Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Release of “13 Reasons Why” Associated with Increase in Youth Suicide Rates

nimh.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 264 posts

Re: Release of “13 Reasons Why” Associated with Increase in Youth Suicide Rates

#91

Post by yifanl »

sbierwagen wrote: post #61
TheArcane wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Limit second amendment more to prevent more shootings. I've always wondered the validity of a "constitutional freedom" that allows random everyday people to own and operate tools that are essentially killing machines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack 87 deaths from a truck ramming attack. The existing licensing system was obviously insufficient to prevent this attack. What do you suggest be done to prevent attacks like this in the future?

I'm not sure how this is at all a relevant response?

Re: Release of “13 Reasons Why” Associated with Increase in Youth Suicide Rates

#92

Post by jakelazaroff »

mieseratte wrote: post #40
TheArcane wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Limit second amendment more to prevent more shootings. I've always wondered the validity of a "constitutional freedom" that allows random everyday people to own and operate tools that are essentially killing machines.

> I've always wondered the validity of a "constitutional freedom" that allows random everyday people to own and operate tools that are essentially killing machines. Not sure why you put quotes around constitutional freedom. The reason for the amendment is such that when someone or someones come along and attempt to abridge your rights you can kill them with the killing machine. As simple as that.

It will always be weird to me that threatening to murder other citizens for some vague, ill-defined hypothetical transgression is a mainstream, mostly accepted political viewpoint here in the US.

Re: Release of “13 Reasons Why” Associated with Increase in Youth Suicide Rates

#93

Post by ysleepy »

Paper: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gUa9-S...

The Werther Effect was well known, from inception, filming and publishing, the concerns seem to have been brushed aside. I really can't see how the studio, netflix and the producers can reject the blame for the induced suicides.

The show distinctly glorifies suicide, playing on the emotional issues and need for acknowledgment of teenagers.

Responsibility does not vanish if the effects are indirect or abstract.

"We produced the show true to the book." is no defense at all and there is a higher moral standard if you sell a product to children still.

Re: Release of “13 Reasons Why” Associated with Increase in Youth Suicide Rates

#94

Post by Majromax »

dbatten wrote: post #56
kaffeemitsahne wrote: post #16

Potentially OT. Why do people write >"While suicide rates for females increased after the show’s release, the increase was not statistically significant." instead of >"Suicide rates for females did not increase significantly after the show's release." ? I have seen this quite often and it always seems a bit misleading to me. Edit: I should have written the 2nd version as "No statistically significant increase in [...…

IMO, your proposed second option leaves ambiguity as to whether "significant" means "statistically significant" or "materially significant." The original option is clear on that point. However, I would argue that the original text is also misleading, because if the result wasn't statistically significant, there's no evidence that rates for females increased. If anything, the first option could perhaps say "While suic…

> if the result wasn't statistically significant, there's no evidence that rates for females increased.

That's not quite right. A conclusion of no statistical significance is not a conclusion that there is no evidence to support the hypothesis, but that there is insufficient evidence.

The study failed to disprove the null hypothesis, but "failure to disprove" does not prove it to be true either. A more powerful study (with a larger sample size, or one that includes this incident in a meta-study of similar media events) might be able to use this data to support a positive conclusion.

Re: Release of “13 Reasons Why” Associated with Increase in Youth Suicide Rates

#95

Post by yongjik »

sbierwagen wrote: post #61
TheArcane wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Limit second amendment more to prevent more shootings. I've always wondered the validity of a "constitutional freedom" that allows random everyday people to own and operate tools that are essentially killing machines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack 87 deaths from a truck ramming attack. The existing licensing system was obviously insufficient to prevent this attack. What do you suggest be done to prevent attacks like this in the future?

Now imagine what will happen if access to trucks is a constitutional freedom and anybody can buy and operate one in any way they are pleased with...

Re: Release of “13 Reasons Why” Associated with Increase in Youth Suicide Rates

#96

Post by rhcom2 »

dymk wrote: post #57
rhcom2 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know for a fact access to firearms increases the chance of a successful suicide. That suggests a clear change that could help save lives and limits to the 2nd Amendment have already been settled as constitutional. "Focus on helping/loving them" is not a policy change, to me it's nothing but "thoughts and prayers". Rhetoric that might make us feel better but will help nothing.

Access to bridges also increases the chances of successful suicide. The clear change that should be suggested is more proactive identification of mental illness and increased guaranteed access to mental health services. If that reads to you as nothing but "thoughts and prayers", I don't know what to say.

> Access to bridges also increases the chances of successful suicide.

Which is why there has been a push to secure bridges and add crisis phone lines to these areas.

We should be tackling the problem from every direction. I'd love for it to happen but it sure doesn't seem like the US is going to make any progress in guaranteed access to mental health services anytime soon.

Re: Release of “13 Reasons Why” Associated with Increase in Youth Suicide Rates

#97

Post by TheArcane »

mieseratte wrote: post #40
TheArcane wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Limit second amendment more to prevent more shootings. I've always wondered the validity of a "constitutional freedom" that allows random everyday people to own and operate tools that are essentially killing machines.

> I've always wondered the validity of a "constitutional freedom" that allows random everyday people to own and operate tools that are essentially killing machines. Not sure why you put quotes around constitutional freedom. The reason for the amendment is such that when someone or someones come along and attempt to abridge your rights you can kill them with the killing machine. As simple as that.

> when someone or someones come along and attempt to abridge your rights

Isn't that what highly trained and professional law enforcement is for?

At least that's what they're for in my part of the world.

Re: Release of “13 Reasons Why” Associated with Increase in Youth Suicide Rates

#98

Post by jaaron »

umvi wrote: post #10
aphextim wrote: post #2

Same reason that when they show the shooter's face all over the media and they give them tons and tons of attention, it typically spawns more copycats who are just lonely/sad/broken teens looking for the same attention. In the show, this teen's suicide was portrayed to have had an impact on many students/families/teachers etc for a very long time after the incident. It almost glorified the suicide and the methods of…

The scary thing is that both this article and the example you cited are used as reasons to limit constitutional freedoms: Limit second amendment more to prevent mass shootings. Limit first amendment more to prevent suicides. Really though, we should be focusing on the root cause: lonely/sad/broken people. Focus on helping/loving them and I bet suicide/mass shooting rates drop significantly.

I agree on addressing root causes; however, I've increasingly come around on the idea that pointing to root causes (poverty, broken families, cultural norms, etc.) is a case of the "perfect being the enemy of the good" and is at best a well intentioned but misguided effort that causes real harm.

An analogy: I have some fairly severe sinus issues. I'm working with professionals to figure it out. In the meantime, I'm regularly told to "treat the symptoms." At first, this was really frustrating! I wanted to solve the root problem, not just take pain meds and decongestants for the rest of my life! But the reality is, we may never figure out the root problem, or the root problem may turn out to be intractable. In the meantime, I can significantly improve my quality of life by simply doing what can be done: treating the symptoms.

At the risk of being facetious: we don't stop preparing for hurricanes just because we can't stop their root cause.

Every day we delay making hard choices because we want to wait for a root cause solution is another day we allow the root illnesses more time to inflict damage on us and our society.

Re: Release of “13 Reasons Why” Associated with Increase in Youth Suicide Rates

#99

Post by lukifer »

TheArcane wrote: post #20
umvi wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scary thing is that both this article and the example you cited are used as reasons to limit constitutional freedoms: Limit second amendment more to prevent mass shootings. Limit first amendment more to prevent suicides. Really though, we should be focusing on the root cause: lonely/sad/broken people. Focus on helping/loving them and I bet suicide/mass shooting rates drop significantly.

> Limit second amendment more to prevent more shootings. I've always wondered the validity of a "constitutional freedom" that allows random everyday people to own and operate tools that are essentially killing machines.

It's an interesting thought experiment: set aside the complex details of our real-world weaponry, and imagine instead of guns we had low-power phasers when the Bill of Rights was conceived. Now, imagine those phasers get 1% more powerful every year. At what point should we do decide that a phaser at power level X is too destructive for civilian use?

While I'm sympathetic to the argument of weaponry as a balance-of-power between government and governed [1], in the modern era it's hard to see its application to civilian-grade firearms as anything more than a fantasy. (If one wants to examine this seriously, I suspect the weapons of choice for a modern insurrection would be things like IEDs, micro-drones, and hacking/encryption.)

Still, I think the argument is sound for a right to self-protection independent of government. There just isn't an obvious "bright line" as to what level of destructive power is reasonable for a private citizen, as one progresses from muskets to AR-15s to RPGs to hydrogen bombs. (It is also an open question as to whether regulations like licensing, mandatory safety training, and civil liability count as "infringement", to say nothing of denying weapons to known criminals or the mentally ill.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_Quigley#Weapons_and_de...

Re: Release of “13 Reasons Why” Associated with Increase in Youth Suicide Rates

#100

Post by coolspot »

onychomys wrote: post #34

Here's the study itself, although it's not open access, so you'll need to be somewhere that can get you access to it. https://www.jaacap.org/article/S0890-8567(19)30288-6/fulltex...

Hey, I just found someone - https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2019.04.02...
Post reply on HN