Because online mourning is a great way to echo chamber people into a much greater level of stupidity than they'd normally be alone. A single person is generally harmless unless unstable, a group of people can feed into mass hysteria, especially if they're emotionally compromised.
What the hell do you think feeds the media empire of Gawker? A conglomerate that has built its entire business model around obsessing over celebrities to the degree of stalking them and violating their privacy?
I don't support anything that feeds an unhealthy obsession. It's okay to feel sad over the loss of something you cared about (like I grew up with Star Trek so Leonard Nimoy passing beyond the veil of grey upset me), but I express concern when that feeling of loss utterly dominates the individual and subsumes their otherwise rational capacities. Because that's when people do deranged, insane shit. Like looting the corpse of a celebrity mid-funeral. We already obsess way too much over people who basically just make a living creating fantasies for us to enjoy. Watching people break down completely like this is unsettling. People shouldn't be this easily broken.
>_> I won't deny that crazies exist, but I still don't think that means we should condemn the entire practice. There are plenty of people who just want to simply say "I'm sad that this person died" without starting a rally to do crazy things. This just feels sort of like a slippery slope fallacy to me -- just because online mourning
could lead to people doing crazy things doesn't mean that most people who participate in it go on to do crazy things, nor does it mean the entire practice should be condemned for it.
"As Western Culture has become more secular... And after the rise of the death and funeral industry, we have less opportunity to directly confront mortality, and fewer traditions which guide us through the process of grieving." (2:40)
"In reality, grief is and often should be communal, it's not a sign of weakness, but an admission of loss... One cannot get through it, because grief, never ends. Grief is not separate from day to day life, but a part of it." (4:12)
"If you would like to grieve privately, that is your right..." (4:40)
"... Historically, the communal sharing of grief online is much more like the bereavement process as it has existed in other times, and places, save for this brief lacuna where we've been brought up to think of it as weak, shameful, and private. Not even given the choice." (4:48)
It's basic emotional manipulation and I really don't fuckin' appreciate it. First he makes a fantastical generalization about humanity concerning its religious and cultural doctrines without at all bothering to explain them in any manner, as though they're simply fact because he said they are. Then he goes on to say that the feeling of loss or grief is an every day phenomena, which... It's patently not, because to suggest that people are dealing with the death of people they care about every day is disingenuous and ludicrous: There simply aren't that many people one can physically care about to have grief appear that often within their lives. Unless he's honestly comparing the total loss of another human life to someone feeling bad because they were called something mean, in which case, that's still disingenuous, but now it's a purely serendipitous stretch of the term from its original reference point (ie: online mourning) and the point has been entirely lost. Melancholy is not grief.
Then, he ends up contradicting himself within a minute. I'm allowed to grieve personally, but to think in such a manner is "unnatural" to history, and implying that I must have been indoctrinated into such a method of expression because I would have "not even been given the choice." The juxtaposition of these two positions is not likely coincidental either. It's also entirely inaccurate: The idea that people (or at least men) should possess great emotional control (including over grief) is something at least as old as the ancient empires of Alexander the Great, or Julius Caesar. Social rules about emotions, and postulations on how to properly control and/or express emotions, were some of the first thoughts ever put to parchment and recorded in history. Part of the concept of masculinity within Western Culture
is the idea that men possess the discipline to know when, where, and how to express their various emotions properly. This either means that he's talking out of his ass and is ignorant on the subject, or he's intentionally being manipulative about what particular "cultures" he's referencing when talking about how typical the expression of communal grief is.
This isn't the first time he's intentionally gone out of his way to use emotional manipulation against people.
He's an ideologue who will redefine terminology to suit his own needs. I don't hate the guy: He can make interesting points, but holy
fuck you have to take what he says with a heaping pile of salt because he goes in with a specific point of view and rejects all others. And I'm sorry, but on this point, he's either criminally misrepresenting history to try and twist the conversation to suit his own ideological perspective, or he's wildly ignorant of human history, and what grief
is.
That's why I said "PBS Idea Channel has extrapolated from a supposition." What he says is just that: Supposition. Nothing more. It's an interesting idea but the way it's presented rubs me the wrong way, because I much prefer logical arguments, and I got none of that here. His emotional argument is being stated as fact, without a single shred of logic in it.
This isn't right for someone who uses an educational tone with his videos.
Again, it doesn't make him a terrible person. Just so we're clear. He's a guy with an opinion, one I sometimes agree with, one I sometimes don't. But he's patently painting one side as better than the other, and he's doing so through emotional manipulation.
Eh, I still don't think he's trying to be manipulative. And I think the only reason he phrased communal mourning as if it "should" be "normal" is just to argue against the people who are saying it's
unnatural. He saw people claiming that mourning online isn't right, and then said that communal mourning is a thing that's nearly always been around. I don't think he's trying to say it's wrong to
not grieve communally, though. Just that... communal grief is normal and it's always been around. Not "normal" as in "everyone should be this way without exception", just "normal" as in "this particular point in history is the odd-one-out in that so many people disagree with mourning being communal, so it's unsurprising that so many people are engaging in it now". I agree that some of his choices of wording weren't the best, but, I really don't think he was trying to be
manipulative. I think that, in this video in particular, he was letting himself be a bit raw and uncensored, and some of his points may not have been worded in the best way. But I really don't see him as trying to be manipulative.
I can understand why you dislike his style. You like it when people use hard facts and avoid biases. But... just because someone is biased doesn't mean they're being
emotionally manipulative, I don't think. Also, I'm not sure that him being an "educational" channel really means he can't ever share his opinions. I admit that this particular video is definitely an exception, but
most of his videos start with "here's an idea" and end with "let me know what you guys think". He presents an idea and shares his reasoning as to why he thinks a certain thing, and then asks to hear other people's thoughts. And then, in a follow-up video, he even does comment responses in which he addresses things that he didn't bring up. I admit I can't pull up any examples off the top of my head (as I don't always watch the comment response videos), but I'm pretty sure he's even addressed counter-arguments in the past.
(Don't quote me on that, though...) Regardless, he never struck me as one to shove his opinion down someone else's throat (though this video is a
bit of an exception, and, yeah, he
was strictly arguing one side here -- I just think it was moreso to defend himself and others in the same boat as him than to make anyone feel
bad for mourning privately). He always seemed very laid-back and open to other ideas. Yes, he has his own opinion that he presents in his videos. Yes, he has bias. Yes, sometimes he gets things a bit wrong or words things badly. But, you know what? I just see that as being part of the more
casual tone of his videos. He never seemed to be too opposed to acknowledging someone correcting something in the comment response videos. He's
imperfect, but, I don't think he's trying to be
manipulative. And... I don't think it's necessarily
bad that people can show opinions, or emotions, or even some bias, especially if it's coming from someone who is just trying to share
an idea (not necessarily a
fact that all people should agree with...) and someone who
usually doesn't cling so strongly to one side. He may
choose a side, yes, which I think is normal and acceptable, but, he's
usually more open to counter-arguments (this video being an exception, but, given the fact that it's an emotional topic that he was personally affected by... I can't say I can blame him).
I definitely understand the value of getting the facts right and not allowing bias into the equation, and my own opinion is probably a relatively unpopular one, but... eh, there's a lot more I can say about this topic, but, if we're going to continue this discussion, we should probably do it in PM's, because we're starting to veer pretty far off-topic.
(EDIT: I wrote this post in pieces, and, coming back to this piece... ok, I concede that his wording and presentation in this episode was definitely not the best. I still don't think he was
intentionally trying to be manipulative, though, and I think that,
in general, he's usually a lot more laid-back and open-minded. This particular video, though? Yeah, I can totally see where you're coming from. As I've said, though, this video is pretty far-removed from his usual stuff -- definitely a lot more emotionally charged and one-sided than normal. So, it's hard to defend this video in particular, but I'll still say that I don't think his channel
in general is supposed to be
manipulative or anything of that sort.)
Iwaku had to create an entire subforum within GD just for people to go talk about personal subjects in it. That's how common pleas for attention due to grief are. Not all of them are for bad reasoning though. Hell, I would argue most have a genuine tint to them: They just want someone to respond positively to them and echo their sentiments so they don't feel alone. But some people thrive off of this. Some people thrive off of pity, and will do anything to get it.
Eh. As I've briefly mentioned in conversation with you before, I don't see the Counseling section as being as toxic as you see it, nor do I think that so many people there are desperately seeking attention.
But, we've already gone over this, so I'm not going to debate you on that specifically.
That being said, though, I feel like the way people vent talk about their problems in-depth in the Counseling section (regardless of whether or not it's a cry for attention) is rather far-removed from the sort of online grief that the video was referring to. Multi-paragraph posts in Counseling don't seem to be the same thing as someone simply saying "I'm sad that this person died" in a status update or tweet,
especially in regards to celebrity deaths.
In fact, haven't all the recent celebrity death threads around here... been in GC? And not in Counseling? The threads people post about these figures after they die -- expressing how sad they are as people talk about what that figure meant to them and why they're sad that they're gone -- seem more like the sort of communal mourning that the video was trying to get at. I suppose that's why I had a hard time seeing online mourning as a cry for attention -- because when I think of "mourning celebrity deaths online", I think of an explosion of Facebook statuses and Tweets and Tumblr reblogs and even GC threads following the news of what happened, all consisting of people sharing their sorrow -- although the comments are often brief, with many of them hardly focusing on the person posting them and instead often saying little more than "this is sad, he meant so much to me" (that's not to say that longer posts about celebrity deaths don't exist at all, just that many of them are shorter, and that they look a lot less like a cry for attention in that way). If it's someone expressing their mourning for someone they
personally knew, then, yeah, I can see how it might be more of a plea for attention, since, odds are the people they interact with online won't know the person who died and therefore can't really share in the grief so much as comfort the mourner, if anything. I still disagree that it's right to assume that people are doing it for attention when perhaps some people might be legitimately hurt and seeking comfort, but, at least it's easier for me to see where you're coming from, now.
I guess that
communal grieving really is a lot more
communal when it's with a celebrity, and not a person that someone personally knew -- because it's only really with a well-known figure like a celebrity that you can go online and expect there to be other people who share your grief. Meanwhile, if it's a personal friend or family member... well, unless you're talking to other personal friends and family on Facebook, there really won't be many people to
share your grief with. I mean, you can try, but the people you throw your grief at can't really grieve
with you, only sympathize with you, if they decide to comment at all. In this way, I can understand how online grieving may seem like a cry for attention, and maybe sometimes that
is what's going on, but I wouldn't want to make those kinds of assumptions about such a sensitive topic.
Still, now that I've noticed it, it definitely feels like there's a distinction between mourning celebrities online (which I feel is more truly
communal in the way the video was trying to refer to) and going online to talk about the deaths of friends and family members that other people likely won't know. So... I can definitely see where you're coming from, now, at least in regards to the latter camp. As far as the former camp goes, it still doesn't seem nearly as much like a cry for attention as much as people gathering together in shared grief.
See, here is where I'll disagree, respectfully, and this is probably because my view of grief is different from that of PBS Idea Channel.
Nothing is more important to me than self control. Discipline. You can feel pain, you can express pain, but you cannot allow others to control your life. If someone else pushes you over the edge because they dislike something you said, that's a failing on you, not on them. Someone can be a cruel, vindictive piece of shit, but you can't control that. You can't control them. You can only control
how you react to them. If I were to, say, express grief over the death of Leonard Nimoy publicly, and someone else told me to, say, "stop being such a faggot" or "you didn't know him so how can you feel sad over him you stupid fuck?" My response would be... Nothing. At the very most, I'd take a snide shot back, and move on with my life. Even
if I agreed with his view here, that grief should be communal, making a video like this and using nothing but emotional appeals is
beyond useless. Nobody who disagrees with him will be moved by an emotional appeal. If all he's looking for is an echo chamber, then why talk about it as though it's an educational piece of information?
I mean, fuck, it's not like the whole "discipline and self control over emotions" thing is my idea. It's fucking ancient. The quote in my signature by Epictetus is a reference to an
entire philosophical school of thought dedicated to the control and sometimes outright repression over emotions like grief.
Because he's trying to manipulate people. Education should be about the enlightenment of people through logical means. If you use or express emotions at all, they should be
secondary to logic, because your responsibility as an educator is to
talk about facts first. The fact that he fails to do this, and still uses the educational authority of his channel to present his suppositions as facts, rubs me the wrong way.
It'd be like if I wrote an RP guide about religion. Then told people "you're free to believe what you want, but religion is an artificial construct of humanity and atheism is the natural de facto state of Western Culture."
#1: I would be wrong.
#2: I would be operating out of a supposition.
#3: People would (rightfully) call my ass out on it as educational material poisoned by ideology.
Again. To stress this point further: He's not a terrible person, and this is entirely personal distaste on my part. I don't like how he's using the educational nature of his channel to wield juxtaposition and deeply flawed generalizations about history to introduce the idea of communal grief. He could do a much better job in my opinion. Then again, you're right when you say that I'm not normally one to like emotional appeals. Yet, they have their place.
This is purely an emotional appeal, but I love it, and think it's a fantastic piece of cinematic history that needs to be shared by people, and whose ideas should be held in greater regard than they are now. Yet, the reason why Chaplin's emotional appeal works for me, and PBS Idea Channel's emotional appeals typically don't, is because Chaplin doesn't pretend his is built on historical facts.
Eh... I feel like we fundamentally disagree on a lot of things regarding emotion (which I've actually been thinking about a lot lately...). While a further discussion on this might be interesting, I feel like it's getting really off-topic, so, I'll keep it to myself unless you want to continue this in PM's.
Uh... He picks sides all the time. I'm not sure he's capable of talking about a subject without picking a side first. At least, from what I've seen of him, but then, I've likely seen some of his more egregious errors, as opposed to the majority of his core content. Generally though if I want a channel of "guy talks about neat thing to camera" I'll look up VSauce. He does it the way I like: Citing facts.
I know he usually picks a side, I'm just saying he usually doesn't stick so
strongly to a side. Like I said, his videos seem to generally work like "here's an idea,
here's what I think about the idea, now let me know what you guys think". It's only in this video in particular (or maybe a few other bad eggs that aren't coming to mind at the moment, I dunno) that he gets so emotionally charged about the topic at hand. Normally, yes, he picks a side and argues that side, showing his own opinion... but he's generally a lot more laid-back about it and comes off as a bit more open-minded.
That said, I think it's pretty clear we disagree about the place that opinion has in these sorts of things... and I won't continue on that here.
The only reason I brought it up that way was because Grumpy said he might watch more of his videos if they were like this one, and I felt it would be fair to point out that if he was expecting really forceful opinions like this one, he probably wouldn't be seeing much of it. ...Because I see his channel
in general as being a lot more laid-back, presenting an idea and
an opinion, yes, but not trying to defend it nearly as strongly or emotionally as he did here.
