]

It would make worst for thoses that suporte CTB or even almost Impossible to get things necessary. One thing is hitting a Guy that trives in deaths in a sector that is supposed to save lifes. People knows that this is only greed. Now killing someone that most people agree on is Just labeling you and others as the worst that should Be stopped

 

[ThisIsMe1357]

Any kind of similar violent act would only make the group to which the attacker belonged universally hated. So, on top of all the hate targeted at the group of people here already even more of it would be added to that.

The situation with that CEO is an exception to the rule of violence, and that is only because of how universally disliked the health insurance industry in America is. In almost all cases, any kind of violence would only make the group whose member committed said violence look bad. And it would be even worse if that group already looks bad enough in the eyes of the majority of the public.

 

[ijustwishtodie]

Who even are the leaders for suicide prevention? I don't think that there are any leaders like that tbh. It just seems more so like a universal thing that people have agreed to hate on. I think that the only ways to change people's view of ctb is to either go at war with them or to throw aside all of the bullshit indoctrination that we put in place and instead teach kids (that have no preconceived idiotic notions about life such as religion) about suicide. Aside from that, I don't really see any other way to change people's minds. These people are too deluded by their beliefs to be swayed away by rational arguments

 

[TAW122]

Interesting discussion and replies on this thread, and I still reiterate and restate that I do NOT condone nor endorse violence, illegal acts, or anything that is not a part of the pro-choice values, but this thread is just for discussion purposes only. With that said, I do agree with the general consensus, since the prevailing and current attitude of CTB is that it is an outcome that should and is to be avoided according to the mainstream masses and normies. I also believe that people are right that if someone out there in the world decides to do what the CEO shooter did, but to a CTB preventionist leader (in some CTB prevention group), then it would unfortunately paint us all in a negative light. I do believe the case of the CEO shooter is different in the regard that like @ThisIsMe1357 stated, most people universally hate the health insurance industry and thus when a vigilante or assassin went and targeted said CEO (the face of the company) of one of the largest health insurance companies, quite a few masses rejoiced.

Regarding what @ijustwishtodie response, I do agree that there is not likely a central figure, albeit there are groups of CTB preventionists usually small and lead by a small leader or such, but even in that regard, not much would change. The only way for change is to reeducate and get rid of the 'bullshit indoctrination' that is passed down from generation to generation about life is precious, and religious values about life. I agree that most people are too deluded by their beliefs to by swayed by rational arguments.

Anyways, I just made the thread for educational and discussion purposes, to explore the topic and such, I don't encourage anything that is illegal, immoral, nor against pro-choice values.

 

[Life'sA6itch]

Nothing would happen short of making suicidal people out as more of a problem than we've ever been or ever could be

 

[8leveloquenfrn4evr8]

I think if you look at the top of the food chain you will find that they are somewhat ambiguous about plebs killing themselves. Not many are hardcore preventionists but if one such figure was killed anytime in the near future I think it would backfire, as others have said. The timing would be all wrong.

 

[Forever Sleep]

They'd go to jail. Plus, I imagine most people would disagree with what they did. As others have said, I'm not entirely sure who these preventionalists are and, how strongly they campaign/ act to keep people alive. Do they do it as a full time job? Or, is it simply an opinion they hold and way they vote to try to prevent suicide? I'm not so sure there would be much general support over killing someone because of their personal belief.

I'm not all that convinced there's some major conspiracy where a group of highly powerful people are doing all they can to ensure suicidal people don't kill themselves. Maybe it's part of their agenda but, the strongest voices in all this surely come from the general poplace- eg. parents who have lost children to suicide. Parents/ family members who are worried for their loved ones. Surely, it's mainly them who are campaigning for more to be done to prevent suicide. I doubt we want them to be killed. We probably don't appreciate them campaigning against our own right to choose but I imagine most people have enough empathy to understand they must be grieving/ worried.

Maybe it's my mistake but, I simply don't think allowing easily accessible suicide to all is something even the majority of the general population wants. So- it's not exactly something that is being witheld from us by a few powerful CEO's. It's more, a general population that is pro-life supported by governments who try to please voters. Do you imagine parents would be happy if their local MP started to campaign for assisted suicide to be available for their children? I imagine an MP that held those views would much more likely be targetted.

 

[Pluto]

 

[SVEN]

I'd start posting veritable diatribes against ctb & SanSu in the hope of attracting their attention.

 

[bananaolympus]

But who are the anti ctb leaders? politicians? physicians? religious leaders?

 

[TAW122]

Actually, I found an example (linked here) (not exactly as this thread states) which is where a mental health patient attacks an NP (nurse practitioner), and the end result is obviously the patient being arrested and charged, then sentenced. The irony is that when it comes to choice and bodily autonomy, pro-lifers and anti-choicers will do just about anything, everything to discredit and take away that choice, no matter how well reasoned, articulated someone is. Yet on the flipside, for things like that one example I provided, there are mixed reactions. Some claim that said patient is 'mentally ill' and irrational, deserved 'help' instead of punishment, yet there are also a lot of people who claimed that the person is not lacking capacity but is just 'evil' and must be punished.

Basically the gist of this is when it comes to pro-choice, many anti-choicers and pro-lifers will do everything and anything to discredit that, even if it is in bad faith, dishonest, and disingenuous means. However, when it comes to other horrific acts, even if pre-meditated, the same people (anti-choicers and pro-lifers) will do anything to paint said person as evil and discredit their original claims of insanity or even irrationality. Of course, this doesn't mean that all cases are the same, but I'd thought I point out that example to highlight the irony and inconsistency of people in general.