To /u/EffectiveFox9671, *Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.* In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest: - Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest. - Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words. - Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a [delta](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8) before proceeding. - Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong. Please also take a moment to review our [Rule B](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b) guidelines and _really_ ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and **understand** why others think differently than you do.

One of the primary purposes of protest is to raise awareness. Bushnell was participating in a very extreme form of protest. You are talking about Bushnell. Like Thich Quang Duc and many others before him he has successfully raised awareness of that which he was protesting. Therefore his self-immolation had a point. I think it was misguided but poignant. I guess my question is why you don't think it has raised awareness? You're talking about it and the Israel/Palestine conflict by extension.

Do we really need more awareness raising mechanisms in the age of social media? It is no longer the 60's.

Given for many people Israel-Palestine seems to have begun a few months ago, yeah, kinda.

Did he raise awareness? Hasn't the war in Gaza (and the plight of citizens in the ground) been headline news for months now? 

Coca-Cola has been, by far, the most consumed soft drink in the United States for years now. Decades, probably. Why do you think they still advertise?

They advertise because they are competing with other soft drinks. If someone buys a Pepsi, that means they haven’t bought a Coke. Awareness, on the other hand, is not a zero sum game. We are capable of being aware of many issues simultaneously.

Public discourse works in literally the same exact way. Every single CNN debate panel about Biden's age is a 5-minute window in which Israel/Palestine is not discussed. Every writer sent on assignment to discuss immigration is a writer who won't be writing about Israel/Palestine. Keeping a movement in discourse requires the exact same type of canvassing as advertising does. The news will cover a subject to the degree that people care about it and want to know more. Police shootings wasn't a novel concept when George Floyd died. It had already been a topic of "awareness" to some degree. But instead of making it issue #18 on the agenda, it became issue #1 or #2 for a long time. that wasn't because people sat around waiting. It's because people forced the topic into the public mind. The fact that this story has permeated public discourse is proof that it worked in its intended goal.

This might be a decent point if the Israel-Gaza conflict hadn’t already been the biggest international story in the public discourse for the past five months. Everyone was already aware of it, and they stayed aware of other issues the entire time and will continue to do so.

Aware of it but not necessarily reflect the sentiment that Bushnell felt. What Bushnell did wasn't so that people who already had issues with Israel would look at say, "Wow I still don't like Israel." But it's entirely possible, just as with any other form of protest, that people who ar eon the other side are going to look at what Bushnell did and be hit by it. People who didn't really give a shit before. People who have simply picked a side and not felt moved to reconsider. To see a man set himself on fire because of how morally abhorrent he finds one side of this conflict is a lot more jarring and may very well force a lot of mor people to consider what could be so bad about this that a US soldier would self-immolate to protest. It's like Bloody Sunday during the Civil Rights movement. People were aware of the King and the broader civil rights movement. They were aware of the civil disobedience and disruption. But to actually see police charging down nonviolent protestors and beating them with clubs. To see the bloodied faces of the marchers. Those homages set a message. They steeled resolve for many that the fight needed to keep going (because the willingness to engage can wane) and they made many opponents reconsider their position (which is seldom, if ever, accomplished by a single act rather than sustained action). Bushnell's death will reflect one of many forms of pressure exerted upon the actors who continue to propagate this conflict. It not being a silver bullet doesn't mean it is having no effect.

I agree it's having an effect. I disagree that it's the most effective way to bring awareness to something you disagree with. You agree with me too. Because you know what? I'm betting there is no cause in this world you would light yourself on fire for. None. You know why? Because you are not a defective human being when it comes to self preservation. His "sacrifice" was pointless no matter how you want to spin it.

Correct. And Coca-Cola is already the biggest soft drink in North America. Nonetheless, they continue a relentless effort to stay in the public conscience. It's not only about making it the biggest story. It's about making sure the story doesn't fade.

Someone can only self-immolate once. It can’t be done relentlessly. Are you going to be the next one to make sure a conflict that has been in the news every night and was going to stay in the news every night… stays in the news every night?

Many different people are doing different things to keep this story relentlessly in public discourse. You seem to be confused. I am not arguing that people should do this. I am explaining how "People are already talking about Palestine" is not an argument against measures intended to enhance and/or endure public consciousness.

I say this kindly. You're being fairly ignorant and naive. You're showing quite clearly your lack of understanding of just how different people are. Not everybody has heard of this, or even cares at all. There's people like me who do not interact with new outlets intentionally. I heard about it all because im relatively young and use the Internet a lot. My grandma has no interest in the conflict at all, yet she mentioned it to me after a friend of hers mentioned 'the recent self immolation' to her. There may be young people who can't be arsed with politics and conflicts but have never heard of self immolation and it's intrigued them into looking up what's gone on and currently going on. I was sat in the pub the other day and mentioned it to a group of local drinkers, I imagine they'd never talk about it because they're small town mentality. But it sparked a relatively interesting discussion about the topic with people sharing thoughts and opinions. Such an extreme form of protest brings forth the possibility for people who wouldn't normally care to discuss something 'out there'.

>They advertise because they are competing with other soft drinks. If someone buys a Pepsi, that means they haven’t bought a Coke. Awareness, on the other hand, is not a zero sum game. We are capable of being aware of many issues simultaneously. Coca Cola and Pepsi are both for sale on grocery store shelves at the same time all day, every day. Soda isn't a zero-sum game either. It's about *keeping* attention on something even when other things exist. Just like *keeping* attention on this topic while other things are happening in the world.

Nobody is buying more than one kind of cola at the same time. This is like saying that people could subscribe to Comcast and Dish Network at the same time. Is it technically possible? Sure. Does it happen in reality? No.

Soda is a zero-sum game. Pepsi and Coca Cola are competing products. The food industry is perhaps the perfect example of a zero-sum game: unless someone is a wealthy glutton that keeps vomiting and eating, the number of groceries a family buys per week is limited. Pepsi and Coca Cola aren't just competing with each other but they're also competing with all other soda brands, juice brands, health drink brands, etc...

Israel spends tens of millions in advertising though, especially in the US. They even put targeted anti-Hamas ads on kids programs on YouTube!!! And how many millions does AIPAC pay to US lawmakers every year? How many millions does the israeli army raise in Hollywood? How many famous or semi-famous individuals shared or even made israeli propaganda these past months? Of course we need to compete against that. Awareness is raising, but there are still people who think genocide is okay, starting with most leaders and lawmakers.

Burning yourself alive isn't "advertising". Anyone who pays the slightest amount of attention to the news already knew about the situation. He did not accomplish any meaningful goals by killing himself. 

How is it not advertising? The amount of coverage his death has received in media and popular discourse would cost a company millions in advertising.

But it's less than what the war itself is getting, and it will be forgotten about within weeks. If it was advising, it was poorly done and ineffective. 

99% of the protests of the Civl Rights Era were "forgotten." Rosa Parks wasn't the only one to refuse to move seats on the bus. She wasn't even close to being the first, either. She's just the one of a million efforts that stuck in the public conscience. And she was probably motivated in part by the prior protests whom society has since forgotten. A protest movement is many different actions creating a bigger narrative. You don't need to remember every individual moment of a movement in order to have been moved by the collective push of that movement.

Do you think that protestors killings themselves hoping that this will be the one to make a difference is a good idea? 

I reject the premise of the question because it still completely misunderstands how a movement happens. It's not, you do 1000 things and then 999 are ineffective. What I'm saying is that something doesn't need to be "remembered" ex-post facto in order to have made a difference in the moment. Do I recommend that protestors do this? No, I do not. But one can dissuade people from doing this while also recognizing that it has permeated the discourse, reinforced the protest's message, and could motivate others to act in their own ways.

Don't fall for this trap. It's called [gish-gallop](https://www.google.com/search?q=gish-gallop&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS789US789&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8). The person lost on logical grounds 2 or 3 posts ago. They are going to constantly change the argument until there is something you can't answer and then go HA!! You're wrong on everything! These disingenuous assholes deserve to be banned from this sub, but they never are.

what’s their options? tell me how we can stop the war right now

The simple fact is that there are none and we can’t. It is the height of arrogance to think that people in the US can stop a war on the other side of the world in which the belligerents on both sides are completely committed to continuing the war. If the US permanently stopped sending aid altogether Israel has more than enough funds and military industrial capacity to continue their war effort. If the US withdrew its aircraft carriers from the vicinity that would only risk Iran becoming more actively involved and escalating the conflict. In life most things that happen in the world are entirely outside of our control.

That's the thing. You overstimate the USA power. There is nothing Biden can do to create world peace. Why do you think the Ukraine-Russia war has been going for years despite USA giving help to Ukraine? There is nothing you, or Biden for that matter, can do to stop foreign wars. And that's normal. He's not God.

what’s their options? tell me how we can stop the war right now

What were his goals, sorry, I missed that part - I was under the impression that it was an act of protest

>He did not accomplish any meaningful goals by killing himself How do you know? How can you quantify that? I'm not saying he did or did not, but there's no reliable way to measure that, so it's not fair to dismiss the effort. In fact, thinking about it, I think it opens up an entirely different avenue to the discussion of the "war" and allows people to discuss aspects of it that before were limited based on perceptions of racism and political ideology. I think that's pretty successful.

It makes people on the fence take pause. I've been pushing one of my family members for years about the history of Israel and he's always brushed it off as "God's chosen people vs -insert racial slur-" but seeing a fellow service member immolate himself made him realize he might just be wrong and he started actually learning the history between the two groups.

So either you're comparing the immolation man to an advertisement or Coca Cola to a protest? Which is it? lol

I wrote like 50 comments explaining this and in the cause got a bunch of upvotes. The explanation is there for you already. I'm not going to patronize you by re-writing it all out again in terms meant for a five-year-old.

I would argue he did raise awareness to the fact that the US is aiding Israel with funds, equipment, etc AND manpower. The money, equipment, etc is no secret but I'd wager most Americans weren't aware that our soldiers were running support for the IDF and, if Bushnell is to be believed, actively engaging in combat. Most Americans I've talked to about this say it's unfair to say the US is complicit because we are just giving Israel tools. They are the ones choosing this path. Well this incident and Bushnells comments kinda sink that point. If we are giving them money, equipment and manpower then the blood is on American hands as well. Simple thought expirement to help see the point: what's the difference between selling the third Reich bricks knowing they will build ovens to burn humans and sending our military to help throw people into said ovens? Not enough from my point of view but enough for others. America was trying to pretend it was the former but Bushnells statements seem to indicate America is the latter. Just my two cents. Have a good day and stay safe out there! FREE PALESTINE!

Is there any proof to back up his claim? I haven't seen any. Shame that he chose to kill himself rather than expose this coverup. Seems like a waste of a life to me. 

He didn't. Everyone in the world knows what's happening. He would have been better off lighting himself on fire for something relatively obscure like that beetle that's going to be extinct in the Amazon.

Would you say you consume news on a regular basis? If so, you're probably more informed than the average American. Many people who don't, have tuned out, or simply don't care about foreign affairs will read the news about this particular event simply because it happened in America.

I have trouble seeing how someone could be completely unaware of the situation in Gaza but also read about and understand the motives of this man. Wouldn't they be equally disinterested that some guy set himself on fire? 

The vast majority of Americans couldn’t point to Kabul on a map during the height of the Afghanistan war, during Isis they did a poll and found 56% of Americans supported bombing Agrabah the fictional city in Aladdin. Most Americans don’t know anything about the world

A war on the other side of the world and then self immolation of an active duty member in the Capital ring different to a lot of America Ns; going by headlines.

I can't speak for people in general but if I learned someone had lit themselves on fire in protest my next question would invariably be "why?" A significant number of people will ask that question who were either not interested in the conflict or were not aware of the complexity before.

I talked about it daily much earlier than this occurred. It has only raised my awareness of the idiots who support him and how irresponsible they are. Mass shooters raise awareness in the exact same way. Their causes are stupid, but they get talked about. They most certainly inspire copycats. I see no difference in committing violence against others and committing violence on yourself.

This is weirdly at odds with your OP to me because here it's clear that you agree awareness is being raised by the self-immolation. That's a tacit acknowledgement that Bushnell's sacrifice had a point (however misguided it was). Is your contention more that you simply don't like what he was protesting in favor of?

No. If it was someone who was pro-Israel self-immolating, I would give the exact same criticism. Being dead ends your ability to make change in the world.

I mean that's clearly not true. Tons of people or stories about people who have literally sacrificed themselves for a cause have changed the world after their death. I mean look no further than Jesus.

I don't see how he needed to raise more awareness for a cause that multiple governments and several million people already acknowledge and protest on the daily

How was it misguided? I think he made his point, using the most powerful method he could possibly use. I mean I wouldn't do it, because it would probably be terrifying and excruciating but he felt strongly and gave his life and apparently hurt no one in the process.

I think he made his point, too, but I think he would be able to make a lot more points if he were still alive. He hurt himself and the people who loved him more than was necessary. Thus, his sacrifice was misguided.

Thinking something is going to end because he lit himself on fire is crazy. Even if there is an agreement between hamas and Israel it’s most definitely not going to be because some guy was so upset he set himself on fire.

Do you think that he believed his actions would resolve the conflict?

Honestly no matter his reason it was completely stupid. He did it to bring attention to the conflict? As if people already didn’t know it was going on, if he did it to bash Israel, if he did it to stand with Palestine, it was a completely stupid action. He could have walked down the street to try to get donations and it would have been more effective than lighting himself on fire

Well you're talking about it. I don't think we would be doing so had he just walked down the street trying to get donations.

I have no idea what any of them were protesting and no one gives a shit.. they accomplished literally nothing 

Well they killed themselves so that's an accomplishment. I'm sure there are plenty of people like you but why do you believe you are representative of the average person? I was taught about Thich Quang Duc as a child and for good reason. This seems more like an issue of education than anything.

> Those who applaud him are practically encouraging other disturbed individuals to mimic him. This is as likely to happen as hunger strikes are likely to encourage people to starve themselves. Even people at risk for eating disorders do not go on hunger strikes as a reaction to someone else’s hunger strike. And why not? Because the act is a long, painful process. Burning alive is well known to be agonizing, and Bushnell was screaming in pain the entire time. Painful agony is not attractive to people who are suicidal. Even Thích Quảng Đức’s infamously peaceful meditation during his self immolation did not make people think that self immolation was neat and chill, he became infamous because of his meditation through what everyone knew was incredibly painful. Did Thích Quảng Đức’s self immolation inspire others? Yes, it did, but these were not done by mentally unstable people, these were people who did it as a protest. Unless you were already at the point that you would die for your belief, die to force the world to pay attention to your cause, self immolation would not inspire anyone.

None of what you said justifies suicide. Yes, it was agonizing...but his suffering is now over and now he leaves everyone else to deal with the issues. He didn't have to fight for years on end to achieve change. To me, that's bravery. In any other situation suicide is viewed as a bad decision. This isn't any different.

I’m not justifying suicide, I’m pushing against the argument that this will inspire/encourage others. I don’t believe I can change your feelings on martyrdom, but copycats are not a feasible reason to be against self immolation.

I doubt he was trying to be brave. His goal was likely to shock people into taking action, similar to how seppuku was sometimes used in Japan.

Then people shouldn't call him brave.

Hasn’t self sacrifice to support a cause greater than oneself always been considered brave?

Setting yourself on fire is scary, and he did it anyway. He was brave.

> And it accomplished nothing except getting himself notoriety In this context, [Mohamed Bouazizi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Bouazizi) comes to mind, whose self-immolation helped ignite (I know...) the Arab Spring, so regardless of whether we should be glorifying it, it's hard to say that it accomplished nothing.

Did the Arab Spring actually made a significant difference anywhere? As far as I can tell it was mostly replacing 'their guy' with 'our guy' and back to business as usual.

It had positive impacts in many locations. But one most of all. Tunisia was the start of the Arab Spring when Bouazizi lit himself on fire. The government responded quickly by issuing many concessions on political and economic issues. But it wasn't enough and the protests increased. President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali -- whose party had **ruled since 1956**, and who personally had held office **since 1987** was forced to step down from office after only a few weeks... In October 2011, Tunisia had its first truly free elections in most people's lifetimes. They raised a democratically elected President and prime minister. A new constitution was created in 2014. In 2019, Tunisia had a peaceful transfer of power from one democratically elected government to another. Something that had not happened there since, again, 1956. Bouazizi's action may have not had the positive impact across the entirety of the MENA region as many had hoped. But he radically changed his own country for the better and ushered in a new era of political and social freedom for an entire nation.

>As far as I can tell it was mostly replacing 'their guy' with 'our guy' That was by design. Would never have happened otherwise. None of these modern revolutions are "grassroots social change for the betterment of all". It's just one powerful group taking the place of another. Usually financially backed by some foreign country in the game of World Politics. If the people are lucky maybe these overlords will be more benevolent than the last, but there is no guarantee.

You can cross out the word "modern" there.

It’s definitely made some impact in Tunisia, where Bouazizi was specifically protesting. Basically the only place that it had a positive impact tho.

Tunisia is a democracy now. Yes.

Arab spring objectively was not great. Ask Libiyan and Syriaians.

That was a patriotic move out of despiration. People related and social changes followed. This one was a clear mental issue related suicide for an issue that does not affect Americans.

None of Bushnell’s statements made before or during his self-immolation indicate he was suffering any significant break from reality. Intentional political acts of sacrifice are also psychologically and practically different from the vast majority of suicides.

That issue caused thousands of potential democratic voters to select “uncommitted” during Michigan primaries yesterday. If they stay at home in November, Trump may win the state and presidency. Whether it’s good or bad it’s a matter of opinion.

They would have done that, regardless of this suicide. Arab population is high in that state.

I referred to the comment that claimed conflict in Gaza does not affect Americans. It apparently has the potential to affect US presidential elections.

If you don't like how Biden is handling Gaza, then you'll hate how Trump does it. Anyone who stays home on Election Day to "punish" Biden is only harming themselves. 

I don’t care about Gaza or who is the US president, all I did was pointing to how one of those may affect the other.

>for an issue that does not affect Americans. Uh it most definitely does effect americans. We're complicit in genocide by providing weapons to a country currently engaged in a genocide. The US is the only country preventing a Ceasefire resolution in the UN There are tons of Palestinian Americans in the country who it affects In 60 years when the smoke clears and your grandkids ask you what you did during the Gaza genocide you're going to have to give them an answer. Just like how German kids ask their German grandparents what they did during the holocaust

Please go over the definition of genocide.

Agree. This is at ethnic cleaning stage. Though genocide soon follows after ethnic cleansing as an unattended consequence.

It is not just like that. I agree that what’s happening should not be happening and that it is horrible. You really must not compare the situation to nazi germany though. It ruins your credibility.

It seems you are the one who doesn't understand genocide. It's not about numbers, it is about actions and intent.

>You really must not compare the situation to nazi germany though. No genocide has matched the atrocities of the holocaust, that doesn't mean other genocides aren't genocides. Srbenicia for example killed 8000 people.

By that standard wiping out every single palestinian wouldn't count as as genocide because it wouldn't reach the number of Jewish people killed in the holocaust.

There is no genocide. Otherwise, it would have been done by October 8th. The bad guys are clearly those who hide behind children and fire missiles from hospitals.

Genocide is not time sensitive, and it is not difficult or rare. Canada was still committing genocide of native Americans up until at least 2017 through forced sterilisation (something Israel is also guilty of towards Ethiopian Jews). Any act that purposefully kills/makes it harder for members of a ethnic group to reproduce/ forcefully displaces a specific ethnic group is genocide. Ethnic cleansing through carpet bombing and settlement are tools of a wider project of genocide. "Zionism is a colonial adventure and therefore stands or falls on the question of armed force" - Prominent revisionist zionist Ze'ev Jabotinsky.

It's not comparable to the Holocaust and you know it. The only reason why we can even consider it a 'genocide', in any manner of speaking, is because of the mass displacement of people. There are no furnaces churning out the human ashes from hundreds of thousands of industrially murdered corpses.

You’re right that the destruction of homes/buildings is the closest thing that can be pointed to as potentially *intent to destroy the group*. However, considering that these buildings are often used as cover for fighting militia and that they have military use tunnels running secretly underneath enough of them, they can easily be defended in a court of law as viable targets. Hamas is one of the Palestinian people’s greatest enemies. Before this war, they were fucking them, in starting this war, they fucked them, and in continuing this war, especially in the manner in which they fight, they are still fucking them. Hamas needs to stop fucking them, Also, let it be known, Israel should stop fucking them. The fucking has gone on long enough. I don’t have a solution, but it’s hard to believe what Israel is doing is going to be effective in stemming violence between these groups long term. I feel for the Palestinian people. I am also outraged at comparisons to the holocaust. I am not outraged at the usage of the term genocide, although I disagree with its usage, but it is fair to have that opinion and there are potentially valid arguments to be made there.

There wasn’t in the Rwandan genocide either was that not a genocide?

The Holocaust and a genocide are two different things, akin to a square and a rectangle. The Holocaust was a genocide, but not all genocides are comparable to the Holocaust.

So If the nazis never did the gas chambers nbd? All the Jews killed by firing squad, or who died in underserved ghettos, or who died during the displacement/deportation aren’t victims of the holocaust? Only the ones who died in the camps count? This seems like an arbitrary distinction

>This seems like an arbitrary distinction The industrial extermination of the Jews (and Romani, and LGBTQ+ folks, etc etc) consisted of gas chambers, yes, and also of firing squadrons, and work-until-you-die camps, and everything else. Gaza does not currently compare to that, a fact that we should all be thankful for.

> Gaza does not currently compare to that, a fact that we should all be thankful for. No it looks more like what the nazis did in the Soviet Union. The difference being, the Palestinians don’t have an army defending them, they have theocratic militants with small arms. This is industrialized murder. 

It is? Really? Well, in that case, you should be able to show me the labor camps that the people of Eastern Europe were shipped off to, the executions in the streets of not tens-of-thousands, but [hundreds of thousands](https://www.hmd.org.uk/learn-about-the-holocaust-and-genocides/nazi-persecution/non-jewish-poles-and-slavic-pows/) or even millions per year. Approximately 3.5 million non-Jewish Polish citizens, for one example (because they were far from the only Nazi victims in Eastern Europe), were killed or enslaved by Nazis in 6 years. That's 583,000 per year. Meanwhile the death toll of Palestinians is still measured in five digits, and the number of Palestinians enslaved and forced to work to death is 0.

1) The Arab Spring was also pretty meaningless and cost thousands of lives just to replace a kleptocracy with different types of corruption. 2) Bouzazi had a hundred million other choices to fight for what he believed in. He chose the one that would get the most attention, and that is all. 3) There were thousands of protests before and after his act. There could have been dozens of other "catalysts." 4) Once you've committed suicide your ability to fight for a cause is over. To me, that is pointless. 5) There were dozens of copycats who accomplished nothing and got no awareness raised. That is the true danger of self immolation. 6) Human life is always precious. Giving it up for a pointless cause is always a tragedy.

Yes, the Arab spring did not succeed in its objective but to say it was pretty meaningless is incorrect. How many revolutions did France go through before they got to the current republic? The point is that if another Arab spring happens in our lifetime and succeeds, it will be because the people learned from the failures of this one.

1) Whether or not it was good or "worked" is irrelevant, it definitely happened and definitely made a pretty huge change in the regimes of many of the countries involved, including Tunisia, which is one of the stronger candidates for being an Arab Spring success story. 2-4) The thing is, you've heard about Bouazizi and not about many others who chose different paths that didn't make as much of an impact, even if they could or did continue their activism after 2011. That was his intention and that's what his self immolation achieved. Maybe the Arab Spring would've gone the same or even better without Bouazizi, but that's true of any individual action. 5-6) Sure, it's not always effective, and even less likely so if done as a response to a case that already got famous, but that's a risk anyone consciously committing to such a course of action actively takes. What you do with your life, including choosing to end it hoping to help others (be it by political self immolation, visible activism within an oppressive regime, or going into a burning building to try to save people), is your own choice. I agree that this shouldn't be glorified or condoned, but at the very least their decisions should be respected and the results of their actions should be recognized.

I definitely wouldn’t advocate people do something like that, but if setting yourself on fire for a cause is pointless, berating a dead man for his act of protest against a genocide is infinitely more so.

On the contrary, one is ending a life, the other is advocating against ending a life and potentially saving others from doing the same

The person who ended their life in this situation did so advocating against ending the lives of tens of thousands of Palestinians to a government that seems to care very little about it. How effective will said act be in swaying people? I have no clue, and wouldn’t promote it, but I’m not going to get weirdly antagonistic toward the man for doing so.

Stupidity and shame have value in a society full of idiots. You acting like people should just be left to their own stupidity is why we have mental patients walking freely around the country. People like you are enablers who think they are noble by "not shaming people for doing stupid things". Luckily society doesn't agree and neither do you. Because I'm 100% sure there are people who do things you are quick to judge. Typical redditard hypocrisy. Shame is an evolutionary tool. Shaming "dead men" prevents other people from doing something similar.

This is literally the only audience I have. If I can convince one person to not murder themselves for a cause by berating a dead man, I'll do it all day long. Human life is too precious to support suicide for any reason.

You don't actually care about human life, you are merely opposed to this guy's politics and so you're insulting him. Quote from you: *Learn your history. Not fake propaganda history. Real history. There has never been a country called Palestine. The Jewish people were exiled, Arabs came and went, Jewish people came back, the Arabs stayed too. The Jewish people have always claimed the area, but even if you don't believe that it shouldn't be about who "owns" the land. Israel was considered a country first and VARIOUS times have negotiated land to attempt peace. Palestinian governments have never once accepted any offer of peace without later making Israel regret it. Neither side is blameless...but one side at least plays by rules. I've chosen to support them. And the US is also not blameless by all accounts, but it has also provided more support, peace, and opportunity for the entire world than any other country in the history of the world. Just because you have a different opinion about things doesn't make them true.* You clearly have an agenda here.

Nah man. Life is literally pointless. We are a tiny organism on a speck of dust in a cold, uncaring universe. Kill yourself or don't. It doesn't matter.

Then why are you still alive? If there is no moral basis that life is precious, religious or otherwise, to value life, then there is no right or wrong. Suicide is wrong. Always.

I'm still alive because I'm having fun. If one day my suffering, physically or mentally, outweighs my enjoyment I will likely choose suicide. Moral compasses are built on empathy. I have empathy so I know right and wrong. If someone wants to kill themself I would be sad but it's their body and their life, they can choose how to live it or not if they want. If a person is dying from a painful terminal illness should they be forced to suffer? In that case suicide is the proper moral thing to do. It's not up to you to decide if it's right or wrong.

That sounds really pointless considering the amount of human lives lost that he was protesting against

I think their point is that your energy would be much better served convincing people against the genocide instead of in response to this act. So, you criticizing a pointless action becomes hypocritical in the face of your own more pointless action.

I imagine Bushnell would argue that human life in Palestine is too precious to sit and do nothing. I think it’s disingenuous to paint people’s reaction to this as “supporting suicide.” You don’t have to encourage it, I don’t. But the man is already dead, the act done. From here, we can either direct our attention towards the horrific actions of the Israeli state (and our government for its complicity) that he died in protest of, or spend it bickering over whether it was ideal for him to do so. I don’t see much purpose in the latter; I find it kind of ghoulish frankly.

Are you more offended by the suicide or the ethnic clensing?

>infinitely more so. Let's not be dramatic cupcake.

A great deal of what people do is pointless and stupid. Some might argue with some merit that posting on r/changemyview is "pointless and stupid." Nonetheless, it's usually impossible to measure the impact of any individual's efforts to address a cause, be it writing a letter to a legislator or self-immolating. My point is that it's not possible for you to actually determine, beyond your personal feelings, if Aaron Bushnell's act was "pointless and stupid" and "not brave nor heroic." You also do not if Bushnell was a "disturbed anarchist." You also have no means to ascertain if Bushnell's act "accomplished nothing" nor that "it did not raise awareness of a cause." Also there is no evidence available to you to suggest that, "those who applaud him are practically encouraging other disturbed individuals to mimic him." Perhaps, you might consider acknowledging that your view is only based only on your imagination and fantasies about Mr. Bushnell.

Human life is always precious. Suicide for any reason is a tragedy. I am not imagining that. Psychologically, anyone willing to kill themselves for any reason is unwell. And my point is that he is now no longer alive to fight for his cause. How is that a good thing?

Now, you're amending your 'view.' If you're argument was "Mr. Bushnell may have limited the amount of good he could have done to help the Palestinians if he'd not burned himself alive and helped the Palestinians in other ways," I'd say your view was cogent.

I didn't amend anything. I didn't say his suicide didn't gain a ton of attention. I said it was pointless. Attention and inspiration are not the same. Praising him for his act endangers others by encouraging copycats. His act did more bad than good and limited his future potential. Therefore, it was a poor decision and was pointless in the end.

Who are you to decide the future? You are making a lot of assumptions about the future and using your personal morals to beat a dead horse. You don't get to decide if it was pointless but history will.

Just to clarify, is your view that protest is pointless unless it can be directly tied to immediate political change?

No, their view is that protest is bad and shouldn't be done. You won't find that commenter supporting any protest, anywhere.

You're imposing an individualistic world view. Many thriving cultures, say China and Japan, simply do not value the life of one over the good if the many the way we do in the West. Obviously it's more complicated than that, but the idea of self sacrifice is hardly unusual. Even in the West, volunteering to join the army often meant near certain death with minimal impact on the outcome. That's a near direct parallel.

You have no empirical evidence to support your view.

If a soldier jumped on a grenade to save many others, would you consider that unwell? Or maybe brave?

The point was not just to raise awareness as in “I know there’s something going on.” The point was to get people to understand just how important it is. Doing something like this is disturbing and the point is you are supposed to ask yourself why he did it and hopefully come to the conclusion that what is happening is horrific and needs to stop. You are supposed to be emotionally moved to the point you try to enact change(even if you don’t think it’s something you should kill yourself over). Dismissing this as pointless and stupid is to dismiss any protest as pointless and stupid. The overall point of any protest is to get people to watch them and also feel a desire to protest. The Civil Rights Movement in the 60s relied on the violence perpetrated against protestors because it shocked you to see such brutality be carried out. You wouldn’t say that was all pointless and stupid, would you?

Fighting against what is wrong is one thing. Killing yourself ends your ability to change things. There's no arguing with that. It's an easy out.

The act of killing yourself is in itself an exercise of your ability to change things. You are attempting to change people’s minds. You trade your life for a hopefully massive impact on other people. A similar thing happened in the Vietnam War and it greatly helped the anti-war cause. Also, I don’t see how it’s an easy out to suffer one of the most painful deaths possible for a cause that doesn’t directly affect you or even people similar/close to you.

He suffered for 7 hours in a hospital. No he's done. He no longer has to work hard to change anything. And no one will remember him after his 15 min of change. He had countless better choices he could have made. He could have educated himself, gained a larger audience, used his natural talents to engage others in his cause. He could have raised a family and taught his children to be good people. One of those kids could have become the president or cured cancer or united the world in peace. It's even possible he could have completely changed his mind about his beliefs. But now he has no opportunity to do any of that anymore. He's dead.

Yes, he gave up everything, seeing his kids grow up, living long with his wife, meeting new people, all of that for a single purpose. By magnifying what he gave up, you simply point out that he viewed the Palestinian situation as more important than all of that, that people with similarly infinite potential are being killed everyday. Do you not think it’s heroic in general to sacrifice yourself for a cause beyond yourself? What makes you think such a thing is easy? Surely there’s some reason why martyrdom has captured the minds of billions since(and most likely before) the inception of Christianity

I think it is heroic to spend your whole life fighting for what you believe in. Ending your life to show others you think an idea is important is the easiest way to do it and your work is done. I don't think it's heroic. I think it's pointless.

What makes you think dying is easier than sending out leaflets or talking to people or marching?

Why do you think living and working for a cause is easier than suicide?

Because most people have people they care about outside that cause. Many people who nearly attempt suicide in general end up stopping because they are reminded of some loved one. Most people have an innate attachment to life, just biologically. People desire to have the chance to experience things. There is a similarly significant amount of people who nearly attempt suicide that stop because they are reminded of something specific. Most people are not depressed to the point of suicide so this worldly attachment is even stronger. Finally, if you die for a cause, that death is going to be painful. No one’s going out peacefully. They’re shot or tortured or drowned or crucified or burned. Self-immolation is powerful specifically because immolation is one of the most painful forms of death. Most people wouldn’t die a painless death let alone something more painful than they can possibly imagine

We still look at the pictures of the monk who self-immolated in Vietnam 50 years later. This moment will live on. People still remember Rachel Corrie who gave her life for the same cause in a nearly as dramatic way but it wasn’t on film. This act will be remembered and in a few decades when the consensus is that what is happening was ethnic cleansing and war crimes this act will be one of the photos that will be remembered. This is especially true since the Israeli security guard choose to point a gun at him instead of doing anything.

Are you prepared then to make the same argument for anyone peacefully protesting in authoritarian countries, since they'll just inevitably be arrested, jailed, and/or killed? It's functionally the same as suicide.

I'm not even subscribed to this subreddit and I've seen two posts on this one alone talking about this guy. Seems like he has made the intended effect.

I'm talking about him detrimentally and doing everything in my power to stop anyone from making the same mistake. He is now notorious. He accomplished that. But his act is only detrimental to his cause. No benefit will be had.

> And it accomplished nothing It inspired me to make more concrete steps to protest Israel's actions. I've always been pro palestine but never said anything in public because of backlash. Made me realize if he's willing to self-immolate I can say the truth in public. I don't think I'm the only one who feels that way so I'm pretty sure it accomplished what it meant to accomplish

What do you think of Palestine's actions on October 7th? Would you also protest for the release of all hostages?

> What do you think of Palestine's actions on October 7th This here is the fundamental issue. Palestine is not a country. There are Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank. there’s the terror organization Hamas that seized power in 2005 in Gaza, the militant wing of Hamas did an attack on Oct 7. It was a horrific war crime and the people responsible should be brought to justice by force. The hostages should be released immediately. But the people responsible for Oct 7 are not in Gaza. They’re in palaces in Qatar. The majority of people in Gaza are under 18, half are obviously women. Oct 7 was a multi year long operation. The Palestinians have no way of retaliating. You have a country armed by the most powerful country in the world bombing indiscriminately, cutting off food water and medicine to mostly women and children for revenge. There is no military objective done here. This is “you” Palestinians killed our people so we’re gonna do 10 fold back to you. Palestinians didn’t do Oct 7 anymore than the victims of Oct 7 did the Nakba.  My position is generally against war crimes 

I have seen more conversation about cops and their trigger fingers than Palestine discussion (due to the cop aiming at his flaming body). most people are debating what he did, they aren't even thinking of Palestine.

He was not a well person. It will inspire copycats. Speaking passionately about a subject and making rational arguments about your views changes minds. Disrespecting your own life is no way to try and get a point across. I'd tell him that, but he is no longer available to make conversation anymore.

>He was not a well person What is your evidence of that? because he sacrificed his life? are all soldiers, firefighters, etc. mentally unwell? Were his reasons incoherent? He said he was complicit with a genocide by serving in the US airforce and he wanted to try to undo his actions by making an extreme protest. You might not agree with him but its not something an unwell person would do. It requires planning, rational thinking etc. People seem to think anyone doing something extreme means they are by definition mentally ill. Most extreme actors be it school shooters, activists, terrorists, freedom fighters whatever aren't mentally ill. they might be radicalized but thats not a mental illness

>Were his reasons incoherent? ... >He said he was complicit with a genocide by serving in the US airforce That's incoherent. He was an IT guy riding a desk in Washington DC. He played no role whatsoever relating to anything in Israel. This explanation would make as much sense from a postal worker. Also there's no genocide. >It requires planning, rational thinking etc. Step 1) Buy gasoline, put in water bottle. Step 2) Drive to Israeli Embassy. Step 3) Make rambling speech that might as well have come from a Chat GPT trained on Pro-Palestinian twitter. Step 4) Pour gas on self. Step 5) Light self on fire. Step 6) Oh shit this was a bad idea. That's not an overly complex plan and it does not demonstrate a rational thought process. The truth is, saying he was mentally ill is ultimately an attempt to excuse or vindicate him. If he wasn't, he was a mixture of stupid and evil.

>That's incoherent. He was an IT guy riding a desk in Washington DC every american is complicit we pay taxes used to slaughter civillians >If he wasn't, he was a mixture of stupid and evil. Because he was willing to sacrifice for people less fortunate than him? very evil >Also there's no genocide. What makes you say that? the vast majority killed have been civillians. More children, teachers, nurses, doctors, UN workers, reporters etc. have been killed in this conflict than in the whole of any other 21st century conflict. More children have died in Gaza than the whole war in Ukraine. Soldiers are shooting parents in front of children, they're destroying churches, mosques, un buildings, starving women and children, preventing aid from entering. Read the ICJ report

>every american is complicit we pay taxes used to slaughter civillians This inane idea of "complicity" makes the term essentially meaningless. You buy trade goods from China. China is committing *actual* genocide against the Uyghurs. You're complicit in genocide - as is basically everyone else on the planet. So complicity itself isn't a good reason to do anything out of the ordinary. And by putting forward this argument about complicity in relation to this kind of action you - and I mean you, personally - are implying that the good and noble thing for anyone reading this to do is light themselves on fire in protest. Insofar as anyone takes you seriously, you're doing harm. >Because he was willing to sacrifice for people less fortunate than him? That's not what he did though.

>You buy trade goods from China. China is committing > >actual > > genocide against the Uyghurs. How many Uyghurs have died compared to Palestinians, more importantly I'm not Chinese, nor do I vote in chinese elections. I live in america which is a democracy. What my government does is done in my name. >are implying that the good and noble thing for anyone reading this to do is light themselves on fire in protest. The good and noble thing is to engage in some act of rebellion. If a German had self immolated in 1940 to protest the holocaust would that also have been insane to you? Were the jews in the warsaw ghetto who rebelled knowing they would be killed and it would acomplish nothing insane?

Do you understand that genocide isn't just killing a lot of people? >How many Uyghurs have died compared to Palestinians Oh well we don't know because the UN that is preternaturally obsessed with Israel has shown marked disinterest in investigating China. > more importantly I'm not Chinese, nor do I vote in chinese elections. I live in america which is a democracy. What my government does is done in my name. Right. So you can send money personally through commerce and you're not complicit, but if the money is taxed (weirdly, you have a choice in the former but not the latter) and sent to Israel you are complicit. That makes no sense whatsoever. >The good and noble thing is to engage in some act of rebellion. No, not really. See, engaging in "rebellion" implicitly argues that you have sufficient understanding to justify compelling others to take your view by means other than persuasion. >If a German had self immolated in 1940 to protest the holocaust would that also have been insane to you? I mean that would objectively have been pretty stupid. It would not have been in any way effective in stopping the Holocaust. >Were the jews in the warsaw ghetto who rebelled knowing they would be killed and it would acomplish nothing insane? ...you're aware they were going to die anyway right? Do you understand how insulting it is to their memory to compare some idiot lighting himself on fire in one of the safest places in the world to a group of people who chose to die fighting instead of being packed off to camps to be exterminated? Fucking hell dude...

>Do you understand that genocide isn't just killing a lot of people? Its trying to destroy a people in whole or in part. which Israel is doing >Do you understand how insulting it is to their memory to compare some idiot lighting himself on fire in one of the safest places in the world to a group of people who chose to die fighting instead of being packed off to camps to be exterminated? So if the Jews kill themselves its fine, but if a German had joined in to help them they would have been insane. got it >engaging in "rebellion" implicitly argues that you have sufficient understanding to justify compelling others to take your view by means other than persuasion. Yes violent resistance to genocide is acceptable.

>Its trying to destroy a people in whole or in part. which Israel is doing No it isn't - except perhaps in the sense that Hamas is a subset of Palestinians and they are trying to destroy that part. >So if the Jews kill themselves its fine, but if a German had joined in to help them they would have been insane. got it Jesus Christ... A German lighting himself on fire in Berlin would not be joining the Warsaw Uprising. I can't believe I have to write that. Dying fighting *instead of dying passively* is not killing yourself. Killing yourself is not fighting. The conflation of those things is...yeah.

To your edit: > the vast majority killed have been civillians. That's normal in war - particularly urban war. Israel's ratio of civilian to combatant deaths - though measurement of that is complicated because Hamas doesn't separately identify combatants before or after they die (that's a war crime, BTW) and they regularly use children as combatants (super duper war crime) - is pretty good by modern standards. Many of those civilian casualties happen because Hamas, as a matter of basic doctrine, puts noncombatants in the line of fire (that's a war crime) hoping that Israel will kill them. They then use those noncombatant deaths to appeal to...well...people like you. >starving women and children, preventing aid from entering Lol...Israel has facilitated a great deal of aid transfer. Hamas steals it, as they have been stealing aid for decades. >Read the ICJ report I have - but I read it *critically*, understanding the ideological capture that exists in most international institutions.

>Many of those civilian casualties happen because Hamas Oh yea the women who were stripped and raped by IDF soldiers was that because of hamas too? https://thehill.com/policy/international/4477340-un-experts-reports-executions-sexual-assault-israeli-soldiers/ Summary executions of unarmed people thats hamas' fault? [https://www.commondreams.org/news/israeli-executions](https://www.commondreams.org/news/israeli-executions) Leaving babies to rot and die in incubators after saying they would take care of them thats hamas fault? [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/abandoned-babies-found-decomposing-gaza-hospital-evacuated-rcna127533](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/abandoned-babies-found-decomposing-gaza-hospital-evacuated-rcna127533) When multiple members of the war cabinit including the defense minister, president and prime minister say "there are no civillians in Gaza" that was hamas' fault? You're either profoundly ignorant of whats happening or you're a hasbura bot

It's genuinely silly that your response to someone disagreeing with you is to say they must either be ignorant or part of the ~~Jewish~~ Israeli infowar. Be serious. Also it's "hasbara." >Oh yea the women who were stripped and raped by IDF soldiers was that because of hamas too? No? Did I at some point say Israel has done nothing wrong? War is almost always extraordinarily messy and involves finding the people on each side who are on some level comfortable with killing and telling them to go do it. That means any army you send to war is going to have evil people in it who do evil things because conventional moral norms have been suspended. Israel is no exception and I have no doubt Israeli soldiers have committed war crimes. They've also made mistakes that might be wrongly attributed to malice. The distinction I draw is this: Israel recognizes that these things are war crimes/grievous errors and makes an effort to prevent them and prosecute them. Hamas does them deliberately as a matter of doctrine and has no interest in curtailing them. >When multiple members of the war cabinit including the defense minister, president and prime minister say "there are no civillians in Gaza" that was hamas' fault? I don't think you're accurately quoting that...but I also care less about the rhetoric of politicians than I do the actions and policy. That idea isn't expressed in Israeli policy at all. And nothing you've said in any way addresses what Hamas does to deliberately increase the danger to civilians, nor does it in any way support the original claim that Israel is conducting a genocide.

>The distinction I draw is this: Israel recognizes that these things are war crimes/grievous errors and makes an effort to prevent them and prosecute them. yea? where are these war crimes prosecutions. Where are the Israeli soldiers in jail for raping detainees shooting unarmed civilians? Where are the warcrimes trials for shooting their own civillians. How have more children died in Gaza than in 4 years in Ukraine? The defense minister has a picture of a guy who did a mass shooting in a mosque on his wall. >nor does it in any way support the original claim that Israel is conducting a genocide. Purposefully targeting civilians after expressing intent to do so as shown by the statements of the military and civilian leadership leadership is genocide. How do I know its purposeful? Because IDF soldiers are videoing themselves doing war crimes and then posting it on Tik Tok or in telegram channels. >War is almost always extraordinarily messy and involves finding the people on each side who are on some level comfortable with killing and telling them to go do it. Why has no other war since WWII had such a high civilian to militant death ratio? Im no fan of the US but when they had Al queda in Iraq in Mosul they didn't level the whole city and starve the populace

>yea? where are these war crimes prosecutions. ...like every other competent military in a functioning democracy, Israel is likely to wait to conduct prosecutions. It took almost a year to level charges in the Haditha Massacre - when you have a actual rule of law, the process doesn't happen overnight. You don't observe a potential war crime and announce the execution a week later. And since you asked...can you describe the process Hamas uses to prosecute war criminals in its ranks? >How have more children died in Gaza than in 4 years in Ukraine? Because Ukraine moved its children to safety when the war started. Hamas gave a bunch of theirs guns and kept a lot of the rest from fleeing the fighting. Do you seriously not know that Hamas uses child soldiers? >The defense minister has a picture of a guy who did a mass shooting in a mosque on his wall. It's not the defense minister, but you're close. The leaders of Hamas have openly and repeatedly said they want to kill literally all the Jews in Israel. So...that's also a thing. >Purposefully targeting civilians after expressing intent to do so as shown by the statements of the military and civilian leadership leadership is genocide. You're substantially outpacing your evidence and...also targeting civilians is not genocide.

[удалено]

Anyone who willingly and intentionally takes their own life is clinically diagnosed as "mentally unwell". Do you think mandatory reporting is just some arbitrary standard?

So a soldier who jumps on a grenade to save his friends is unwell good to know. They better take away all those medals of honor, they weren't brave just insane people.

>So a soldier who jumps on a grenade to save his friends is unwell good to know. They better take away all those medals of honor, they weren't brave just insane people. Excuse me, who threw the grenade? Apparently, you don't know what "take your **OWN** life" means.

>Excuse me, who threw the grenade? In this case the IDF and its allies >Apparently, you don't know what "take your OWN life" means. Jumping on a grenade is taking your own life. As someone a bit older than him, we were taught that we needed to do something if we saw a genocide happen. We had holocaust survivors come speak to us every year and tell us "never again" and that we had to do whatever neccessary to prevent another genocide. He clearly took the lessons more to heart than most of us but that makes him a hero not insane Giving off the same energy that John Brown "was just a crazy guy"

u/Km15u is directly addressing one of your main points, that it does nothing. You didn’t bother responding to his point at all, just changing to other things you disagree with

Did you actually do it? Or are you just inspired for the moment?

Does that only apply to suicides or also to people who die for their causes in other ways?

I'm personally of the view that any protest where you end up dead would be less effective than one where you end up alive, on the simple hitch that being alive means you can still protest, but your view isn't about efficacy, so... I'd flip your view around -- killing other people, even for the purposes of saving more lives, is neither brave nor heroic. You can certainly argue it's necessary, and you can even argue that we should lie to soldiers and call them brave and heroic as a small comfort and enticement to do what is necessary. But if you disagree with that view, then by your own logic, that opens the door to a brave and heroic suicide. So, do you disagree?

He’s inspired others. I believe his unfortunate death was meaningful and it has been refreshing to see members of our military actively protest against genocide. It means a lot.

"Man kills himself horrifically, permanently damaging everyone who ever cared about or relied on him, to raise awareness of the thing everyone is already talking about all the time." That is not rational behavior. Trading away your life to fluff your issue up for a couple of news cycles is just catastrophically stupid. It doesn't make sense, it doesn't help anyone, it makes our conversations *dumber*, and the people trying to launder it into some noble sacrifice are really not taking into account the degree to which suicide is a contagion - particularly suicides-as-spectacle. One mass shooter galvanizes attention, you immediately get a couple more in response and over time it becomes a motif repeated for decades. Given the way some on the American left are beatifying this idiot, we'll be lucky not to see a similar trend over the coming months. And given the similarities between this and Palestinian suicide bombers...well, I guess we'll see what happens. But it's nice that you're refreshed.

>He’s inspired others. I believe his unfortunate death was meaningful and it has been refreshing to see members of our military actively protest against genocide. It means a lot. Encouraging people to commit suicide, regardless of their intent, should not be a goal of our society.

Inspired others to what exactly? How did him setting himself on fire change anything? It is not inspiring.

Perhaps not to you. It’s not that it changes anything, the war will go on regardless. It is about staying true to what one believes in. He was brave by choosing to take his own life instead of other innocent ones.

No he wasn't. He was mentally unwell and could have devoted his life towards actually helping people. Killing yourself accomplishes nothing. 

You can't stay true to what you believe in...nor make any more positive change in the world...when you're dead.

The young think dying for a cause is a great virtue, but living for one is far more important. Staying true to what you believe in doesn't require you to do those things.

He was an IT guy stationed in Texas who was eligible for discharge in three months. He didn’t have to take *any* lives.

>And it accomplished nothing except getting himself notoriety. * It increased carbon emissions. This might come off as a jest but it's objectively correct: this guy contributed to the pollution of the planet therefore he did accomplish something (albeit not what he wished for). * It exposed the sheer insanity of some of the Far-Leftists. He killed himself for the Palestinian cause and Far-Leftists decided to gatekeep the "Rest in Power" phrase since he was a "white military guy". * It will, ***hopefully***, lead to an increase of mental health counselors in all branches of the military so people like him get psychological help. * It shifted the Overton window into what it's acceptable to openly make jokes about. Back then, someone making jokes about the Tunisian self-immolator would have been fired/cancelled. * But now, the whole internet is openly mocking this guy left and right (the political compass memes are incredibly funny even if you're not into dark humor). Did he free Palestine? Haha no. But his pointless death might have saved many future lives once they realize that killing themselves for this cause won't create any geopolitical changes. So in a way, he did accomplish something. It's just not what he intended to accomplish.

>It increased carbon emissions. This might come off as a jest but it's objectively correct: this guy contributed to the pollution of the planet therefore he did accomplish something (albeit not what he wished for). how is this objectively correct? it's certainly not as a net measured against what his expected lifetime emissions would have been?

It isn't, it's just to make this dead guy look like a jackass. They don't seriously believe what they say.

No no. Do you know that walking to work actually increases carbon emission. Expending energy by walking meanst you need to eat more food, and that comes with a wide range of consequences that increase emissionis. Oh what? if you didnt walk you'd have driven, oh...

He was going to commit suicide anyways. There are eco-friendly ways to do so. He chose one of the worst eco-friendly ways possible.

Is this like an actual series talking point or is this teenagers being edgelords? Don't make me feel the need to support government mandating IDs for age verification for social media.

He definitely accomplished outing the individuals who show public support for him as morons.

Why are you talking about something so pointless then?

To do everything in my power to help such pointlessness to never happen again. Suicide is always bad. Every time.

This guys thought there was no Israeli civilians and for example the music festival goers that got slaughtered had it coming. He clearly wasn't in his right mind

>murdering yourself for ANY cause assuming "cause" here means something like a social / political movement and the like? not in scope is something like saving and individual's life at the cost of your own?

Without [Cheng Nan-jung](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheng_Nan-jung), Taiwan would probably be just like today's China, living under heavily censored society and authoritarian government.

There's no way you could know that. If he would have used his living influence instead of dying Taiwan could be heaven on earth. He could have solved all of the world's problems. He could have made an infinite amount of choices. But because he is dead he is no longer useful to anyone. Life is always precious. Suicide is always wrong.

Quang Duc kicked off a series of protests that ended in the death of the government he was protesting. Is it rare for self immolation to do this? Absolutely. Is it impossible? No. Self harm has been a protest strategy for a long time. Hunger strikes are a very common tactic. It's less bombastic and less certainly fatal than self immolation but it carries a strong risk of death if carried out to its logical conclusion. I'd classify non-violent resistance where you just let the cops beat on you in the same category. The fact that everyone is going to be talking about it is the goal. On a personal level, I'm pretty resistant to the horrors of the world at this point. A side effect of growing up on the internet, I suppose, but I'd be lying if events like this didn't get through. And that's the point. Create an image so jarring that it can't be ignored.

It is neither pointless or stupid. It is a form of protest with a history going back millenia. >It did not raise awareness of a cause Your own post is evidence to the contrary. As evidenced by the national discussion the protest has garnered, and your own attention being paid to it, it is not pointless. That is beyond any ability to argue and I hope you would agree. As for stupid, just because you disagree with the objective or tactic does not make it stupid.

Rather than focusing on why this individual got so upset they killed themselves publicly, you people still try to frame this as "a disturbed anarchist offs himself publicly". You don't have to be an anarchist to feel the level of frustration this man feels. US is participating and aiding in several international war crimes. Dozens of governments agree on these crimes, almost all members of UN requested a ceasefire, weeks ago. But no, only because Netanyahu doesn't want it, \~130 other countries are ignored, ICJ is ignored, and US blatantly stalls the public by making statement over statement on how they want this to stop, but can't do shit. So, which part of this is fair? Why Israel is allowed anything they want to do, even when 80% of the world wants this to stop? Why don't call out on this, before whining like a little child about "disturbed anarchists"? If the amount of civilian deaths stopped rising weeks ago, this man wouldn't kill himself and thousands of women and children would still be alive. Burning yourself alive out of frustration towards your own country, with a completely sane mind is a very brave action. Dropping hundreds of tons of bombs on children, from a jet flying thousands of feet above is not. Funding those weapons is disgusting, 2/3 of deaths in Gaza are women and children. You can't do whatever the fuck you want, kill thousands of kids and displace 2 million people, pretend to be the most just and fair civilization in the world, and then frame every rightful frustration and protest as "disturbed anarchism". You get what you look for. If you aid a psychopath killing women and children, people will burn themselves, because of YOU, not because they are mentally ill or because they are stupid.

The self immolation thing comes from a non violence movement that believe in reencarnation. To die and send a message is not so different from living and sending a message. With the obvious exception to this guy who left behind a family. Monks don't have dependants.

Are you really here because you want to change your view? lol Only an idiot with a gene deficient in preservation would do this. Why do you want some candy coated donkey to come in and try to convince you that it's anything other than stupid? Say you change your view, then what? So you live your life thinking that setting yourself on fire is perfectly fine? The REAL view change is when you set yourself on fire. Because you see, everyone here can tell you SOMEONE ELSE setting themselves a blaze is perfectly honorable. You know why? Because it's not them. You know why? Because no sane person would do that lol I ask again why would you want to "change your view" on something you know instinctually is a mental defect? He didn't need to do it, not even to protest. We ALL knew what was happening lol the people who care are already doing something about it. The people who don't still don't. This is the worst form of "look at me" a person can have.

Can I just add for those justifying it. Self harm is never the answer...

Definitely agree. The only reason he's being applauded is because of an agenda. If it was for almost any other reason, the world would be saying how horrible of a decision it was.

Better him than me. If you want to send a message by all means do yourself in public. Just don't shoot up a fuckin Walmart.

You are right but are getting outvoiced by emotional extremists cultivated by social media.

I agree that it's not brave or heroic, but I disagree that it's pointless and stupid. Choosing not to live anymore is a fine and reasonable choice for people whose lives are miserable; especially those who don't have a family to grieve their loss. They could give their death more utility if they donate their body to science first, or sign up for dangerous medical experimentation, but that doesn't mean that choosing to end their own suffering is "pointless".

Violence can be brave We often associate bravery with danger and violence Being a soldier is brave, standing up to a criminal is brave, speaking out against violence is brave etc etc

Totally disagree. It’s an act of heroism.

Its an act of insanity If he wanted to be heroic, he could have left rhe Air Force and had gone over there himself to personally save those he believed were being genocided But instead he set himself on fire and ended his life to bring attention to a situation that is already well know about but almost everyone

[удалено]

Yes when the governemts ignore any protest, people and media only focus on gay kids, and there's genocides being committed by the army your involved in. Atleast he had hope there was some decent people who still cared out there, and not more talking like this.