Suicide

Oneuli

Verified User
David Brooks, the New York Times columnist, has a new op-ed about the rise in teenage suicide rates. Being a reactionary, he naturally looks for something newfangled to blame, and decides it's attributable to technology -- online trolling, specifically. I'm not convinced.

For starters, take a look at suicide rates by age:

Crude_US_suicide_rate_by_age_1981-2016.png


Rates are lowest among the young, and they've been rising for every age demographic, including the elderly block we'd expect to be least impacted by cyber-bullying. And while the rise of social media has been a global phenomenon, there hasn't been a rise in suicide in all of the tech-savvy nations, as we'd expect if cyber-bullying were a big driver:

20160430_USC246_0.png


Things have actually been getting better in Germany, Sweden, and France, for example.

Also, if you check rates by state, you'll see there are huge variations among the states, and those with the biggest problem are definitely not the ones with the highest Internet usage or Facebook penetration:

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/population-health/us-states-ranked-by-suicide-rate.html
https://www.internetworldstats.com/stats26.htm

The least suicidal states, for example, are NJ, NY, MA, MD, CT, CA, IL, RI, DE, and HI. In terms of Facebook penetration, they rank 7th, 19th, 6th, 25th, 32nd, 15th, 2nd, 3rd, 50th, and 13th. So, eight out of ten have unusually high Facebook engagement. If cyber-bullying were a major driver of rates, we'd expect most of those states to have unusually serious problems with suicide. But there just doesn't seem to be any meaningful positive correlation between social media/Internet usage and suicide, at the state level. If anything, the correlation seems to go the opposite way, with the less "online" states having more suicide problems.

So, I just don't see data to back Brooks's view. However, if you look at the data, something else does stick out. Of the ten least suicidal states, every single one voted for Hillary Clinton. At the other end of the spectrum, you have MT, AK, WY, NM, UT, NV, ID, OK, CO, SD, and WV -- seven out of ten of which went for Trump. I think that rather than looking to blame technology (or other pet arguments Brooks tends to reach for, like blaming a move away from traditional religion for society's ills), we'd do well to think about what it is about conservative societies that makes people suicidally depressed (or, if you prefer, what it is about liberal societies that makes them less so). Possibly it could have to do with economic opportunities, mental health support, or just the tone of the culture. Urbanization might also be a factor -- e.g., the boredom and inactivity of rural life contributing to substance abuse and obesity, which in turn contribute to depression and suicide.
 
Ever visit any of those States Trump won which are by reputation characterized by their "conservative societies?"

If your whole understanding of the world around you depends upon the existence of an existential threat it is easy to see why some would get depresses when things didn't go their way

And I enjoy reading David Brooks, don't often agree with him, but it is nice seeing a conservative view not born on FOX
 
How do Trump voters vote Democratic?

You are stupid

The OP is about teen suicides. You democrats claim teens are democrat party voters. I am saying it is good that democrat voters commit suicide

The more the better

I wish you would kill yourself. I hope your children and grandchildren get leukemia
 
moving everyone to large cities is part of un agenda 21, so the bankers are making life elsewhere shitty.

People have been moving to cities for many decades, which makes sense, since urban people live long, healthier, wealthier, more educated lives. In the 1920s, only about half of Americans lived in urban areas. By 2010, it was up to 80.7%. And it's almost certainly still higher today. And generally, the higher-quality-of-life states, like New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Hawaii, tend to be more urbanized, while the most rural states also tend to be the most sociologically and economically troubled (e.g., WV, MS, AR, and KY). There isn't a perfect correlation there -- for example, Maine and Vermont are decent places to live, despite being very rural. But the overall trend is for people to be better off when more urbanized.

As for the notion that the "bankers" are making life outside of cities shitty, how exactly are they doing that, and why?
 
Ever visit any of those States Trump won which are by reputation characterized by their "conservative societies?"

If your whole understanding of the world around you depends upon the existence of an existential threat it is easy to see why some would get depresses when things didn't go their way

And I enjoy reading David Brooks, don't often agree with him, but it is nice seeing a conservative view not born on FOX

What's interesting about those societies is so much of the sense of threat is based on ignorance/unfamiliarity. For example, take the fear and loathing of immigrants. For the most part, places that are most likely to vote with hard-line nativist politicians aren't places that are actually dealing with the good and bad side effects of high immigration. Places like New York, New Jersey, California, and Massachusetts have far higher percentages of foreign-born residents than places like West Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Mississippi. Similarly, the places that went into full panic mode and war fever after 9/11 weren't the places with high Muslim populations, much less the places that were likely to appear on any al Qaeda target lists. While actual likely target areas like NYC, DC, LA, and Boston went about their business calmly, it was in the boondocks that people were pissing themselves. It's quite the paradox.
 
In the very red states there is a feeling that people should not help each other


that losers are losers because it their own fault and they should sink by themselves


don't fund schools


don't fund food assistance


don't fund healthcare for the poor


spit on the poor and call them names because its their fault and they are losers


that kind of societal support ( or lack there of ) makes people depressed
 
People have been moving to cities for many decades, which makes sense, since urban people live long, healthier, wealthier, more educated lives. In the 1920s, only about half of Americans lived in urban areas. By 2010, it was up to 80.7%. And it's almost certainly still higher today. And generally, the higher-quality-of-life states, like New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Hawaii, tend to be more urbanized, while the most rural states also tend to be the most sociologically and economically troubled (e.g., WV, MS, AR, and KY). There isn't a perfect correlation there -- for example, Maine and Vermont are decent places to live, despite being very rural. But the overall trend is for people to be better off when more urbanized.

As for the notion that the "bankers" are making life outside of cities shitty, how exactly are they doing that, and why?

and because bankers have intentionally destroyed rural communities.

they tried to destroy America with the great depression, but realized people on the land can raise food and survive, so they realized they had to get people away from the land before their next attempt. people in cities are totally dependant on the system, so theyve been incentizing it. your attitude towards rural people is a result of their propaganda.

agenda 21 is genocide.
 
How, specifically, and why?
to separate people from land on which they can survive and grow food in the case of a collapse.

they do this through a myriad of financial manipulations, propaganda, and land use restrictions.

do you deny that this is possible?
 
to separate people from land on which they can survive and grow food in the case of a collapse.

they do this through a myriad of financial manipulations, propaganda, and land use restrictions.

do you deny that this is possible?

what a fucking idiot


rural?


they have land all around them
 
Back
Top