[spoiler]

Yeah, the writing style is what I'd call "intentional, funny unhinged" and while the read was amusing, I also couldn't help but feel slightly worried for the author. Maybe they could use a few mental health counselling sessions (don't mean this in a snide way; therapy helped me a lot personally)

[127361]

Very disturbing to read this, the author's article is in no way paranoid. That's what they did in the Soviet Union, if you went against the state ideology they would accuse you of having mental health problems [1]. It's the standard technique abusers use, whether it's a totalitarian government or an abusive parent or spouse.

In many cases psychiatry itself can and is a tool of the state, except for obvious things like psychosis and other severe disorders, the diagnostic criteria are often arbitrary and many of the behaviors can be explained by individuals having gone through extreme hardship, abuse or poverty instead.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sluggish_schizophrenia

[spoiler]

I've grown up in an abusive house hold, so I'm familiar with gaslighting. Also, I'm not trying to call the author schizophrenic, or insane.

My mention about the author benefitting from therapy was mostly around some of the exaggerated emotional reactions the author expressed; they felt too guttural for what they were reacting to.

On a second read through, I actually don't think they need therapy. I think they were very intentional in their populist tone and exaggerated style to elicit emotional responses in the reader (as any good writer does, I suppose).

I agree with a lot what was said, but also a few of the claims feel only critical for the sake of being cynical (eg some of the underground posters and the contactless commentary mainly). So, it doesn't do the article as a whole any favours.

[127361]

I feel the author's reactions are still in the range of behavior that shouldn't be considered abnormal. I feel that saying people have to go to therapy for expression negative emotions at such things, is unfairly pathologizing people. We are creating a homogenized "correct behavior" for everyone, removing any space for differences, that are a natural part of the human condition.

If we neutralized any "paranoia" over these dystopian cameras/posters/etc., then we would not have any resistance or protest in society, so things would get rapidly worse.

Many decades ago, having millions of CCTV cameras in London, together with posters encouraging people to rat on each other, would be considered absolutely dystopian, and there would be widespread protests and/riots if they were suddenly introduced. However, because it has crept up on the population so slowly, people became accustomed to it, and few now protest. Thus explaining the situation we are in now.

[bigfudge]

I know you’re trying to be kind, but I honestly think this response is part of the discourse the author outlines. Individualising distress and pathologising the rejection of surveillance capitalism as paranoia troubles me.

Funnily, left London in 2004, feeling much the same as the author does now. The direction of travel was clear, and the inauthenticity and authoritarianism inherent in corporate ownership of all public space was becoming apparent event back then. 2005 bombings just made it worse, because individuals were also rightly fearful and I think this accelerated acquiescence to surveillance and control of public spaces even further and faster.

What is odd about European cities now is that the energy of youth is completely bound up in the ways the author describes. The only authentic communities are smaller ones, away from the periphery. But unlike in the past these are not dominated by young people and youth cultures, and so lack some of the energy and excitement that London or NY in the 70s seem to have had.

[Gigamouse]

Therapy is great, but arguably the people who don't seem to notice all the surveillance and inauthenticity of corporate capitalism need it just as much

[astrange]

"Surveillance capitalism" can't matter that much - you can tell it's not making anyone rich because it's happening in the UK. If it worked, it'd be happening in countries whose economies are actually performing well.