Transgender game developer jumps off bridge after online abuse
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
http://thecolorffooff.tumblr.com/bluh
>On April 23rd Rachel posted her goodbye on Twitter and I freaked out and asked her a bunch of stuff to see if there was absolutely anything I could do to fix things.
>There, of course, wasn't.
>I asked her why she felt the need to do this. She replied saying that she had "incurable crippling diseases", specifically "RA + fibromyalgia" (RA I assume means Rheumatoid Arthritis).
> Lisa Bryk said her daughter’s illnesses — and not just the abuse she suffered online — drove her to suicide. “While Rachel was certainly bullied and harassed online, that was NOT the reason she committed suicide,” she wrote. “Please pass along info on the abuse that trans individuals endure, but let’s also educate people on how difficult it is to live every moment in pain. A combination of everything was likely the cause, so let’s not make her a anonymous statistic.”
Here are other headlines in the last few days: 0) "Tuna company charged after employee burned to death in oven", 1) "Blue Bell is hoping for a "fresh start" after a listeria outbreak led to a total recall." 2) "LAPD officer charged with assault after yet another cop beating caught on camera", 3) "‘This is not Ferguson': Muddled mantra heard again after Freddie Gray death", 4) "Ricky Gervais fires back after getting slaughtered over hunting remarks", 5) "Boy found safe after being abducted during Northern California car theft", 6) "Five dead in family dispute after hours-long standoff at Phoenix home"
There are so many examples where the phrase "after" is used for a temporal relationship where there is no direct causal relationship between the two. Eg, the five dead in (6) did not die because of an hours-long standoff but because of gunshot wounds.
Why do you think there is a contradiction? What meaning do you assign to "after" which is also compatible with the 7 other examples I presented?
Personally, I think the g'parent commenter didn't read the article and was trying to spin the conversation away from the idea that the written word can cause emotional trauma that might contribute to suicide.
The WaPo article is at http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/17... and the source article from ABC is at http://www.abc15.com/news/region-phoenix-metro/north-phoenix... .
> The suspect shot two of his brothers and then his mother came down from upstairs and he shot her. Afterwards the suspect went upstairs to find others in the home. He reportedly shot and killed a female relative. ... "Our dispatcher could hear shots fired in the background while that call was coming in," Crump said. "A caller had been able to escape the home at that point, get out and start to give us information."
Most, if not all, of the gunshot wounds occurred before the standoff even started.
I do not understand how you drew the conclusion that the deaths were due to gunshot wounds caused by the standoff. There's no basis for that in the two articles I referenced.
Your statement about "solely as a temporal relation" is not relevant. Even if true about rarity, the article quotes the mother as saying "A combination of everything was likely the cause". The article deliberately draws a connection between the online abuse and the suicide, as well as between her illness and the suicide. The headline picked the aspect that's most likely to draw attention, which is what headlines are for.
Thus there is no contradiction, only the incomplete information that one must expect from a headline. (It's a poor headline which says "Someone died.")
Much like the people who stand below someone on a roof yelling "Jump" and filming it with their smartphones are not the cause, but exacerbate the situation
Onwards: This is saddening. A brilliant programmer and open source contributor, snuffed out too soon by trolls and bullies. At risk of being accused of blaming the victim: we need to teach people, especially vulnerable young folks, to disengage from trolls and bullying online. Shut down your social media, turn off the computer if you need to. Killing yourself is a vast overreaction to being bullied on the internet, but can seem like the solution when you don't have have the proper perspective and tools to deal with the internet.
I'd also like to take issue with this being called transmisogyny per se. I'm not denying it exists, or exists within the communities it is accused of existing in. HOWEVER, trolls are trolls and bullies are bullies. They will take anything and everything about you that you may be even vaguely insecure about, and harp on it as hard as possible to get a reaction.
People have been doing this for what is now DECADES on the internet. It's a trait-agnostic tactic that is not unique to a trans person being bullied or trolled, or a gay person, or any other trait someone may have, or identity they may identify with. Painting this kind of behavior with such a narrow brush misses the point and issue entirely.
While anger and hateful comments about transgender individuals and the LGBTQ community in general are prevalent online, isn't there a different site she could have used?
There have been way too damn many trans suicides lately.
RIP :(