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, 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?