" Suddenly, his every action, every object he left behind in the world, would become imbued with a significance, a narrative: a slow build up to that moment of decision…or was it indecision? " Which leaves me with the question: if we all kill ourselves who's going to be the James Joyce that writes down the story? I suppose it's just going to be some AI program that can take the heat on the planet and can tell the story of the humans after they're gone.
that's why i propose we start now using the subjunctive case when necessary. the history that caused it is mostly a 20th century story right. we're just living the consequences now
pedantic, but isn't suicide when you kill yourself for the purpose of killing yourself, rather than killing yourself for a different purpose (e.g., the accumulation of wealth)?
If you smoke yourself or drink yourself to death does that count as a suicide? Some would say no and some would say yes, I'd say yes. Your addiction matters more to you than your life.
Suicide implies I had an obvious choice. If everyone smokes, if every time I buy food or whatever I get a pack of cigarettes with it, if every time I mingle with others everyone lights up, if I am told constantly that smoking a) isn't that bad b) were gonna replace it with vapes and be fine and vapes are fiiiine c) that even if it is that bad, everyone else is smoking around, im drowing in a sea of clouds of smoke anyway, i'll get lung cancer from the second hand smoking might as well light up and d) that there's nothing I can do to prevent the smoking - I think that to call it suicide is to negate the sense of anger that situation reasonably induces. Like no I don't want to die, I don't want us to be smoking, so many people say it, but they don't know how to move forward from that, even people who have good ideas (you seem to) about that have yet to make any appreciable progress with them, not becasue of a lack of desire but because ...realistically the forces actively disrupting any resistance to the smoking agenda are simply winning the fight.
well, suicide has two dominant uses, one of which is rhetorical. e.g., someone makes a bad (often military/strategic) decision and someone replies, 'no, that would be suicide!' and one of which is technical, e.g., 'he died by suicide'. i'd reckon your use is the former, but it could be argued that the distinction between them is no longer clear in contemporary usage...
" Suddenly, his every action, every object he left behind in the world, would become imbued with a significance, a narrative: a slow build up to that moment of decision…or was it indecision? " Which leaves me with the question: if we all kill ourselves who's going to be the James Joyce that writes down the story? I suppose it's just going to be some AI program that can take the heat on the planet and can tell the story of the humans after they're gone.
that's why i propose we start now using the subjunctive case when necessary. the history that caused it is mostly a 20th century story right. we're just living the consequences now
pedantic, but isn't suicide when you kill yourself for the purpose of killing yourself, rather than killing yourself for a different purpose (e.g., the accumulation of wealth)?
If you smoke yourself or drink yourself to death does that count as a suicide? Some would say no and some would say yes, I'd say yes. Your addiction matters more to you than your life.
Suicide implies I had an obvious choice. If everyone smokes, if every time I buy food or whatever I get a pack of cigarettes with it, if every time I mingle with others everyone lights up, if I am told constantly that smoking a) isn't that bad b) were gonna replace it with vapes and be fine and vapes are fiiiine c) that even if it is that bad, everyone else is smoking around, im drowing in a sea of clouds of smoke anyway, i'll get lung cancer from the second hand smoking might as well light up and d) that there's nothing I can do to prevent the smoking - I think that to call it suicide is to negate the sense of anger that situation reasonably induces. Like no I don't want to die, I don't want us to be smoking, so many people say it, but they don't know how to move forward from that, even people who have good ideas (you seem to) about that have yet to make any appreciable progress with them, not becasue of a lack of desire but because ...realistically the forces actively disrupting any resistance to the smoking agenda are simply winning the fight.
That's not suicide, that's murder.
but if you take a bullet for a loved one, because they matter to you more than your life, it's (surely) not suicide...
Who's the loved one in the global warming metaphor? The owners of capital?
haha maybe! or the capital itself. i suppose it hinges on whether it's really 'love' if what you love is money...
OK so to review, the suicide metaphor makes sense, whatever you're talking about doesn't.
well, suicide has two dominant uses, one of which is rhetorical. e.g., someone makes a bad (often military/strategic) decision and someone replies, 'no, that would be suicide!' and one of which is technical, e.g., 'he died by suicide'. i'd reckon your use is the former, but it could be argued that the distinction between them is no longer clear in contemporary usage...
Oh, I loved this.