We didn't think Ethan's coverage of Aaron Bushnell's self-immolation was too bad in essence, but we feel that we have to push back on a few things. We honestly didn't mind the jokes or the talks about suicide and mental illness, but the very first thing Ethan said when diving into the topic was the following, in reaction to chat:

"Don't say "Rest In Power". That's not for him."
SYNT #61 (Members-only)

This felt like a really weird and unnecessary thing to say, especially with Ethan then going on to compliment Aaron, saying to "appreciate his dedication and his conviction", that "he showed his true resolve to protest", being "in awe of his resolution", and saying to understand that people want to say "he's a hero", that "he made this ultimate sacrifice" and that people "want to honor that sacrifice".

Ethan has used the phrase himself for the passing of dogs, and a tiny bit less seriously for Mobility Mary. Surely Aaron Bushnell protesting injustice and a system of inequality and institutionalized discrimination, let alone one he was a part of as an active service member, makes it fine and perfectly understandable for people to use the phrase for him, if not for the things Ethan said himself. It doesn't warrant the gatekeeping of such harmless language.

We kind of wished the discussion on suicide, mental health and perhaps martyrdom was further expanded upon. We think that if anything, this case shows how those terms mean different things to different people, like how martyrdom for some excludes killing oneself and for others includes that when for a cause beyond themselves, or how many people differentiate between the goals of protest and suicide even if the outcome is the same.

Aaron may have truly believed this to be the right thing to do, also given his aforementioned dedication and conviction, in which case one could argue whether that is a mental illness in and of itself. A lot of people involved in the conflict could be said to be mentally ill in a similar way or worse, with them inflicting more harm on others than Aaron did, yet it not being brought up when they are the subject matter.

Our last point of contention is the dealing in hypotheticals:

"If one of the guards was able to stop him before he lit the fire, do you think that in ten years time he would've looked back and be like "Man, I wish that I... my regret is that I didn't set myself on fire" or would he be like "You know what, that guard... I understand what I was trying to do and it was a righteous thing, but I'm happy I'm fucking alive and that guard stopped me"? Like, which do you think he would be thinking in ten years?"
SYNT #61 (Members-only)

We don't know, and we can't speak for Aaron. It's also quite rhetorical, in that if he'd be alive in ten years, we can only assume he would be fine and happy to be alive. We do think it could've been a good and helpful hypothetical to use when it comes to suicide prevention, but not by putting words in a dead man's mouth. Had it been phrased regarding suicide in general, we don't think it would've been problematic.

If Aaron's goal was to protest, then who are we to say he wouldn't have achieved his goal if someone had put out the fire in time and saved him? If his goal was to kill himself, then who are we to say he didn't have other means that he would've died from regardless, other than just the fire? What if he would've died on his job instead? What if he would've been terminally ill and thought this would've been a more meaningful way to go?

What if...