Activist's Fiery Death Prompts Questions

His son may be right. But wouldn't it suck if you died trying to prove a point, and even after you died, somebody said it was only because you were sick. I'd be pissed.

But, unfortunately, you'd not be around to @!$%# about it.

In my view, the mental health professionals are right about some psychological reasoning behind virtually every suicide...whether this be depression, insanity, brainwashing, etc.. Ritscher's known bouts of depression lend strength to this, especially when augmented by his own son's statements.

Physically healthy people who commit suicide are not mentally stable.

This self destructive person's 'cause' is severely overshadowed by the unstable mental condition that allowed him to kill himself in such a gruesome way in front of as many horrified witnesses as possible. Causing dire mental shock for so many people does nothing but share the destructiveness one feels toward one's self. It brings about no constructive, positive change.

To me, this event shows the adverse influence and the added instability in letting a political mindset take such complete control over one's existence. It does nothing to change my mind on any social issues whatsoever. It only aids to confirm my theories on the mental state of rabid activists and the odd obsessions that drive them to lash out at ideas that have their disapproval.

Your right. The war had nothing to do with it.

It only aids to confirm my theories on the mental state of rabid activists and the odd obsessions that drive them to lash out at ideas that have their disapproval.

Didn't you mean to say "It only reinforces my own unjustified feelings of moral superiority?"

Come on Jimmy.. try to add to the conversation rather than just leaving a snarky comment.

You could have at least asked about Koozebane's theories - he doesn't even say what they are.

His theory is obvious: anyone he disagrees with is crazy.

Didn't you mean to say "It only reinforces my own unjustified feelings of moral superiority?"

Interesting reaction toward the subject of lashing out.

I'm certain you didn't actually mean to be so insulting toward a thoroughly imagined stance. It just came out that way.

Confusing mental health with mental superiority is a common mistake everybody makes.

Out of curiosity, do you consider yourself a rabid activist?

do you consider yourself a rabid activist?

I'm sure you do.

Actually, I'm an independent centrist who believes extreme activism is a form of an obsessive mental condition.

I've seen it drive people to type the most ridiculous and empty retorts ever witnessed on a public board....even after they've already been thoroughly PWN3D by their own rabid tendencies to attack blindly.

Sorry, my reply was unclear. Of course you regard yourself as an independent centrist. [cough]

What I meant to say is "I'm sure you regard me as a rabid activist." No doubt you also believe you've PWN3D me, and many others as well. [cough]

What I meant to say is "I'm sure you regard me as a rabid activist.

You are displaying the exact qualities we were discussing and none of that is my fault. I'm just asking questions to ascertain why you're lashing out during a discussion on......lashing out.

Accusatory assumptions on what total strangers are thinking about you only indicate some sort of odd persecution complex or outright paranoia. That sort of discussion is hardly topical or necessary.

You have a mound of circumstantial evidence to overcome to restore any reputation you hope to retain. I'd get busy doing that instead of attacking strangers blindly and tarnishing it even more.

Oh, I am so PWN3D. You have put me in my place with your skillful rhetoric.

[cough]

I'm an independent centrist

[cough]

More than three weeks after the fact?

http://news.google.com/news?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&tab=wn&q=protest+suicide+chicago&scoring=d&sa=N&start=120

First mention of this on Google News is Nov. 8, on Indymedia. Nope, no overlooking going on there! Move along, folks, nothing to see!

Yea, I even seeded it¹ back on November 14, a full 11 days after the fact. Got me 10 votes and 7 comments; but for something as graphic and someone setting themselves on fire that's a pretty tame response.

1. Stupid Newsvine Doppleganger screws me again by not giving credit where credit is due

The title of this article here on Newsvine seems to be changing every five minutes. First it was something like "People shocked my activist death", then it was "unnoticed", now it is "prompting questions". Apparently, the news media is unsure how to tell the people to react...

Good observation, Celestina. I think for more than one reason it is a story that creates difficulties with angling. First, it is a suicide, which touches on a taboo. Usually you don't cover suicides, unless they are spectacular and in the 'public interest' to know about. So, it is a story of public interest, but is it? Like comments have shown, it is 'not about the war', but about personal depression. Two very different sentiments. The first title, 'activist', suddenly appears improper. The angle changes: Why doesn't anybody care for this poor guy or other suicide candidates? But outrage doesn't work either. It is just too eccentric. It is still a 'good' story, meaning it is relatively sensational. So, the angle changes, it becomes "thought provoking" all of a sudden. It's in the science and health section. If there is any spin off to this, it is likely to be only thematically related, for instance suicide statistics, suicide activism, etc. Just a guess.

Celestina: welcome to the memory hole.

Claus: the Soviets used to lock dissidents up in mental hospitals, since you must be crazy to oppose the State. Here, the newspapers call them crazy.

Curse Newsvine and the way it screws up line breaks!

Holy... Nice imagination.

so true. a real tragedy. i actually seeded this story back on the 15th. too bad it didn't move up the vine.

Unfortunately, martyrdom is a part of collective Wsestern mythology that receives far too much attention from the mentally unstable. While I agree with his cause, his actions and motivations are questionable, at best. Death is not the best way to stop death. Voices are best heard when there is someone to speak.

Someone really just wrote "martyrdom is a dead end"? Really?

Good job on that reading skill there Nick.I believe the irony of the statement might have been intended.I thought it was clever,yet a fine line to walk if intended for humor,considering the grave topic.

Unfortunately, martyrdom is a part of collective Wsestern mythology

Of course you can't forget those crazy muslim martyrs as well.

I was with you until you said it was inherently wrong to commit suicide, as if you're the judge of morality.

This person was definitely a copy cat.

I can't help but believe extreme religious types who set fire to themselves have issues as well, regardless of their standing or popularity in the immediate community. Separating one's self from society to live a rigidly devout monks' life is an extreme mindset in itself....a lifestyle not many humans could endure.

The religious ritual of sacrificing a life simply to appease the gods or promote a desired reality is archaic at best.

At any rate, it appears these monks are a negative example to mentally unstable individuals who need a good excuse to kill themselves.

I think psychologists would call at least part of this awareness projection, Brandon. It's like if you lose your job and feel unfairly treated, suddenly all corporations are bad. Or if a government law or project damages your community, and you suffer loss, then federal is suddenly evil. Or cheap Mexican labor has robbed your dad of employment, then immigration sucks.

This has nothing to do with intelligence or morals.

Setting fire to one's self is an act most humans do everything to avoid. Purposely dying in such a horrible and very public way points to disturbingly deep issues caused by overwhelming emotional pain.

Excusing this spectacular and brutal means of self destruction due to some kindred philosophy only serves to romanticize a gruesome act and ignore the needless horror and mental anguish caused to others. In most cases, people who commit suicide have reached a point where they no longer care about the feelings of family, those who are close to them, or, in this particular case, those immediately around them. To me, this points directly to the heart of the matter and belies this suicide's stated motives.

<satire>
Yea, like those callus monks in Vietnam who didn't care about their family, friends, or people close to them and set them selves on fire.

Selfish bastards.
</satire>

A monk's mindset and killing one's self as a martyr has already been addressed in this thread. Perhaps your satire would prove a bit too silly to post in that part of the discussion.

In most cases, people who commit suicide have reached a point where they no longer care about the feelings of family, those who are close to them, or, in this particular case, those immediately around them.

The phrases "in most cases" and "in this particular case" have very specific meaning in the English language.

Look into it and get back with us if you manage find any real discrepancies with the statement.

koozebane - although i do understand your point, i feel as though there may be something missing here. I certainly agree that suicide is not something to be romanticized and that it is led to by heavily imbalanced emotion. However, this does not point to mental issues, or insanity of any kind. Merely an imbalance of perspective that we all have the potential of attaining and frequently do.

If he had merely wanted to end his life with no care in the world, a bullet would have sufficed. But he DID have a care in the world, and it was FOR the world. I'm not sure the suicide should negate the motives. He surely had intent to make a point here, a good one at that, and we owe him that recognition despite his method of asking for it. also - death should not be feared - it is part of a natural cycle - it's infrequent but not uncommon for human beings to give their lives to benefit the whole.

if the world was at peace, and all political agendas to his acceptance - do you think he still would have done it? I feel like he wouldnt have. My point here is the conditions and disconnect of our world is what influenced his decision, not a disturbing deep unknown issue in his brain.

i suppose we'll never know for sure wether he had found peace in himself and intent was pure - or if he was just a nutcase....

I feel he would have found some other cause.....

Baby seals.
World hunger.
Gay rights.
Free pr0n on network TV....

Any number of topics would do.

Frankly, agreeing with the cause, whatever it may be, shouldn't be reason to rationalize a horrible self destruction and purposeful mental trauma to others.

His son's words ring very true.......regardless of the deeper meaning this man, his family, and sympathizers to the cause try to give his horrible demise.

more often than not, individuals who commit suicide are quite intelligent human beings and have an enormous sense of awareness to the world.

Therefore, they are mocked for being crazy.

They need a Report This Item As: Incoherent option.

Sorry, what does this have to do with this man's immolation?

interesting....i don't understand the 17+35=52..

oddly enough i can almost grasp the idea here... yes, it is all the same fabric.

He married at 17, and died at 52.

Of course, the story says he was divorced ten years after marriage, so the may not even care, or she may be devastated. It's hard to know.