Let me know if you can read the article in full.
So, from skimming the article it kinda frames it like, you are either traumatized or not and you should “act” like it all the time.
I’m of the opinion, from various life experiences, that a traumatic event is kinda like a bullseye. The center is where those most immediately and severely impacted are at and every “ring” emanating from the center is a group of people who are impacted less and less directly and severely.
Things like 9/11/2001 in the USA only really had a small number of people at the “bullseye” and the rest of us were way out in the rings. Sure there were effects to my life but nothing really traumatic so there really isn’t anything that needs to be dealt with. Me making fun of it, is less about dissociation and more about how the event doesn’t deserve to be memorialized in the way to be a thought terminating cliche.
I remember being in high school and it seemed like, for a pretty small down, one high school aged kid a year at a minimum died. It was kinda sad, but unless you were a friend or family, there really wasn’t anything to be traumatized about. All of the teachers were acting like we were all supposed to be terribly upset, some of the students acted like they were really upset, and it was kinda expected that you were to play along and be sullen and quiet.
My mom told me a story about when she had to tell her coworkers that she had cancer and then had to spend days consoling everybody else who was upset that she had cancer. She hated every minute of it. Then I had to deal with the same thing when my mom died of her cancer, I told my bosses at work (as warning that I might need to duck out of work at random times to deal with paperwork stuff), and then had to deal with some uncomfortably long situations where another employee was very very VERY upset… for me. It was exhausting and time consuming and after dealing with dozens of people for various “executor of an estate” reasons I couldn’t stop rolling my eyes at people who said “sorry for your loss”.
It’s not really about 9/11, though I get what you’re saying.
I think the proximity of the Internet prolongs the trauma.
Internet is useful, but too much of it causes… problems, imho.
Internet is useful, but too much of it causes… problems, imho.
I guess it could, if a person who went through a very traumatic event got sucked into internet rabbit holes as a cope.
Like, I could see somebody who was a victim of SA or extreme physical violence retreating into internet forums or online video games where they can “role play” as a much stronger person who would have been able to fight back but is still deeply terrified of going outside of those spaces because the trauma hasn’t been resolved.
On the opposite end, are the attempts to keep the trauma alive. Constantly live within that traumatic even and obsess over it as … I dunno… in a fetishistic way.
But then there are people who will see a person who is doing okay, and think, “Wow, they didn’t grieve properly because X or Y or Z. They should have done this or that or the other before being okay.”
I didn’t see anything in the article that jumped out to me as a good example of “the internet inhibits resolution from personal trauma.”
Was there anything in the article that reinforced your thoughts specifically?
Just life experience. I do believe that the Internet has mental effects that we aren’t really aware of. And I believe that the author, based on previous articles, is speaking to that.
I also see a lot of problems with being terminally online.
Can anyone read this in full?
It cut out for me. As someone who’s terminally online I wanna read it!
Alright, I’ll give you the full article PDF. Here you go.
Only problem? I don’t know how to. Maybe there’s a way through DM?
Nvm, I’ll contact you via DM and give you a fake email that I use.
If anyone wants to read it in full, I can give you that email and send you the PDF.
The internet is, in my mind, an information delivery service. It has made me more aware of worldwide tragedies. It has also made me more aware of the causes of those tragedies; without the internet, I would probably be a pro-American liberal.
Not deeply emphasizing with all of this is not necessarily a flaw. Humans aren’t built to deal with that on a regular basis. Not engaging with things that don’t affect you is normal. For most of human history, that’s not an issue, but with the world’s information at your fingertips, it suddenly is.
The author has decided to do this by logging off. That’s fine, and it’s probably the correct response if the internet is significantly damaging your mental health. I don’t think it’s required for most people, though, and modern people being more aware of the world is a good thing - it’s hard to imagine a generation of Americans who are generally critical of capitalism, and yet here we are. I hope this weird new enlightenment leads to people that are more ready that previous generations to fight back against systems that are transparently unjust, but only time will tell.
I mean to me this feels “correct,” but this analysis is kind of mid. Like, obviously the world is a waking nightmare and the demonic “communication tool” that monopolises all of our free time is a coping mechanism. But I’m not sure “logging off” is the solution when there is no “reality” to log off to. The internet bleeds over into “real life.” And “real life” hasn’t been “real” for decades now. This article could benefit from speaking about the Spectacle, spectacular life. Get some Debord and Baudrillard in here and you’re really cooking.
Not sure what you mean. As people? Sure, maybe, idk. Debord’s Spectacle is an incredibly useful lens to view modernity, and while some of Buadrillard’s essays are gobblyremoved his writings on simulacra and simulation are quite illuminating and helpful in conceptualizing our ridiculous world.
