SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The controversial show about teen suicide millions of your friends on Twitter are talking about is getting increased content warnings.
The move is the latest in the conversation about the Netflix original program "13 Reasons Why", coming as a response to the backlash and concern about the show's suitability for young viewers.
The streamer released a statement Monday promising to "add an additional viewer warning card before the first episode." It has also "strengthened the messaging and resource language in the existing cards for episodes that contain graphic subject matter, including the URL 13ReasonsWhy.info."
Mental health organisations in Australia reported increased calls and emails since the program's launch in March. In April, New Zealand's classification body ruled that Netflix would have to display a clear warning for the entire series as well as individual episodes, branding it with the region's first ever RP18 rating. The new classification -- created for the program -- recommends people under the age of 18 watch the program only under the supervision of a parent or guardian.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03 2017, @01:18PM (38 children)
I would have thought a simple warning like "Warning! This is fictional entertainment, not an instructional video" would have sufficed.
Nope.
Suicide is contagious. [nytimes.com]
Its reasonable to assume that people who are already susceptible will 'catch' suicide from this show, particularly from a binge-watch.
Obviously its not many kids that are at risk. And the kind of kid whose parents would sit down and watch it with them is probably already immune to it.
Its also not clear if it might have a deterrent effect because suicide is inherently a selfish act and watching the impact on the people left behind might actually discourage someone from killing themselves (the show is about one kid investigating the suicide of a classmate to find out why they did it, hence the name of the show).
One thing this is true though, this show is very highly rated. Its currently an 8.8 with 65,000 votes on Netflix and last week, before the hype, it was 9.1. Those are crazy high numbers, comparable to netflix's best marvel superhero tv shows.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03 2017, @01:39PM (19 children)
No, suicide prevention is a selfish act. What right do you have to demand that somebody else serve you against their will?
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday May 03 2017, @02:12PM (16 children)
You're right, it's totally tyrannical to take a side against suicide!
AC idiocy strikes again.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday May 03 2017, @03:04PM (15 children)
It's a similar argument to Pro-Choice: What right do you have to control what somebody else does with their body? In this case it's just destroying yourself instead of (or possibly in addition to) the fetus.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday May 03 2017, @09:44PM (7 children)
This is making the misguided assumption that someone who is suicidal is a free agent of right mind. They're not, and it's silly to pretend that it's tyrannical to admit it.
I'm actually in favour of right-to-die, but most suicides are tragic and worth preventing.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday May 04 2017, @02:37PM (6 children)
Maybe in general, but that's a pretty bold blanket statement to make. And of course there are those who would argue that choosing to abort isn't "in their right mind," either.
What do you do if you have a long conversation with them and fail to change their mind? I'm all for discussing it with them, but what about after that if it doesn't work.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday May 04 2017, @03:49PM (5 children)
But that's not what we're talking about. [soylentnews.org]
Perhaps some people really can make the decision they'd rather die. That doesn't matter. People tipped over the edge by seeing suicide in fiction are most certainly not in that position.
And of course there are those who would argue that choosing to abort isn't "in their right mind," either.
And some people think taking the morning-after pill is the moral equivalent of murder, but they're simply wrong.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday May 04 2017, @04:06PM (4 children)
Well I'm glad we have you around to tell us what we are and aren't talking about and be the arbiter of right and wrong, then.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday May 05 2017, @08:08AM (3 children)
That's just silly.
Some things really are just wrong. Suppose there's a tribe that ritualistically blinds every third born child, because of their superstitious beliefs. If you're going to tell me that their moral opinion on the matter is no less valid than mine, then you're out of your mind.
I see little reason to be any less dismissive of absurd claims like moral equivalence between a small bundle of cells and a fully (or, heck, even partially) developed human.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @02:39PM (2 children)
we need a -1 arrogant mod
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday May 05 2017, @08:36PM (1 child)
No counterpoint? Try name-calling!
I take it you have no response to the thought-experiment, then?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @08:49PM
picking and choosing of examples here is arbitrary. surely you'd agree that vanilla vs. chocolate ice cream is a right vs. wrong choice, and anyone who picks chocolate must surely die?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @04:55AM (6 children)
What right do you have to control what somebody else does with their body?
How, exactly, did we get from extra warnings at the start of a show to "controlling" somebody else's body?
You right-wingers make the weirdest equivalencies.
In the USA, everybody is free to kill themselves. They aren't always free to have someone else help them.
But that's not same thing as "controlling" their body.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday May 04 2017, @02:34PM (5 children)
I'm not sure I exactly agree with the argument (and if I did that would make me the opposite of a right-winger...), but that's the wording a lot of people use when they talk about abortion. "You not allowing me to do anything I want with it is controlling my body!"
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday May 05 2017, @08:12AM (4 children)
but that's the wording a lot of people use when they talk about abortion. "You not allowing me to do anything I want with it is controlling my body!"
I agree that's always a silly line to use, but you've not explained why.
It seems to me that when pro-choice people use that line, they're just betraying their failure to understand their opponent's stance. Pro-lifers (mistakenly) believe that a bundle of cells in a uterus has a moral right to life in the same way a fully-grown human does. Given that belief (and ignoring for now the 'Defence of Abortion' [wikipedia.org] argument that applies even if we grant that belief), it's not unreasonable to want to ban abortion.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday May 05 2017, @03:05PM (3 children)
It seems to me that when pro-choice people use that line, they're just betraying their failure to understand their opponent's stance.
Oh, absolutely.
Pro-lifers (mistakenly) believe that a bundle of cells in a uterus has a moral right to life in the same way a fully-grown human does.
Well let me put the question to you this way: At what point between the bundle of cells and "fully-grown" (itself a rather fuzzy term) are we talking about a human life?
I'm not asking you to agree with me, but I'm incredulous you completely deny that there's a debate on this and believe you're objectively correct.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday May 05 2017, @03:19PM (2 children)
I'm pretty sure I'm correct that the morning-after pill isn't murder, yes. About as sure as I am of anything.
Exactly where you draw the line is a legitimate question, and that's really what the whole debate boils down to, but some answers to this question are clearly absurd.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday May 05 2017, @03:47PM (1 child)
It's complicated by apparently the MAP and "the abortion pill" being two separate things. https://www.verywell.com/the-morning-after-pill-vs-the-abortion-pill-906574 [verywell.com]
I would hope that even people who argue that life starts at conception wouldn't oppose the use of contraceptives that prevent fertilization or kill sperm or unfertilized eggs. But we all know how the Catholic Church feels about contraception whatsoever, so hey :P
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday May 05 2017, @08:33PM
Different pills are just details really, what's morally salient is stage-of-development.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday May 03 2017, @03:16PM (1 child)
I'm not sure if this was meant to be funny or not. The fact that some mod has already marked it "insightful" is disturbing, though.
No, suicide prevention is a selfish act. What right do you have to demand that somebody else serve you against their will?
On the off-chance this was actually serious... (and more importantly to whoever modded this "insightful"):
Well, perhaps for one obvious reason -- in the present case, we're talking about the suicide of MINORS. Parents and guardians restrict the actions of minors all the time. Why? Because minors don't yet have enough experience of the world to sometimes make reasonable decisions for themselves in all things. Just last night I was talking with an acquaintance of mine who is involved in counseling, and he was talking about how he had recently had to deal with parents of a 12-year-old girl who had committed suicide. Even this guy who has had experience with a lot of tough cases was distraught over this: as he said, what can a 12-year-old know of the world and potential suffering and life experience as a whole to justify such an action?
That's not to downplay the potential suffering of minors. (And note in the case above we're not talking about a girl who was dying and suffering from horrible pain in cancer or something.) But minors need guidance and perspective. I thought that'd be obvious.
And even if we're talking about adults, depression is often not just a "mental" thing. A lot of times there are chemical imbalances that drive or at least contribute to depression. And even adults frequently lose "perspective" when they become suicidal.
Note that I'm not against all suicide. Even absent significant pain and suffering (i.e., euthanasia), an adult should have the freedom to choose to take his/her own life. But the vast majority of people who do so often are not making rational choices, and many who attempt suicide regret they did so later. Helping someone make what is undoubtedly the MOST important decision of their life (because in making it, they end their life) by providing perspective or support or help is a very kind thing.
And I applaud those counselors who do it day-after-day. I'm not sure I'd have the strength to do that sort of job.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday May 05 2017, @08:14AM
A very comprehensive reply. I have but one up-mod to give.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday May 03 2017, @02:11PM (3 children)
... with 65,000 votes ... Those are crazy high numbers ...
TV is dying. I think I've had SN posts with higher mod counts. Well, slight exaggeration. Theres a lot of posts on reddit with more than those numbers (admittedly I mostly use reddit for pr0n, I understand the other subreddits don't get as much traffic due to being too leftie)
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday May 03 2017, @04:43PM (2 children)
TV is dying.
I've heard that for twenty years, and believed it at first, but every year there are new channels. When I was a kid, nobody had more than one TV, we had three channels. Now I get 18 over the air in a city of only 115,000. How many are TVs in your house now?
Yes, we're watching less TV, because we have computers (some without keyboards). But computers will no more kill TV than VCRs killed the movie theaters.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday May 03 2017, @06:50PM (1 child)
I donno man. Some of the numbers are pretty dismal. Check out the ratings. number of viewers that would get your show cancelled in the 80s would be considered good today.
Also don't forget that VCRs didn't kill the movie star, but the world is not swimming in 8-trak tapes, CB radios, lava lamps, shag carpet, avocado colored refrigerators, analog NTSC transmitters, cassette tapes, reel to reel tapes...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @05:03AM
Check out the ratings. number of viewers that would get your show cancelled in the 80s would be considered good today.
Ah, VLM and his alt-math.
During the 80s there were 3 major channels.
Divided the total audience by 3 and of course you will get much larger numbers.
Now, with on-demand. there are effectively infinite channels.
The number to look at is total industry revenue, not per-show audience size.
And by that metric, tv is doing fine, at well over $170B/yr.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03 2017, @02:49PM (10 children)
suicide is inherently a selfish act
Fuck off with your victim blaming bullshit.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Wednesday May 03 2017, @04:08PM (9 children)
Why? The "victims" will never hear it to have their feelings hurt, and for that matter neither will the perpetrators - both being destroyed in a single selfish act that is likely to deeply hurt anyone who cared about them, while not benefiting anyone except themselves (and maybe not even them, depending on how the reality of being dead aligns with their expectations - a topic for which we have much conjecture but pretty much zero scientific evidence to support any position).
Not that I think we should try to coercively prevent it - I believe deeply that our life is our own and nobody else has a right to demand that it continue, and their are in fact situations where it may be the reasonable choice. But suicide prevention services mostly exist for the benefit of people trying to talk *themselves* out of making a rash and irreversible decision.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday May 04 2017, @03:52PM (8 children)
a topic for which we have much conjecture but pretty much zero scientific evidence to support any position
Nonsense. There is no 'afterlife'. Consciousness depends on brain activity. No suggestion otherwise deserves to be taken seriously.
In addition to that, we know that people who nearly commit suicide, generally live on to be glad they didn't. That's more relevant to our moral calculus here.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday May 04 2017, @09:22PM (7 children)
Certainly that's where the currently dominant scientific conjecture lies, and it is far more firmly grounded than most - but at this point conjecture is still all it is. We still have no explanation for how consciousness arises in the first place, we don't even have any meaningful hypothesis, much less tested them. At best we know how to interrupt it, but not how it originates or operates. If, for a wildly speculative example, the brain acts as an "antenna" that responds to a "soul" that resides... elsewhere, that would still be completely consistent with current observations.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday May 05 2017, @08:05AM (6 children)
If, for a wildly speculative example, the brain acts as an "antenna" that responds to a "soul" that resides... elsewhere, that would still be completely consistent with current observations.
That's what philosphers call 'dualism'. I don't buy it though. As far as we can tell, consciousness arises from the physical activity of the brain. That's really all we need to dismiss fantasies of an afterlife.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday May 05 2017, @05:36PM (5 children)
If you want to take such seemingly reasonable conjectures as truth based on faith alone, that's your business. But it's not science.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday May 05 2017, @08:30PM (4 children)
Oh come on. We can plot the disruption and suspension of consciousness with neuro-correlate studies. We know that anaesthetics can cause temporary suspension of consciousness, and we know it shuts down parts of the brain. If you seriously want to deny that consciousness arises from brain activity, the onus is on you to make the case.
Occam's Razor. Russel's Teapot. Nothing I'm suggesting here is offensive to scientific rigour.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday May 06 2017, @01:34PM (3 children)
When we have a well-tested theory that can explain the process that creates consciousness, it will become science. Until then it's only a well-grounded conjecture. History is full of such conjectures being soundly disproven once put to the test.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Monday May 08 2017, @07:55AM (2 children)
No. The details of how aren't relevant here. It is beyond doubt that our consciousness arises from the physical activities of our brains.
Shielding religions from the truth, and entertaining happy fantasies about afterlives, are not good enough reasons to pretend this isn't the case.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday May 09 2017, @12:56AM (1 child)
Really? Wonderful. Please show me your evidence, I would be fascinated.
Perhaps you can find it among the evidence of how the world is a deterministic system built from particles?
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Tuesday May 09 2017, @09:33AM
We know that brain trauma can affect consciousness. We know that drugs can affect consciousness. We know that anaesthetics can suspend consciousness. We know that states of consciousness correspond to states of the brain. We know that parts of the brain are responsible for certain feelings/emotions/sensations. Why on Earth are you taking seriously the idea that consciousness can survive brain-death?
We can draw an analogy with digital circuits. A well-functioning CPU gives rise to data-processing, the way a well-functioning human brain gives rise to consciousness. Undervolt the CPU and you'll start to see peculiarities in the data-processing until eventually it stops altogether. We can do the same thing to consciousness using NASA's centrifuge.
Anyone who suggests that well maybe the chip isn't working, but the data is still being processed elsewhere, and the chip is just a receiver is clearly talking nonsense. The idea of the afterlife is precisely this absurd.
Perhaps you can find it among the evidence of how the world is a deterministic system built from particles?
What are you trying to say here?
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday May 03 2017, @03:39PM (1 child)
> And the kind of kid whose parents would sit down and watch it with them is probably already immune to it.
The comment implies that suicide is correlated strongly with how much time parents spend with their kids. Citation?
The point is that this implies "blame the parents", which I think should be justified.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday May 03 2017, @04:21PM
I seem to recall that individuals with a strong emotional support network are far less likely to commit suicide, and it seems likely that a child whose parents are willing to sit through a show about the depths of teenage angst with them (I'm guessing that's the theme, just from the topic) probably has such a support network.
Making the jump to blaming the parents in the case of suicide requires a great deal of additional assumptions. To list just a few: that the child has no agency themselves, that outside forces played no part in the decision, and that providing such support is an important responsibility of the parents (in which case I think most American parents are guilty, and just lucky that their children weren't exposed to the unlikely "perfect storm" of other influences.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @06:16AM
Almost everything life is a selfish act. Everything you do is for your own comfort. Working hard to give your kids a better life, donating to the poor, working to have a nice car, watching TV, trash talking other people, doing homework, etc... It's all done with an end goal of feeling better. Same with suicides. They're living in hell and death is their best way out. For the people calling it a coward's act, go try to kill yourself. It's so simple a coward can do it, but you probably can't even slice your arms open while standing in the ER knowing you'll live. So what then? You're weaker than a coward. Go die and transform back into dirt, at least dirt is useful.
Do you want to know why suicide is contagious? Around every suicide there's people calling the person a coward, selfish, and a bad person for putting everyone around them in pain (despite those people letting that suicidal person live in tons of nothingness. Nothingness is worse than pain, pain gets your body pumping, hopelessness doesn't. Why should the dead guy have been living for those others when they weren't living for him?). So the depressed person feels worse for wanting to escape their hell and they shrink in on themselves even more knowing that if they ask anyone for help they'll imminently be shunned and looked down upon and be told they're hurting the ones around them just for saying they've been depressed. It's a downward spiral where the only out is death. Better be dead, then at least you can't hurt them with your depression. The faster you die, the faster they can get over it and on with their fake happy lives.
Go climb onto a crane and dangle off it 1500 feet above a pool by holding on with one hand. Have all your friends standing in a circle around you laughing in happiness with each other (somehow you can hear and see them, perhaps you're wearing Google Glass). Now set your hand on fire. As soon as you want to put it out or show any sign of pain, have them all start bullying you by calling you an idiot, a coward, selfish, lazy, a disgrace, be told trying to save your hand would case them some pain you ungrateful bastard. They used to see you at family reunions so you better keep burning because you owe it to them for the time they wasted on you.
That's what it's like to be near suicide while around other people or the media. How long can you keep your hand on fire? Letting go to fall into the pool to end the torment from burning alive means you die when you hit the pool. In such a situation, almost every will let go and die hitting the pool rather than letting hand burn itself out. That's what suicide is, blissful relief (a quick splat) from seemingly unending torment and worse, you're not even 100% sure why you're in torment.
Why don't more people kill themselves? When you're deeply depressed you don't have the energy to make a workable plan and carry it out. That feels like way too much effort. That's like the pain from your burning hand is so totally encompassing that you've forgotten how to relax your grip.