It's definitely both. Lighting yourself on fire to make a point is a terrible idea. If your goal is to bring about change, killing yourself actively works against that.
Suicide as protest is the same act as silencing yourself. That's not protest. It's submission.
Well, we are talking about him now, and millions of people have hears his message in his own words. Or he could still be alive in a sea of picketers being ignored. I don't approve of suicide either, bit he very effectively got a lot of people to listen to him, or at least to hear him. We all should be so silent.
I'm pretty sure the other commenter will continue to ignore this fairly obvious facet to his death.
Nobody should be silent
For 2 weeks. And then he won't be part of conversation until the next person does it. Then we'll all look back. Say remember when they did this too. And forget again.
Taking away your ability to bring about change isn't effective protest.
I remember pictures and articles of such in textbooks growing up in Florida. That was 1963 in Siagom. 61 years, Half a world away and his sacrifice had an impact to this day. 2 weeks is a bit of an understatement.
Yet not only did the Vietnam war escalate, it went on another 10 years after.
So are you calling for another 10 years, or learning from mistakes? I'm not sure what you are arguing for here. Gaza won't last that long
I'm refuting the general idea here that a person commiting suicide changed the world for the better. Especially when it was someone concerned about what was going on. Who might have gone on to actually help.
Regardless of the where/when. A concerned person choosing suicide as their means of protest only takes away their ability to bring about change.
You'd have an argument if he had shot himself, or ODed on pills, or slashed his wrists, or any number of other painless, or at least very quick, ways of offing himself.
He set himself on fucking fire. One of the worst ways imaginable to die that doesn't require someone else's active participation, and in fact resists someone else actively trying to stop him. It gets attention.
Can it be both?
It's definitely both. Lighting yourself on fire to make a point is a terrible idea. If your goal is to bring about change, killing yourself actively works against that.
Self-immolation is a powerful form of protest. He sacrificed his life to draw attention and send a message.
Suicide as protest is the same act as silencing yourself. That's not protest. It's submission.
Well, we are talking about him now, and millions of people have hears his message in his own words. Or he could still be alive in a sea of picketers being ignored. I don't approve of suicide either, bit he very effectively got a lot of people to listen to him, or at least to hear him. We all should be so silent.
I'm pretty sure the other commenter will continue to ignore this fairly obvious facet to his death.
Nobody should be silent
For 2 weeks. And then he won't be part of conversation until the next person does it. Then we'll all look back. Say remember when they did this too. And forget again.
Taking away your ability to bring about change isn't effective protest.
I remember pictures and articles of such in textbooks growing up in Florida. That was 1963 in Siagom. 61 years, Half a world away and his sacrifice had an impact to this day. 2 weeks is a bit of an understatement.
Yet not only did the Vietnam war escalate, it went on another 10 years after.
So are you calling for another 10 years, or learning from mistakes? I'm not sure what you are arguing for here. Gaza won't last that long
I'm refuting the general idea here that a person commiting suicide changed the world for the better. Especially when it was someone concerned about what was going on. Who might have gone on to actually help.
Regardless of the where/when. A concerned person choosing suicide as their means of protest only takes away their ability to bring about change.
Yea sure, tell that to people who still celebrate the man that started the arab spring by committing self-immolation:
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2020/12/17/remembering-mohamed-bouazizi-his-death-triggered-the-arab
You'd have an argument if he had shot himself, or ODed on pills, or slashed his wrists, or any number of other painless, or at least very quick, ways of offing himself.
He set himself on fucking fire. One of the worst ways imaginable to die that doesn't require someone else's active participation, and in fact resists someone else actively trying to stop him. It gets attention.
I guess you haven’t heard of the arab spring https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mohamed-Bouazizi
Yes I have. And you're only thinking about that moment because another occurrence happened recently.
You'll even recognize if you're honest about this that the situation for most people did not change. In Yemen they even got dramatically worse.
Terrible idea, yes. Powerful form of protest? Also, yes.
Not protest. It's giving up with style.
Yet here we are talking about it.