I would have prevented Aaron's immolation.

Would you?

Update:

https://twitter.com/Innomen/status/1764490341636276229

https://twitter.com/Innomen/status/1764490341636276229

I don’t want to write this or publish it. I don’t want to be harassed by death worshippers or white knights. My days of 8 hour reply chain debates are behind me. But this has to be said. And while I am linguistically directing this at Cait, it’s actually aimed at any who agree. She’s merely the real world example I’m using to avoid speculation. So if you try to debate me on this and I don’t reply, I’m only saving myself pointless work. Just sayin.

And now we have the following, which forces me to revisit that statement at greater length.

Aaron Bushnell's Death Can't Rightly Be Called An Act Of Suicide

That bothers me. This is spin in direct service of death and pain in the hopes that it indirectly opposes death and pain. This is exactly the thing I feared and mentioned.

His death Was a suicide. He knew he would die, period. A suicide mission is still a suicide. Cait has always had a strong death worship streak, I discovered this when we got into it over her literally cheering for brain cancer just because it afflicted a political figure she deemed herself fit to death sentence. I wasn’t the only one to call her out on this.

I don’t sentence people to death in fantasy power land, Cait does. You probably do too.

She’s basically arguing that the ends justify the means, (again) that his agonizing death was not only acceptable, but desirable. (Given a Death Note, I wonder, what would her final body count be? What would yours be?) She pays lip service to it being tragic and avoidable the near exact same way war mongers do when talking about collateral damage, but I honestly doubt she’d put him out if given a time machine button to accomplish it. (Would you?) And she’s doing it because she’s enamored with the romance of the act, and pleased with the outcomes. Opposing death properly includes opposing it even when some aspect of it pleases you. (In this case the glorious intentions and heroism.)

I said right away that I’d have rather he lived for the cause and made his enemies kill him. Expressly because I knew people would romanticize it. The brutal meathook reality of burning someone alive, is receding further and further away the more it becomes a folk song. That’s playing with fire, literally and figuratively.

It’s ironic, in praising him and his act they forgive the fact that he himself murdered the person they are deifying.

I think art captured this best. People have the right to die, and no one should suffer. Yes. But suicide is suicide. Even if you’re in favor of it, spinning it to provide cover is not the way imo.

“That’s every suicide. Every. Single. One.” ~Red

They are saying that burning someone alive (I don’t care if he’s “willing,” jumpers that survive report changing their mind mid-drop) can be morally urgent. And that’s dangerously close to the entire problem with “collateral damage.”

It brings her closer to the very thing he protested against.

Again art has my final thought for this post. (Even though the song ultimately agrees with Cait et al.)

“I wish I would have met you. But now it’s a little late.” Maybe we could have come up with a better solution.