
Social Media and Self Harm: The Need to ‘Do Something’ - DanBC
https://www.thesociologicalreview.com/the-need-to-do-something/
======
DoreenMichele
In my Twitter timeline, posts about self harm or suicidal ideation are
generally met by a supportive atmosphere of concerned people.

When there is the opportunity, I try to make comments that validate people in
a way that doesn't promote or encourage self harm, suicide attempts, etc.

I've attempted suicide. I know a fair amount about such issues.

No, shutting down the conversation isn't a good move. Instead, we need to
promote best practices that make such conversations more constructive.

It can be done.

~~~
jmts
The biggest hurdle to conversation I find in my experience is that people who
have never been there find it difficult to comprehend the mental state you're
in when you're depressed. At least in my experience, social media would have
been just a drop in the sea. In a way, suggesting social media is a problem
just reflects how little understanding people have over what is going on
inside a depressed person's mind.

The moment you wake up in the morning, you have some idea whether you're going
to have an 'easy day' or a 'difficult day'. From that point on, it's a
constant battle against your own mind, trying to avoid letting things become a
'bad day'. If you stub your toe on the door frame leaving your bedroom, your
day is now a 'bad day' and you have 12 hours of mental struggle to look
forward to. You haven't even had the opportunity to find out the clothes you
wanted to wear aren't clean, that you're out of milk so you have to have toast
for breakfast. You haven't had a chance to drop your spoon on the floor, or
accidentally slam the cupboard too loudly. You haven't made it to work or
school yet where you'll have to deal with all your least favourite people. And
every one of these things makes your day harder, and harder, until you can't
hold it back, and all of a sudden you're being held hostage by your own mind.
Shit is already hard before you get to social media. Sure, social media
probably contributes, but _so_ many things contribute, you cannot eliminate
them all.

~~~
DoreenMichele
To my mind, the bigger problem is that when people talk about big feelings,
especially in any strongly expressive fashion, people get sucked into talking
about feelings as if feelings are the end all and be all.

Feelings come from somewhere. When I try to engage people, I try to address
root causes of feelings. I don't try to massage their feelings or something
like that.

Most people either try to somehow stop the outpouring of negative feelings or
respond by countering it with an outpouring of positives because their entire
focus is the feelings. This tends to go bad places for everyone involved and
one danger is that if everyone is nice to you when you are openly whining
about being suicidal, that may actively "reward" you for being suicidal.

People who are suicidal are often people who are being generally treated like
shit on a routine basis by a lot of the people around them. So being nice to
them only when they are openly suicidal actively encourages suicidal ideation.
Most people are too clueless to make an effort to find opportunities to engage
them positively that don't promote suicidal feelings.

~~~
jmts
The difficulty people have with treating the source of a feeling is probably
because a lot of the time it's difficult to identify the source. I think many
people often go with what their body tells them about what might resolve a
symptom that they're feeling in the short term (get drunk and party), but in
the long run the root cause may be something entirely different (develop
relationships that are more intellectually stimulating).

In addition to positives acting in a way that can prolong a mental illness,
often they can also deepen it as well. Generally you're aware of what you
could be, or should be, or want to be, but can't be and don't understand why.
This in itself can trigger negative thoughts and reinforce the cycle.

~~~
DoreenMichele
Oh, I spent about 3.5 in therapy. It's somewhat second nature at this point
for me to wonder at root causes in myself.

But I feel like I failed to communicate something. Let me give a few examples
from actual conversations I've had:

Someone was talking about having recently self harmed again after x amount of
time refraining. They were saying they felt so ashamed and like such a
failure, that refraining for so long had been a big accomplishment.

I told them it was still a big accomplishment. That fact remained true and was
in no way diminished by their recent self harm.

Someone who is incredibly sweet and interesting and knowledgeable has a lot of
baggage. When their baggage trips them up, they don't know how to stop and the
kind, supportive replies they get keep the drama rolling. It is complicated by
an "either/or" framing of certain things.

A couple of times, I've managed to say a thing that largely stopped the drama.
They then took a break and did me time activities. When they "came back," they
were much more able to focus on things other than their own baggage and
emotional drama.

In short, I've put down a lot of baggage. I sometimes can help other people
put down the baggage.

That's my focus. If they drop the baggage, their emotional landscape changes.

Because feelings come from somewhere.

------
jdietrich
The worst syllogism in modern politics: Something must be done, this is
something, therefore it must be done.

~~~
CM30
It's one of the reasons the US system seems to be working best in these times;
the constitution making laws difficult to change works perfectly to stop moral
outrages and controversies and make people reconsider whether that 'something'
is the best solution.

~~~
jdsully
The reaction seems to be concentrating power in the President who can "do
something". The centralizing of power and erosion of the original US system
has been monotonic for the last 200 years.

First they came for the states by broadening the interstate commerce clause
far beyond any rational reading. And now congress has ceded its authority in
key areas such as treaties (fast tracking), declarations of war, and in
process now: the right to subpoena information (we'll see how this one turns
out).

~~~
colechristensen
I think if the current situation isn't ... resolved ... resulting in a
significant transfer of power either by precedent, legislation, or judicial
action away from the executive to the judicial branch, the legislative branch,
and the states – I think if that doesn't happen that this will be an
inflection point leading to the failure of the American Republic.

I think too many people take for granted the stability and continuation of a
system of government.

~~~
jdsully
In my opinion the parliamentary system has proven to be more effective. In
this system the Prime Minister with a majority has near dictatorial control
over both the legislature and the presidency so that he/she can move quickly.

However the backstop is the no confidence vote which operates like
impeachment. This is not a theoretical power but is exercised relatively
frequently in parliamentarian systems. Failure to pass a budget is also by
default a no confidence vote making it very rare one isn't passed. I think
deep down the US feels that as well. The democracies they have created
throughout the world do not mirror the US system of government.

The problem we face today with the US centralizing power in the presidency is
that impeachment is seen as a "nuclear option" and therefore is not an
effective backstop.

~~~
icebraining
At least in my parliamentary country, a PM with an absolute majority can also
block a no confidence vote, which is why only 1 of 30 such votes in the last
45 years have actually passed. Is it different in other countries?

> I think deep down the US feels that as well. The democracies they have
> created throughout the world do not mirror the US system of government.

Well, that assumes those decisions are made solely with the best interests of
the people in those democracies in mind.

~~~
jdietrich
No British Prime Minister has lost a confidence motion since 1979, but I think
it's worth noting that a) a PM with a majority can only block a no-confidence
vote with the support of their party's MPs and b) the threat of a no-
confidence motion is frequently sufficient to force a resignation.

Callaghan was the last PM to lose a no-confidence vote, but that's not the
full story. Major and Brown resigned after losing an election, but Thatcher,
Blair and Cameron all resigned as PM. May is expected to resign before the
next general election. No US president has resigned since Nixon in 1974, which
suggests a marked difference in security of tenure under the different systems
- we might not kick our prime minister out of office very often, but they
usually leave office of their own volition.

------
bschelsea
Huh that’s a bizarre take on the situation. Try explaining this to a parent
whose daughter is suffering from ED and Self Harm. The sociologist/apologists
won’t let instagram do anything since it breaks their fantasy of free speech
being always “net” positive. And Apple won’t let the parent monitor her own
daughter because think about PRIVACY!!!! The truth is the industry optimizes
for anarchy under the guise of liberal ideology and privacy. As society wises
up to this ruse we will see great push back against the fake SV philosophy.

~~~
jstarfish
It's not Instagram's problem, nor should it be made to be.

Apple could certainly do more to facilitate MDM, but a phone known for letting
your parents track your GPS and MITM your communications would not prove
popular with the kids.

In the end the parents are the ones provisioning the device, paying the phone
bill and are ultimately responsible for both it and its user...yet they have
no administrative privileges over anything of relevance.

By all logic children should never be given access to fully-encrypted black
boxes.

~~~
danaris
Giving parents unfettered ability to violate their children's privacy does not
serve the children's interests.

Many parents are abusive. Many children are discovering a sexuality or
identity that their parents would find unacceptable.

In these cases, and many more, ensuring that the parents can read every single
message their children send—and every single website they access—is much more
likely to lead to serious negative outcomes for the children (at best, a
repressed identity; at worst, suicide due to having one's self rejected by
one's parents).

~~~
paulryanrogers
Would such abusive parents get their child a private phone knowing it limits
their power over the child?

Maybe privacy-respecting tech is one of many solutions to bad parenting.
Though I suspect getting to know ones neighbors well would be a far more
effective first step.

~~~
danaris
Many parents are only abusive some of the time. As I understand it, the
scenario of abusive some of the time, lavishing with gifts some of the time is
actually not that uncommon.

Also, if most or all phones respect the child's privacy, it becomes harder for
the parents to get their child a phone that lets them micromanage the child's
life.

