> I often see that people who I otherwise respect and recognize as allies and kindred spirits are participating in these rituals of humiliation, harassment, and voyeurism. I don’t think it’s right to gossip over or sensationalize the mental health crises faced by members of our communities.
This paragraph tickles me. Superficially, someone who I respect but for the the humiliation, harassment and voyeurism is maybe not someone I would consider myself a kindred spirit with. Particularly once the word harassment starts becoming appropriate. Respecting them or making them an ally of convenience, perhaps.
But communities have a minimum standard of behaviour. People who fall below that standard need to be ostracised, people who meet the standard have to be tolerated. The dynamic requires people with mental health problems to be ostracised with some regularity otherwise the community would collapse. There isn't much of an alternative. Before they are ostracised they need to be subjected to humiliation rituals and a certain level of voyeurism as the community affirms where the social boundaries are. If there are bad actors (which there inevitably are) it may be necessary to harass them.
So I suppose I'm more comfortable with the paragraph than a superficial read of it would suggest, but it contains a delicate sentiment. Especially harassment, which is one of those socially nuclear options that should be used in truly rare and exceptional cases with appropriate concern for the second order effects on behaviour. It is better to just not associate with people who use it with enthusiasm.
> This is a difficult topic to write about. By writing about these specific examples, am I sensationalizing them? Disrespecting the privacy of the people I’m writing about? Participating in the circus myself?
Yeah, absolutely. It is part of the urge to help set the community standard of what behaviour is and isn't acceptable and to decide when various defence mechanisms to protect the community should be used. That impulse is at its core exactly where the voyeurism is coming from. How else will the community come to understand what the otherwise vague boundaries are? People are intensely interested in what the mob will do to them when angered and what the exact boundary line is to trigger that response.
> The press and fan attention was deeply harmful to Terry and likely exacerbated his mental illness.
What are you basing this on? Did you know him? This person you call a "circus freak?"
> Whenever TempleOS or Terry came up online
Which was often because Terry himself made an effort to live stream his work and his opinions on computing. Which this author seems to have missed is those strong opinions were shared by a large segment of his fanbase. What made Terry unique is that he put his effort where his rhetoric was. He was out to prove something, and, largely, he did.
> voyeuristic sensation of witnessing his mental illness through TempleOS.
Terry famously refused help. A large number of people over the years reached out in an effort to improve his situation and give him the help they thought he might need. He didn't want it.
> I wish we had just left Terry well enough alone.
I just wish Terry had gotten some help and I wish he was still with us. He died alone and that makes me incredibly sad. I cannot appreciate anything this author is trying to say. It seems to me he's the voyeur and is using this opportunity to stand on a grave to chastise the crowd. I find _that_ sick.
> I wish we had just left Terry well enough alone.
That would help Drew, but not Terry. Terry would remain on his own to struggle in silence, but Drew could sleep soundly without noticing him.
There've been many outsider artists over the years ("Artistry of the Mentally Ill", (c) 1922) whose schizophrenia has led them to lead tragic lives. But they also created amazing art that is celebrated around the world. I do wish Terry had gotten better treatment, and I'm also glad he gifted us with his art.
What about the "circus freaks" that get funding, influencers that maintain audience support, or those who get elected to office?
I don't understand how to tell the difference, other than what society and the media collectively judges to be genius versus disordered, and where the money accrues.
The people and their personalities are not all that different, other than how palatable/sellable they are.
That's not to say this isn't a real problem; I think the scale of it is much larger than people realize, because society often sees these same personality disorders as something to be rewarded.
>Kent appears to be experiencing a prolonged episode of AI psychosis. He believes that his chat bot is female, sentient, and that they have started dating and having sex.
The portrait of the average HN commenter these days and one's endgame.
> I often see that people who I otherwise respect and recognize as allies and kindred spirits are participating in these rituals of humiliation, harassment, and voyeurism. I don’t think it’s right to gossip over or sensationalize the mental health crises faced by members of our communities.
This paragraph tickles me. Superficially, someone who I respect but for the the humiliation, harassment and voyeurism is maybe not someone I would consider myself a kindred spirit with. Particularly once the word harassment starts becoming appropriate. Respecting them or making them an ally of convenience, perhaps.
But communities have a minimum standard of behaviour. People who fall below that standard need to be ostracised, people who meet the standard have to be tolerated. The dynamic requires people with mental health problems to be ostracised with some regularity otherwise the community would collapse. There isn't much of an alternative. Before they are ostracised they need to be subjected to humiliation rituals and a certain level of voyeurism as the community affirms where the social boundaries are. If there are bad actors (which there inevitably are) it may be necessary to harass them.
So I suppose I'm more comfortable with the paragraph than a superficial read of it would suggest, but it contains a delicate sentiment. Especially harassment, which is one of those socially nuclear options that should be used in truly rare and exceptional cases with appropriate concern for the second order effects on behaviour. It is better to just not associate with people who use it with enthusiasm.
> This is a difficult topic to write about. By writing about these specific examples, am I sensationalizing them? Disrespecting the privacy of the people I’m writing about? Participating in the circus myself?
Yeah, absolutely. It is part of the urge to help set the community standard of what behaviour is and isn't acceptable and to decide when various defence mechanisms to protect the community should be used. That impulse is at its core exactly where the voyeurism is coming from. How else will the community come to understand what the otherwise vague boundaries are? People are intensely interested in what the mob will do to them when angered and what the exact boundary line is to trigger that response.
I worry that this post is itself the type of sensationalized gossip it condemns.
> The press and fan attention was deeply harmful to Terry and likely exacerbated his mental illness.
What are you basing this on? Did you know him? This person you call a "circus freak?"
> Whenever TempleOS or Terry came up online
Which was often because Terry himself made an effort to live stream his work and his opinions on computing. Which this author seems to have missed is those strong opinions were shared by a large segment of his fanbase. What made Terry unique is that he put his effort where his rhetoric was. He was out to prove something, and, largely, he did.
> voyeuristic sensation of witnessing his mental illness through TempleOS.
Terry famously refused help. A large number of people over the years reached out in an effort to improve his situation and give him the help they thought he might need. He didn't want it.
> I wish we had just left Terry well enough alone.
I just wish Terry had gotten some help and I wish he was still with us. He died alone and that makes me incredibly sad. I cannot appreciate anything this author is trying to say. It seems to me he's the voyeur and is using this opportunity to stand on a grave to chastise the crowd. I find _that_ sick.
> I wish we had just left Terry well enough alone.
That would help Drew, but not Terry. Terry would remain on his own to struggle in silence, but Drew could sleep soundly without noticing him.
There've been many outsider artists over the years ("Artistry of the Mentally Ill", (c) 1922) whose schizophrenia has led them to lead tragic lives. But they also created amazing art that is celebrated around the world. I do wish Terry had gotten better treatment, and I'm also glad he gifted us with his art.
What about the "circus freaks" that get funding, influencers that maintain audience support, or those who get elected to office?
I don't understand how to tell the difference, other than what society and the media collectively judges to be genius versus disordered, and where the money accrues.
The people and their personalities are not all that different, other than how palatable/sellable they are.
That's not to say this isn't a real problem; I think the scale of it is much larger than people realize, because society often sees these same personality disorders as something to be rewarded.
This reminds me of actors or entertainers who clearly are going through a manic phase that is veering towards psychosis or a crash.
Sometimes leave Britney alone means actually leave her alone.
Oh I thought this was going to be about Bun.
>Kent appears to be experiencing a prolonged episode of AI psychosis. He believes that his chat bot is female, sentient, and that they have started dating and having sex.
The portrait of the average HN commenter these days and one's endgame.