RL Anger

[Tinuviel]

@surreality 'You are not alone' is fine and dandy.
'You are not alone and also see how fucked up shit gets for other people' is not tactful.

You and I evidently have differing levels of acceptability when it comes to exposure to such harshness. I couldn't stand even the premise of the show, much less the execution.

But please, don't disregard my animosity towards it as simple snark. Snark is supposed to be occasionally funny. This show? This show has caused actual problems for people.

[surreality]

@tinuviel I get that. And that's fair. It's also helped others.

Frankly, I think it's much more important for adults to watch than kids. They're the ones with the power to do something about it more actively, and the ones who aren't seeing and experiencing this day to day.

The role of technology in the film is key, too; parents today did not grow up in the same environment. Face some of the same issues? Yes. But the new tech makes it very different, and sometimes different in ways that are invisible to the authority figures who were not raised in a social media world.

[Tinuviel]

@surreality I would argue that it is much more important for neurotypicals (for that is, apparently, the term) to watch than any age. Adults being preferable, naturally.

My only, and I will repeat only, issue with the series is that it is somewhat too real for those of us, like yourself as admitted, that suffer from disorders that cause us to view reality as more of a guide than an actual rule. The first season was rife with controversy, at least in Australia, due to the very nature of the topics it ventures into - without a warning that such topics will be discussed.

[Auspice]

@arkandel said in RL Anger:

S1 was good. S2... I felt it stretched things a bit too thin to squeeze another series out.

That's because S1 covered the whole book. S2 is crafted wholesale and it's clear they were just desperate to keep making it.

@tinuviel said in RL Anger:

@surreality It's also fuckin' terrible. Allegedly they went against every piece of advice from psychologists and therapists when making said series.

I will say their warnings, as someone who has struggled with depression (often severely) make me roll my eyes. They felt like they were very much written by someone who has zero idea what depression really is.

[Tinuviel]

@auspice You guys got warnings?

We didn't.

[Auspice]

@tinuviel said in RL Anger:

@auspice You guys got warnings?

We didn't.

The ones before the episodes in season 2. It has the actors all "if you suffer from depression, talk to a parent or teacher or counselor. Talking about it makes it easier!"

And it's like.

Okay a, your entire show is teaching kids that adults can't be trusted. B, talking does not make it easier for many people.

[Tinuviel]

@auspice Yeah... it's problematic.

I'm not at all saying that it is totally without merits. There needs to be a big damned provso, that's all.

[Auspice]

I had to read the book last summer as part of my "Writing for kids" course.

The book ends with Clay realizing how important it is to reach out to people. To not hide from or ignore it if someone is struggling. So he goes to renew his friendship with Skye and make sure she knows he "sees" her.

The show seems to be flipping that script and going "the onus is on the person suffering to find someone to listen."

When it's very well known that depression is isolating, that it causes feelings of worthlessness, and makes you feel like no one will listen or care....putting that thought into peoples' heads (especially teenagers) is harmful.

I've only watched episode 1 and part of 2 of season 2, but episode 1 had a blatant moment of Skye struggling, majorly, with her depression and self consciousness in the wake of Clay's behavior and he did nothing. And from what I read of episode descriptions.....it doesn't improve.

So the main lesson he learned in the book was ignored.

[Tinuviel]

A book is markedly different to a television show. One can imagine, or not imagine, a situation happening. A television show forces that confrontation - which can be dangerous.

[surreality]

@tinuviel Here's the thing about that.

These confrontations are forced on people in the real world all the time. Nobody gives them a warning. There's no disclaimer.

Frankly, the 'if you need help, go here to find a list of crisis resources' is wise of them. The 'go to an adult' has the problems shown in the show itself. Suggesting actually trained crisis folks to contact is good, though, and they do.

[Tinuviel]

@surreality I'll grant that living with mental illness or bullying or harassment or whatever else is all too prevalent in society.

What I won't grant is that simply because something exists it thus needs to be seen on screen. I don't want a player at the FIFA world cup gunned down because people get shot in reality. I don't want Will and Grace to end with Jack overdosing on meth just because it happens in reality.

I live my life with enough pain as it is. I don't want it flashed in my face on television without so much as a by-your-leave.

[surreality]

@tinuviel Those examples are patently absurd.

A sporting event is not about people getting shot.

Will & Grace is not about meth addiction.

The series we are talking about is about someone being bullied to the point of suicide; expecting to not see bullying and suicide represented in a series with that specific premise is as foolish as watching a sporting event and being shocked that people are playing sports on your screen.

[Tinuviel]

@surreality Bullying and suicide can be represented without putting bullying and suicide on the screen in visceral detail without a warning. There are people that seek a 'you are not alone' story and are confronted with very real depictions of the trauma they go through daily.

Our only argument is that you seem to believe this series is fine as it is, whereas I require - not request or demand but require - advisories for such content.

[surreality]

@tinuviel I have no objection at all to them adding advisories. I already said I was surprised they didn't for the first season, and only added them for the second. (A few episodes of the first had advisories, but only a few.)

I think saying 'this is about <X>' should pretty clearly imply that's going to be depicted. I expect it from the synopsis and consider myself warned that I'm probably going to see that.

Also, seriously, no one is forcing anyone to watch it. If any television was mandatory watching? Different issue. But this is a very clear instance of 'if you don't want to see things about these subjects, you don't have to watch it'. Lords knows if we were required to watch things, if sporting events were on the list, I would have opted out of breathing long ago.

ETA: Your argument seems to be more about Neflix Australia refusing to label things than it is with me. The US versions of season 2 had disclaimers for all of the episodes with specifics, and for a few of the episodes in season 1. (The actual suicide episode, and I believe the rape episode.)

[Tinuviel]

@surreality Certainly, an adult is capable of making a decision from a synopsis. A child, for whom it is advertised (at least in Australia) is not likely to do so. Thus the onus is on the production team to ensure their advertising is directed to a target audience is that which is best equipped to deal with such things.

@surreality said in RL Anger:

Also, seriously, no one is forcing anyone to watch it

Except that is what's happening. Young people are trend-followers. If all one's friends were watching Game of Thrones or Flash Gordon or whatever, then in order to be part of the crowd one is expected to follow suit.

[surreality]

@tinuviel See the edit above. Again, I have zero notion of what their disclaimers or marketing are or aren't in Australia, only what I've seen in the US. The US version has disclaimers as described above. If Australian Netflix doesn't, yell at them, not me.

[Tinuviel]

@surreality My concern is that you stated, initially, that the show was awesome and that anyone who disagrees (me) can go fuck themselves.

Additionally, the notion that 'it is helpful to me thus is helpful to all', one that you have put forward, is false and thus needs refuting.

I am not at all saying that you cannot like something that I dislike, or the reverse. I am simply saying that your initial comments - including mention of your own mental concerns as an implied sort of veto - were perhaps unwise and need reflection.

[surreality]

@tinuviel Uh, no. That is a complete mischaracterization, with a fair bit of role-reversal at play. I said this:

@surreality said in RL Anger:

@tinuviel We're just going to have to disagree about the terrible part.

@tinuviel said in RL Anger:

@surreality Well yes, given that those terms are subjective. And you're wrong.

@surreality said in RL Anger:

@tinuviel I'm wrong a lot, but as somebody who has been suicidal for over a year, that show helped chill me out quite a fucking lot on that front, as that result is anything but terrible so far as I'm concerned, and I'm sure as shit not wrong to feel that way. So, bluntly, fuck you. Your snark routine is uncute and grossly misplaced in this case.

@tinuviel said in RL Anger:

@surreality It's not a snark routine. That you find it helpful is great. That so many find it unhelpful to the point of actually causing problems is not great.

Given that not one but two rapes of young girls occurs, and a scene of actual suicide appears on screen (except in Australia) is evidence enough for me that it is not great.

It's fine for you, well done. It's not fine for everyone.

@surreality said in RL Anger:

@tinuviel Bluntly: I disagree with your opinion that it's terrible. You can tell me I'm wrong for having a different opinion all you want, obviously, but it's just making you an asshole in this case.

You were telling me I was wrong for having a different opinion, after peaceably saying we'll just have to disagree about it -- which you could have simply left be, but you didn't; my reasoning didn't matter for shit, I was simply wrong for having a different view than you.

I told you why I had a different opinion. A very personal why, at that. And you kept on banging on about how I'm wrong for having a different opinion about it, despite it being one of the reasons I'm still here to type shit in the first place.

You seriously don't think that's gonna get a 'fuck you, pal'? Really?

[Ganymede]

@surreality said in RL Anger:

You seriously don't think that's gonna get a 'fuck you, pal'? Really?

He might object due to the education of one Mr. Webster, ma'am.

[surreality]

@ganymede Not getting the reference there.