700
US suicides hit an all-time high last year
(english.elpais.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
700 points (97.4% liked)
World News
38563 readers
2529 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I will probably get shit for this, since it's a predominantly left leaning space, but until society starts acknowledging men's issues it will keep getting worse.
https://afsp.org/suicide-statistics
This article is an excellent example of what I am talking about. It does not even mention the disparity of suicide rates between the sexes despite it obviously being a huge outlier. Instead, they talk about how guns are the problem, even though a gun is just a method.
Taking away the easy methods to commit suicide might reduce the rate, but it does nothing to address to core issues that make people want to kill themselves in the first place. Instead of 5000 dead people you will have 5000 people who wish they were dead. Mission accomplished.
???
What left leaning circles have you been in? I think we all know men have issues too?
In my left leaning circles it's pretty well understood that feminism is about helping women. And that's a good thing. Trying to make feminism an ideology which serves all genders is problematic because it implies an omniscient perspective counter to proper intersectionality. Men experience oppression but only men can represent their oppression in discourse.
Women can't and shouldn't feel like they can have an opinion on men's issues. "Stay in your lane" comes to mind.
How far do you take this perspective? As a lefty that doesn't sound like a very leftist take, rather it sort of completely eschews the principles of solidarity and reason-based argumentation...
I do agree that feminism is about helping women (and that's great!), but should mothers not advocate for better mental health resources for their sons? Should I not advocate for better access to birth control for the women in my life because I'm male or for Ukrainian liberty because I'm not Ukrainian? Denying someone access to public discourse about a topic because they're not suffering the consequences of the topic seems a bit silly to me. And of course, men do actually suffer under patriarchy, albeit in a different way than women obviously.
I am taking some rhetorical leeway towards a more radical presentation of the perspective, for clarity.
Solidarity can only be achieved once people can recognize one another as equals, and "women tell men how men should advocate for themselves" is not equal recognition. Of course women don't think they're womansplaining the oppression men experience.
I don't believe in reason-based argumentation. Reason is how consent is manufactured. I trust reason only within the confines of the emotional message a so-called rational actor is emitting within the performance of the ritual of discourse. Too many women have been told to shut up for being 'unreasonable' for me to take reasonability all that seriously.
Certainly mothers should perform their motherhood within this lens. Their motherhood is centered, not the primacy of their opinion. The mistake the essentialization&monopolization type feminists make is centering feminism, when an ideology is not a cure for anything except the nagging sensation that if we come up with and communicate the right ideas the problems will go away.
Regardless of your gender, you are coming across as quite unreasonable.
I’m not even sure the point you’re trying to make.
Then read it again. And don't police tone.
Oh yeah no clue why you’re coming off as unreasonable.
I have explicitly told you I don't care if I come off as unreasonable, so what's your problem?
Please, I’m asking nicely, watch your tone. Your italics are upsetting me.
At least they could have the social courtesy to hop on the digital bandwagon and use autotone.
Take responsibility for yourself.
To be clear here, when I say "reason" I mean the fundamental capability humans have to use logic, rationality, and data to make decisions and inform their behaviors. If this is the understanding you had when you wrote your comment I suppose we just disagree fundamentally, and that'd be an exceptional take on the matter.
We can be both emotionally and logically intelligent creatures, the two aren't mutually exclusive and reducing people to their base emotional responses takes away from their agency. In my experience people are typically much more reason-based in their decision-making, even people who are victims of the term "unreasonable woman". We don't go around doing things just because.
I don't think I shall commit to the insane proposition that humans use logic, rationality, and data to make decisions and inform their behaviors when climate change is currently killing the planet's ecosystems off. To some extent I think you've got a high bar to clear for that proposition to be accepted!
Jokes or half-jokes aside, it's not a new observation that people rationalize their politics after having decided what it is they feel. I've seen too much consensus reality with completely reasonable paragraph after paragraph to take reason all that seriously.
But I do believe that people are 'reasonable' in the way that you say: we don't go around doing things just because (and to the extent that we do, it's a good thing!). It's when a group of people gather around a list of reasons that become an ideology that I start to get twitchy.
Feminism is a great movement but men who apply it as an ideology have missed something fundamental about the basis for reason in the expression of emotion.