(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

Let's break this down logically - part 1
(Anonymous)
2009-05-19 03:47 pm UTC (link)

Let us begin by assuming, for the sake of argument, that your account is true as it stands. That there really was a man with the history you described, who was socially withdrawn and mentally disturbed, who had a pattern of interaction with wank comms on Journalfen, and who later killed himself, and that you were his friend.

Our culture has very rigid prohibitions against disparaging or speaking ill of the dead, so I'll start by addressing your actions and motives only. What on earth did you hope to accomplish by coming here and making wild accusations? It certainly was not to address the issue of your friend's memory and our past with him; you won't even identify him. Your reasoning for this is that if we knew what individual you were referring to, we would only make fun of him more; but your refusal to give any kind of supporting evidence to your story means that we have absolutely no reason to take you, or him, seriously.

If it truly was interaction with us that drove him to suicide, then why on earth would you come back here to continue that pattern? It certainly wasn't to make us aware of the tragedy of someone taking his own life; you had to know that we would never believe you without proof. You had to know that we would react with suspicion to your vagueness, and hostility to your very blatant and vicious attacks.

I am therefore left to assume, supported by some of your above comments, that you never meant for us to believe you, and that you fully intended to provoke exactly the reaction; that everything you have said and done in this thread is an attempt to make us look callous and coldhearted, to show us up as man-eating harpies (by the way, the misogyny evident in your attacks is really not subtle). In other words, you are making your friend's suicide into a side show circus in order to further your own grudge, which I find unbelievably tasteless. How could you expect us to honor your friend's memory when even you don't?

The only other interpretation, also supported by some of your comments, implies that you are here to somehow carry out your friend's last wishes, by continuing his vendetta past the grave and executing some manner of vengeance for his death. I hope you realize that this is not the behavior of a sane man. No rational adult would reasonably blame the suicide of a depressed, unstable adult on his interaction with a group of strangers, with whom I doubt he spoke for more than a week, over the internet. The most charitable interpretation of these events is that your grief in the matter of your friend's death is making you act in an unreasonable manner, looking for something, anything outside of his own life to lay the blame on. If that is the case, then I quite seriously implore you to come to your senses, quit this forum and find a more private way to deal with your grief.

Let's break this down logically - part 2
(Anonymous)
2009-05-19 03:49 pm UTC (link)

Of course, all this does hinge on the hypothesis that your account is truthful. A very much simpler way to interpret your post, and your subsequent replies to it, is that the suicide story is total horseshit. Either you are inventing this person out of whole cloth -- unlikely, as there is too much personal bitterness and sense of self-righteous persecution embedded in it -- or the person in question is in fact yourself. Inventing morbid fantasies to the effect of "If I died tomorrow you would all come to my funeral and cry and you'd be SORRY you were MEAN to me!" are quite familiar by the age of four or so and really, this seems no different. Combined with the nasty flavor of "that mean girl wouldn't date me in high school!" which degenerates into tirades against women as a gender, the immaturity is strong in this one, and not in any way indicative of real tragedy.

As I mentioned above, our culture has a very strong taboo against speaking ill of the dead; by invoking that taboo you hope to put yourself on a moral high ground beyond retaliation, while you spread filthy accusations of your own. By your refusal to give any kind of identifying information, we are put in a position of trying to prove a negative; we cannot definitively say that this is NOT true; and to any outside observers, it sure looks bad, our reaction of unsympathetic skepticism to an unmitigated tragedy which was caused by our very coldness.

But if you're going to put out what amounts to an outright accusation of murder, then the fact is, you have got to offer some kind of proof that a murder took place. Put up the body, or be exposed for the filthy liar you are.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Let's break this down logically - part 2
(Anonymous)
2009-05-19 04:37 pm UTC (link)

You have your information now, and true to form, the mocking of the dead has already begun. As soon as he was identified his death was reduced to a South Park gag because his name was Ken. Just as I predicted.

I never should have come here. I thought I could make you pause and think about how you treat others if I told you what happened, but it's obvious that won't happen.

I won't bother you anymore.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Let's break this down logically - part 2 isntitironic 2009-05-19 04:45 pm UTC (link)
	Oooh! Oooh! This is just like that one episode where the evil disco ball alien tried to pit the Enterprise and the Klingons against each other! To get rid of it, all they had to do was laugh at it! (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Let's break this down logically - part 2 serai 2009-05-19 11:50 pm UTC (link)
	If there is such an episode, I MUST HAVE OMAGWTFBBQ!!!11!!! Got a title? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Let's break this down logically - part 2 isntitironic 2009-05-20 01:17 am UTC (link)
	Day of the Dove. There are swordfights. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Let's break this down logically - part 2 serai 2009-05-21 10:29 am UTC (link)
	Oh holy shit, I knew that. I CAN'T BELIEVE I FORGOT THAT EPISODE That's where Michael Ansara plays a super-sexy Klingon captain who has a hardon for Kirk but sublimates it because his wife is a nag and won't let him out of her site! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: Let's break this down logically - part 2 faultypremise 2009-05-19 05:07 pm UTC (link)
	There's only mocking because no one believes you. We've seen plenty of psueicides here before, this is nothing new and you're being disingenuous if you think you're at all being sincere enough to fool anyone. You've also said you were leaving, and have not done so yet. Which is further psychological evidence that your story is simply not plausible or believable. (Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Let's break this down logically - part 2
(Anonymous)
2009-05-19 05:09 pm UTC (link)

If you predicted it then why would you have mentioned it? Considering this site tries to stay away from any real life identifiers for the sake of at least preserving anonymity in some form, why would mentioning his name benefit the conversation.

Which is not a conversation, but a lecture directed at the viewers of this site about how immoral our actions are and what terrible people we must be.

Even if your story is legitimate, this is a no-win situation and some pretty blatant (and successful) trolling.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: Let's break this down logically - part 2 (Anonymous) 2009-05-19 05:13 pm UTC (link)
	I never should have come here. You really should not have. (Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Let's break this down logically - part 2

duraniedrama
2009-05-19 05:40 pm UTC (link)

We don't have our information now. We have a first name and a screenname, but we still don't have any clear evidence that the man is indeed dead by his own hand, or is just playing a game of "goodbye, cruel internets."

Fandom Wank generally assumes fake until proven real. The whole 'bus ad' incident with Moonlight was a classic example of that--it wasn't until multiple photographs and eyewitness accounts were posted that people conceded that, yes, such advertisements had in fact been printed on actual buses.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: Let's break this down logically - part 2 nevadafighter 2009-05-19 05:43 pm UTC (link)
	Boo fucking hoo hoo. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Let's break this down logically - part 2 (Anonymous) 2009-05-19 06:23 pm UTC (link)
	We get the idea. No need to repost the same comment on every thread. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Let's break this down logically - part 2 nevadafighter 2009-05-19 09:53 pm UTC (link)
	Hey, I'll have my fun any damn way I want. (Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Let's break this down logically - part 2

cyndra_falin
2009-05-19 11:41 pm UTC (link)

I thought I could make you pause and think about how you treat others if I told you what happened, but it's obvious that won't happen

Who do you think you are? You're no one special and you're not this special being of power that has come down from on high, to teach us lowly folks a lesson in anything. Nice try, though.

You have your information now

Uh, no. We don't. You've offered little to nothing in doing what you're trying to do.

I never should have come here.

This is the only thing we can all agree on.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Let's break this down logically - part 2

sisterelwood
2009-05-20 04:20 am UTC (link)

Shut up. You're using suicide to further your own agenda. You're using the pain and suffering of real suicide victims to try and guilt trip people. You're pathetic. And I'll just come out and say this as well-

If you are telling the truth then you're dishonoring the memory of your friend and the feelings of his family. You need help. Those left behind by suicide are not to blame for someone taking their own life. You're making a joke of the suffering that suicide causes even if you don't mean to. Get help and talk things out. You're not to blame for this but neither are we. Your friend made a choice.

This is all accepting what you're saying as truth and I very much doubt that any of it is. If you're lying then I pray you will never have to deal with the aftermath of suicide. It is not something I wish on anyone. However, that won't stop me from telling you to go get fucked sideways with a rusty chainsaw.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(reposted because i fail)

staroverthebay
2009-05-20 07:01 pm UTC (link)

Those left behind by suicide are not to blame for someone taking their own life.
THIS. Right here. SO MUCH this. It pisses me off when people try to blame everyone else for a suicide, when sometimes there isn't much that could have been done. A person who is so depressed that they're suicidal is not always receptive to therapy -- sometimes they refuse any help, and you can't force them if they won't accept the help.

go get fucked sideways with a rusty chainsaw
Dear god, what a mental image. That is much win right there.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

*attempts to parse the argument's logic*

innocentsmith
2009-05-19 07:24 pm UTC (link)

It's like:

"My friend was an alcoholic prone to driving drunk. I knew this, but didn't think it was a big deal. Then he went out one night, bounced off a few other cars and then crashed into a tree.

"Clearly, it was all the fault of the other drivers. From the way he was swerving all over the road, they should've been able to tell he was drunk and pulled over, one and all, to let him pass. Instead, they continued to drive, and in some cases honked their horns. As though they had lives of their own and places to go!

"And don't say, 'Maybe someone should have called the cops.' People had called the cops before about him. It was terribly traumatic for him, and just showed him that society doesn't allow anyone to be different, and make choices for themselves about whether they should get behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated.

"I feel incredibly guilty for not having stopped him from driving drunk; his death was my fault even though I wasn't actually there that day and couldn't physically have stopped him. But I think the real lesson is that you people - you people specifically, I can tell it was you because you all drive cars! - you killed him! His blood is on your hands!

"Now! Demonstrate how sorry you are by forswearing motor vehicles forever!

"...Why are you looking at me like that? Are you laughing at me? You HEARTLESS WENCHES."

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: attempts to parse the argument's logic duraniedrama 2009-05-19 07:36 pm UTC (link)
	I'm sure it was all our honking our horns at him that startled him into driving into a tree. IF WE HADN'T HONKED THIS WOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: attempts to parse the argument's logic (Anonymous) 2009-05-19 08:02 pm UTC (link)
	My analogy tended more towards a fable about how there was a high school guy who really liked a girl, but he was kinda unpleasant and creepy, and would not take no for an answer, culminating in his proposing marriage to her in the high school auditorium, but I think your story is a lot better. (Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: *attempts to parse the argument's logic*
(Anonymous)
2009-05-19 10:04 pm UTC (link)

i'm trying to read through all of this without commenting but i think your attempt to parse this analogy doesn't work. because i don't see how this guy is like a drunk driver smashing into us. say what you will about the wanked but they don't cause us any harm, except the occasional burns from eye and mind bleach.

i think a better analogy would be if lc was an alcoholic at a party and we were all encouraging him to drink and drink and drink because hes a funny drunk, but nobody gives a fuck that he's going to drive home drunk. and like he crashed and "died" on the way home and now his "friend" is blaming us for encouraging him to booze up for our own fun and not caring about what happened next. i don't know if i agree with that but that seems way closer to your analogy.

lc's "friend" who is almost certainly lc and not dead at all does have a point in that fw is really all about singling out the people we decide are wankers for mocking.

we seek them out they don't come to us. he or she or whatever is right that the we do set ourselves up as judge jury and executioner. sure the people we wank are having public conversations but theres usually a lot of context missing. like the epic rape=orgasms wank on lc started as a edited metaquote from the middle of a very long conversation. there are whole complex relationships between the people having the conversation and backgrounds and things we don't know about.

sometimes i feel like we abuse the idea of public posts and wish people would only wank things that are OPs or blog entries, not comments some people made in the middle of the night to people they have established relationships with in some familiar hangout. i especially don't like grudge wanking and i see a lot of that in the lc wanks, as well as a lot of misleading edits. it seems like a lot of the wank boils down to "he didn't say 'might' and 'in my opinion' enough for my tastes."

to me its like walking past a table in the food court at the mall and hearing some snippet of conversation and then mocking the person. they didn't put that comment out for everyone, they were talking to someone specific as part of a bigger conversation that might have roots in events from long ago.

i'm a bit put off by both sides of this. on the one hand he's a troll but its sad how many people are biting and letting their nasty side show. i lost a friend to suicide and the victim blaming going on here is not funny. even if you think its a troll i've seen a lot of comments about suicides in general that make me think this whole thing almost deserves to be wanked itself.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

On the distant chance that you're a different mousie and sincere about this....

innocentsmith
2009-05-19 11:13 pm UTC (link)

there are whole complex relationships between the people having the conversation and backgrounds and things we don't know about.

1. It's the internet, so of course we don't know everything about everyone. (For example, YOU don't know ME, and you have no way of knowing whether I myself have lost someone to suicide, been suicidal myself, or anything. Which, honestly? Is just fine with me, because it's none of your damn business unless I choose to reveal that information about myself.) We can only know what the words on the screen say, and on that we base our understanding of the situation. Actually,

2. It's human social interaction, so we don't know everything about everyone. You know a person based on what they say and what they do, and that holds true both in real life/meatspace and on the intertubes. If someone's acting like an asshat anonymously, they are still acting like an asshat, and if they get caught and called on that, they hold the same responsibility for their actions as if they were done in the light of day. It's just harder to track, which is why people sometimes act out more. But anonymity does not equal a sacred right to offend people without fear of response that don't please you. Which leads me to

3. Knowing what the relationships are, knowing who's holding a grudge against whom and why and about what...isn't that kind of what the Wiki's for? Isn't that why people like to go all internet-detective on wanks? They want to find out. You seem to be objecting to the way wanks are presented as being insufficiently neutral and misleading, as though nobody ever clicks through, reads for themselves, and disagrees. Yeah...no.

Wank communities aren't internet police, but to some extent they do function as a way of keeping informed about what's going on online, and also as a way of understanding how the discourse works.

Take a look at the comments section on any article on any news site, ever. You'll see just as much infighting and reading comprehension-fail and blatant nasty ad hominem b.s. as on any wank report. More, usually.

to me its like walking past a table in the food court at the mall and hearing some snippet of conversation and then mocking the person.

Yeah, well, if I were walking with a friend and overheard someone say, like, "And it was because of that horse I went to college!" I might well turn to my friend and go "LOL whut." I don't think that's a bad thing. I think that's part of being in the world. If what I overheard was some dude explaining how women evolved orgasms to be able to enjoy rape, however, I would definitely WANT to be with a friend, as instead of just walking very swiftly away it would give me someone to turn to and say "What the actual fuck, OMG!" We might have heard that conversation out of context, but it's still alarming and unpleasant to hear. And if the person who then said it got up, came over to us, and started explaining how we were wrong to judge him on the basis of what we'd heard, well, that would be (a) freaky and (b) sort of ridiculously out of the bounds of appropriate behavior.

Obviously this is a somewhat extreme case, but honestly, this: say what you will about the wanked but they don't cause us any harm? Not really true. Plagiarism, fraud, and harassment are the basis for a whole lot of the most notorious wanks, and those things are harmful both to the victims and to the community as a whole. A lot of the scary stuff is pushed to

unfunnybusiness these days, because it gets in the way of the funny mockitymock. (Much in the way this whole conversation is derailing the "LOL, pompous Trekkie is pompous.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

And 2. Sorry for all the unfunny, folks.

innocentsmith
2009-05-19 11:14 pm UTC (link)

Basically: if you if you want something to be private, keep it in the private arena. Use friendslock, take it to email, say it in person, or just keep it to yourself. FW's rules specifically forbid a lot of things other sites permit, like breaking flock or wanking the underage.

But if you say something in public, you've got to be ready to have someone disagree with you, and maybe even mock you. This is also the threat inherent in stepping out your front door every morning. Wankas are wanked all the damn time, and if they're halfway sane they don't take it to heart.

Bereaved!mousie appears to be combining the arguments for "The internet is evil and will make you kill yourself!" - always a mainstream media favorite - with Cult of Nice reasoning that "FW is mean and unnecessary!" without providing even the dubious logic/evidence those arguments normally use. I find that absurd; repellent if they're actually dragging a friend's personal history into a mocking community, and just rather sad if they're making it up for attention.

i've seen a lot of comments about suicides in general that make me think this whole thing almost deserves to be wanked itself

Could be. And that would be what

wankitywank is for. Welcome to JF!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: And 2. Sorry for all the unfunny, folks. faultypremise 2009-05-20 12:11 am UTC (link)
	why is this not in wankitywank yet, anyway. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: And 2. Sorry for all the unfunny, folks. -

innocentsmith, 2009-05-20 12:16 am UTC

Re: And 2. Sorry for all the unfunny, folks. -

reeve, 2009-05-20 12:47 am UTC

Re: And 2. Sorry for all the unfunny, folks. -

faultypremise, 2009-05-20 01:15 am UTC

Re: And 2. Sorry for all the unfunny, folks. -

sandglass, 2009-05-20 04:50 am UTC

Re: *attempts to parse the argument's logic*

pipssister
2009-05-20 12:23 am UTC (link)

Yeesh, your transparent concern trolling is one for the textbooks.

Also, while I did get my brother's friend to eat a weeks-old hotdog with cheese inside once because I thought it would be funny, I don't exactly remember any time I would ENCOURAGE someone to explain to me how orgasms are an evolutionary perk for being raped. That's not the sort of shit that gives me the ha-has.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -