Diseased Sanctioned Suicide - "Kill yourself" but unironically with sodium nitrite. Higher death count than the Farms. Targeted by parents, legislators, and journalists looking to alter Section 230.

[palko]

This thread is actually one of the first results when googling Tantacrul's fake name for SS, with "Sanctioned Suicide" right in the title.
The SS wiki page is now also linked in the wiki article for sodium nitrite.
It's like they want as many people as possible to find the forum.

 

[hamsters are cool]

This thread is actually one of the first results when googling Tantacrul's fake name for SS, with "Sanctioned Suicide" right in the title.
The SS wiki page is now also linked in the wiki article for sodium nitrite.
It's like they want as many people as possible to find the forum.

Congratulations, Tantacrul! Your 'journalism' has done nothing make over a million people aware of a suicide forum that they would otherwise be oblivious to!

 

[iffywas]

Tantacrul's killcount sure went from 0-60 real quick.

Was it worth it for views though?
I'd argue that Tantacrul is the biggest villain in the whole sorry story. I hope he can grasp the enormity of the implications and the consequences of his actions.

 

[hamsters are cool]

Tantacrul's killcount sure went from 0-60 real quick.

Was it worth it for views though?
I'd argue that Tantacrul is the biggest villain in the whole sorry story. I hope he can grasp the enormity of the implications and the consequences of his actions.

A lot of people in the youtube comment section saying that if they found the website when they were teens and suicidal, they would have probably went through with it. Excuse me motherfucker, what about the current young and suicidal folks who have been directed to sanctioned suicide by this video? What's the goal in getting this video to reach as many minors as possible? Did Tantacrul think this video was going discourage actively suicidal people from exploring their options?

 

[iffywas]

A lot of people in the youtube comment section saying that if they found the website when they were teens and suicidal, they would have probably went through with it. Excuse me motherfucker, what about the current young and suicidal folks who have been directed to sanctioned suicide by this video? What's the goal in getting this video to reach as many minors as possible? Did Tantacrul think this video was going discourage actively suicidal people from exploring their options?

Well he's a mental health expert, I presume he must be since he is apparently qualified to talk about this. Being such a virtuous, caring man I think he will personally reach out to each and every person in his comment section and offer them free mental health support. It would only be the correct and most humanitarian thing to do. Heaven forbid they end up on that terrible suicide forum where the users will literally do a Michelle Carter on them.

 

[thegooddoctor]

Blah blah blah. I’m only talking to one person in here. All the ignorant stuff from the punk kids just gets dusted off my shoulder. Could care less. Just reminds me where our society is today. My comments are to the one grown ass man that runs a website and talks to children online handing out suicide knowledge like it’s candy. Who posts people’s deaths as success stories.

Gas yourself you abusive cockwart, you undermine such serious things like literal child death with childish insults and have no idea how that could be construed as wrong. Did your parents raise you like this? even if that is the case its not an excuse get our head out of your ass if you ever want to have a child that doesn't end it imao.

 

[Prince Vegeta]

You're all blind. Tantacrul is pro SS and this was his 4D chess move to bring in new members. He's probably FuneralCry in a pickle suit too.

 

[CB_]

Gas yourself you abusive cockwart, you undermine such serious things like literal child death with childish insults and have no idea how that could be construed as wrong. Did your parents raise you like this? even if that is the case its not an excuse get our head out of your ass if you ever want to have a child that doesn't end it imao.

I undermine child death? I’m the only person in this entire thread that has issue with the website and it’s laxed policy on minors. Get your head out of your ass and read the damn thread.

 

[h2_jGX]

Sorry if this has been mentioned previously - I've only briefly skimmed the replies of the thread.

Does anyone know why RainAndSadness hasn't banned FuneralCry? I know their argument is that FuneralCry has been warned for things they've said, but at this point FuneralCry has become "the face" of the website. Every time Sanctioned Suicide is even mentioned anymore, they're almost always brought up. Their posts are always the main focus, their posts are taken as "this is what they do on there!", and so on.

At what point is this one single user worth keeping around, even at the sacrifice of the website's PR? They are now what outsiders think of when they hear the name "Sanctioned Suicide" and I'm curious why the owner thinks it's "worth it"?

 

[thegooddoctor]

This thread is actually one of the first results when googling Tantacrul's fake name for SS, with "Sanctioned Suicide" right in the title.
The SS wiki page is now also linked in the wiki article for sodium nitrite.
It's like they want as many people as possible to find the forum.

This thread is going to take a very dark turn soon, if the ghoulish content hasn't already implied.

 

[afounder]

Sorry if this has been mentioned previously - I've only briefly skimmed the replies of the thread.

Does anyone know why RainAndSadness hasn't banned FuneralCry? I know their argument is that FuneralCry has been warned for things they've said, but at this point FuneralCry has become "the face" of the website. Every time Sanctioned Suicide is even mentioned anymore, they're almost always brought up. Their posts are always the main focus, their posts are taken as "this is what they do on there!", and so on.

At what point is this one single user worth keeping around, even at the sacrifice of the website's PR? They are now what outsiders think of when they hear the name "Sanctioned Suicide" and I'm curious why the owner thinks it's "worth it"?

To be fair, I don't think there's any use in trying to do good PR for a suicide discussion forum. My philosophy is that if a user isn't breaking any rules, laws, or causing too much disruption, then it is better just to leave them alone. I don't like FC and her very AI-like mannerisms, but I don't think banning them without them breaking any rules is a good move to take on principle.

I undermine child death? I’m the only person in this entire thread that has issue with the website and it’s laxed policy on minors. Get your head out of your ass and read the damn thread.

The site hasn't had any lax policies on the manner for at least 3 years. I'm sure that you probably conferred with Tentacrul for his horrible video too, so you're probably indirectly responsible for driving more minors to the forum that you're complaining about.

I don't really think you have any room to talk here.

 

[h2_jGX]

To be fair, I don't think there's any use in trying to do good PR for a suicide discussion forum. My philosophy is that if a user isn't breaking any rules, laws, or causing too much disruption, then it is better just to leave them alone. I don't like FC and her very AI-like mannerisms, but I don't think banning them without them breaking any rules is a good move to take on principle.

I agree for the most part, but I guess I don't see FC being banned is a "good PR" move, but rather not letting this single user dominate the conversation and voice of the website. It would be nice if the discussion about the forum was rather about the people who ran it, not about this user's weird postings.

Now, I'm not saying every topic about the website is solely surrounded around FC - This thread is a good example of it not being like that - But that user being mentioned as often as they have been is a highly uncomfortable amount to me.

When I think of Kiwifarms, I think of Null. When I think about Facebook, I think about Mark Zuckerberg. When I think about SS, I think about FC.

At some point, I think the community's input has to be valuable to some degree. If the conversation around this user is constantly being brought up, such as "They should be banned" or "I don't like their posts", then maybe it should be consdiered beyond the point of "Did they break Y rule or not".

I'm obviously for free speech; I mean, I'm here. I'm also Pro-SS (even a user there). Overall, I agree with the concept of minimally banning users. But, I don't know. I would NOT let some random user have control of my website like that, especially when they're being used as an example of the "worse" of the website.

 

[CB_]

Never spoke with him and there is no policy. Everyone just clicks a button. Don’t be so naive.

 

[iffywas]

Never spoke with him and there is no policy. Everyone just clicks a button. Don’t be so naive.

How would you solve the button clicking problem then Einstein?

 

[AnOminous]

I undermine child death? I’m the only person in this entire thread that has issue with the website and it’s laxed policy on minors. Get your head out of your ass and read the damn thread.

Your whole plan of putting out a fire by pouring gasoline on it has been tremendously helpful, thanks a lot faggot. Just living in a world with people like you in it is probably a huge cause of suicide.

 

[Markass the Worst]

Just wanted to share this winner post by @RaS.

source (a)
The graphs tell the whole story. Never before have I seen such a clear demonstration of the Streisand effect.

Good job, Martin Keary.

 

[FailurePersonifiedV2]

I understand where you're coming from, but at the same time, many of the people that end up on SS are people that have heard the same platitudes, been involuntarily committed, abused, raped, or assaulted. Giving them that room to vent without getting all up in their face and trying to debate them when all they are feeling is despair and pain is very important. Most of these people are people that have fallen through the crack of our society. They have likely already gone through therapy and their doctors (for those suffering from debilitating or chronic conditions) and the mental health system failed them there. The least that someone can do in that situation is listen and give people their space.

I get that; I don't have a problem with that mentality, and the recovery sub-forum seems to be a good place for this sort of thing. People actually encouraging people to do better but not patronizing or talking down to them/trying to fix their problems.

Though from what I've seen of the other side of the site; they don't seem to hold to that mentality.

Because the statement has been made countless times in this thread with no evidence to back it up. The only evidence that someone posted was a low count poster telling a single mother to kill themselves, but it seems there were banned for making that comment, which seems to contradict their point that the moderator staff doesn't enforce the rules.

Ah I see; it doesn't come off like that; trying to follow the conversation just to see the same poster saying the same thing raises the noise floor. However I'm still not sure I find much value in the reminders. I'm not gonna be too mean though; since I understand, with that context it's more tolerable.

I'm neither here nor there; I don't care if a community is discussing suicide, however I find it dishonest that the founders/mods of the website fail to uphold their own statement of their mission statement. This idea that they are not a pro-suicide forum, but a choose-your-own path seems so fuckin' ridiculous when you find shit within the first few minutes that seem to contradict that statement, even the lack of a ban for that one suicide-baiter who's been negging ppl on the forum for years. A site like SS isn't sustainable and I give it 3-4 years before someone really shits the bed when they look into it, all it takes is a few "high profile" suicides, and the founder doesn't seem to be the type to value much that I can tell, so they will most likely crumble against any real effort to take the site down. As the suggested/recommended ways of unaliving are well researched, but the painful nature of those techniques as well as the probability of success does not seem to be properly reported. Giving young or old individuals a fictitious idea of the outcomes. Very irresponsible (I think the whole site could be boiled down to that).

 

[Prince Vegeta]

A site like SS isn't sustainable and I give it 3-4 years before someone really shits the bed when they look into it, all it takes is a few "high profile" suicides, and the founder doesn't seem to be the type to value much that I can tell, so they will most likely crumble against any real effort to take the site down.

I'm confused. I thought the site is no longer run by the founder, but by some current mods.

 

[Sprate Header]

Thread got the Diseased tag!

Skipped right over being Infected, lol

 

[FailurePersonifiedV2]

I'm confused. I thought the site is no longer run by the founder, but by some current mods.

Shit my bad, you're right, I forgot that fact; since the current mods running the site don't seem to deviate from the founder's behavior (well, not very much) I think I must have just lumped them together as the same person.

You're totally right though; my bad. <3