can you live off dialysis forever or is that only kidney

can you send me your nw in crypto

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5591026&forum_id=2...id#48064576)

how is this making you reassess your life

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5591026&forum_id=2...id#48064604)

You’re in my thoughts. Don’t give up hope.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5591026&forum_id=2...id#48064614)

He ended up getting sober for real and has a family/happy life now. But that’s how fucking insane addiction is. You’ll drink on a failing liver, get a new liver by one vote when 45 percent of the doctors vote you should actually just die, and then you’ll still drink.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5591026&forum_id=2...id#48065241)

Dandelion tisanes. Avoid red meat. Not medical advice

Obviously you still need your liver implant but this may help a bit

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5591026&forum_id=2...id#48064823)

I hope you don’t mind if I say a little prayer for your donor to come through stat

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5591026&forum_id=2...id#48065345)

Introduction:

On September 8, 2024, the poaster "but at what cost" initiated a thread on AutoAdmit with a stark and provocative heading: "Dying of liver failure. Anyone have questions before I go?" The lack of body content made the opening statement all the more poignant, inviting a range of responses that reflect the full spectrum of AutoAdmit’s community culture—ranging from gallows humor and crude irreverence to genuine concern and philosophical engagement.

This analysis explores the layered dynamics of the discussion that unfolded in response to the post. It examines how various poasters reacted to the news, the tone and substance of their interactions, and what this reveals about the social norms and psychological underpinnings of AutoAdmit as a digital community.

1. The Initial Provocation and Responses

Opening by 'but at what cost':

"but at what cost" begins the thread with a direct and emotionally charged statement, declaring their impending death from liver failure and offering themselves up for questioning. The phrasing is stark and unembellished, suggesting a confrontation with mortality that is both defiant and open-ended. The choice to solicit questions could indicate a desire for connection, a way to process their situation through dialogue, or simply a final attempt to provoke engagement within a community they have been a part of.

Responses Range from Crude to Sincere:

The immediate responses to the post are varied, reflecting the multifaceted nature of AutoAdmit’s user base:

Crude and Irreverent Replies:

"Post nut horror" immediately asks, “Will you suck my cock?” This is an example of the dark, often jarring humor that characterizes much of AutoAdmit's content. The comment disregards the seriousness of the situation, instead opting for a sexually explicit, flippant response that might be intended to shock or provoke. Similarly, "cock of michael obama" responds with a series of questions that range from logistical (“why don't you have anyone to donate part of their liver to you”) to offensive (“what about typing nigger on the internet—how much weight to assign that?”). These posts reflect a typical AutoAdmit tactic: using irreverence and shock value to engage with, or sometimes distance from, uncomfortable topics.

Engaging with Sincerity and Curiosity:

Other responses, such as those from ".,.,....,.,.;,.,,,:,.,.,::,...,:,..;," and "Zezima," take a more earnest approach, asking when and how "but at what cost" first knew about their condition or seeking life advice. "cock of michael obama" fluctuates between irreverence and genuine curiosity, asking about the medical specifics, chances of finding a donor, and how this situation has prompted any reassessment of life. There is a notable shift in tone as some poasters move from initial crudeness to expressions of sympathy and support, revealing a layered complexity in their responses.

Offers of Advice and Empathy:

As the conversation progresses, several users provide more constructive or empathetic responses. "zurich is stained" offers a heartfelt reply, expressing sympathy and hoping for a positive outcome. "I am a Christian" inquires about the quality of "but at what cost's" life and expresses approval upon learning that they have lived without regrets. Others offer practical advice about liver health or suggest reading materials for end-of-life reflection, indicating a mix of support and the recognition of a serious, potentially life-ending situation.

2. Themes of Humor, Absurdity, and Mortality

Gallows Humor and Absurdist Engagement:

The thread exemplifies AutoAdmit's penchant for gallows humor—a way of confronting death, illness, or tragedy with dark comedy. This coping mechanism is evident in the flippant, offensive, and absurd comments that fill much of the thread. For example, "Post nut horror’s" crude request or "cock of michael obama's" oscillation between offensive and earnest questions reflect a common approach on AutoAdmit: addressing serious topics with a blend of humor, shock, and irreverence to diffuse tension or explore the boundaries of acceptable discourse.

This pattern suggests that for many users, humor serves as a protective shield against the discomfort of confronting mortality. By treating the news of "but at what cost’s" impending death with irony and sarcasm, they maintain a degree of emotional distance while still participating in the conversation. This strategy also reinforces AutoAdmit’s cultural norms, where displays of vulnerability are often met with mockery or deflection.

Genuine Reflection and Emotional Depth:

Amidst the humor and absurdity, several users engage more earnestly, posing questions that delve into the emotional and psychological impact of facing death. "zurich is stained" asks whether "but at what cost" is frightened or angry, inviting a deeper exploration of their feelings. "I am a Christian" expresses admiration for how "but at what cost" has lived their life, prompting a reflection on what constitutes a "good life." These posts demonstrate that despite the forum's reputation for crassness, there is also a capacity for genuine empathy and philosophical inquiry.

3. The Role of Identity and Performance on AutoAdmit

Identity and Community Interaction:

"but at what cost’s" decision to announce their impending death and invite questions reveals an interesting dynamic about identity and community within AutoAdmit. On one hand, this post might be seen as a cry for connection, a desire to leave a mark or impart some final wisdom before departing. On the other hand, it could also be interpreted as a continuation of the performative aspect of posting—an opportunity to generate discussion, challenge norms, or simply see how the community will respond to such a dramatic revelation.

The varied reactions highlight the complexity of community identity on AutoAdmit. Users often adopt fluid, shifting roles—sometimes sincere, sometimes ironic, sometimes confrontational. This flexibility allows them to engage with difficult topics like death and illness in a manner that suits their personal style or the expectations of the group.

Performance of Cynicism and Empathy:

AutoAdmit is known for its often cynical and irreverent culture, where sincerity is frequently masked with irony. The responses to "but at what cost’s" post reflect this tension between cynicism and empathy. Some users perform cynicism—either to align with the community's prevailing tone or to create distance from the uncomfortable reality of another user's mortality. Others navigate this tension by combining cynical humor with sincere advice or sympathy, reflecting the complex interplay of personas that define the forum’s social fabric.

4. Insights into "but at what cost's" Perspective and Final Reflections

"but at what cost's" Perspective:

Throughout the thread, "but at what cost" maintains a measured, direct tone in their responses. They answer questions candidly, sharing specifics about their condition, symptoms, and life circumstances. They express no fear of death, acknowledging its inevitability and focusing on the hope of receiving a transplant. Their willingness to engage with both the sincere and the crude comments suggests a degree of detachment or acceptance, as well as a recognition of the forum’s culture and norms.

Their advice to “spend as much time as you can with friends and family” reflects a prioritization of personal connections over the other distractions and concerns of life—a rare moment of unvarnished sincerity in a space typically defined by irony. By positioning themselves as both a participant in and observer of the forum's complex social dynamics, "but at what cost" highlights the dual nature of identity on AutoAdmit: as both a player in the game and a critic of its rules.

Final Reflections:

The thread initiated by "but at what cost" reveals much about the culture of AutoAdmit. It shows how the community grapples with serious topics like mortality through a mix of humor, empathy, and irreverence. It illustrates the complex social norms that govern interactions on the forum, where sincerity and mockery coexist, and where users continually navigate the boundaries between genuine engagement and performative cynicism.

Ultimately, the discussion serves as a reminder of the diversity of voices and perspectives within AutoAdmit, where even in the face of death, there remains room for dark humor, philosophical inquiry, and moments of unexpected kindness.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5591026&forum_id=2...id#48078113)