I watched two documentaries¹ today. Both dealing with subjects which have a rather personal touch for me.

My major impression was, that often the people doing them don’t really grasp the subject they are talking about. Especially in cases where it’s about an illness or something society has a firm opinion about.
Apart from that I think that people too often try to pitch their agendas instead of inform about whatever subject was chosen. In principle that can be a good thing, but not when one claims to be filming a documentary. Too often cliches are served, or unreflected opinions are stated, or facts are ignored.

The first one I watched was a special on DSI. They (mainly) accompanied 3 girls and one boy in a facility specializing in treatment of DSI. Even after finishing it I have no idea what the boy was doing in this particular show. Sure it was interesting to see how they treated his problems, what ideas they had, but he didn’t hurt himself. Yes, he had suicide-ideations, but that’s it.

I fret about the choice of candidates. It seems that the extremer this illness, the better suited they are considered to be. That’s just wrong. Yes, I am aware that this illness can have very extreme effects. But I don’t think it paints a realistic picture. Apart from that, far too much camera-time was given to showing scars. Yes, they are a huge part (effect) of this illness, but … they are not the key factor! They are the key effect.

What I saw in there was quite honest and up-front. I have no reason to believe that the kids interviewed said anything but what they felt. But still I can’t quite get behind the reasons and thoughts they gave. I think this documentary would have greatly benefited from a more diverse selection in the motivations described and depicted. One of the girls was a very extreme case, and I won’t even pretend to be able to understand all her thoughts and motivations. The other two (major) girls basically said the same things. The same things people tend to associate with this illness.

I can say from my own experience that I simply do not agree with most of the reasons stated. This might be due to the fact that both of the girls where rather young (I think!). Simply a lack of ability to give a more refined, and reflected, recount of what’s going on. Talks I had with others about their motivations tended to overlap with my experiences more than what was stated in the interviews here.

Some of my readers have experienced my attempts to explain what I experienced during my “attacks”. Seen me fight for the proper words, and a more refined way of explaining. Every single afflicted person I ever talked to (in depth) agreed with me when I said that it’s simply impossible to really and accurately explain what’s going on before, during and after such an incident.
I guess … the after is still the easiest to explain. People understand the words “relief”, “guilt”, “shame”, “deliverance”. But prolly not the significance they … (can) have on someone … afflicted.

IMHO it’s hardest to answer the ultimate question: “Why don’t you simply not do it?”. People don’t seem to understand “I just can’t not do it” as an answer. Well, to give them credit, I think they sort of do, but simply can’t wrap their minds around it. I can see how it’s difficult for someone to understand why one needs to hurt oneself, though. I just wished I could … properly explain myself.

If I feel “the urge” and call someone who shares this illness, I simply have to say “I want to” and they immediately understand and know the full scenario. Not necessarily my personal version of it, but … I just don’t have to explain anything to them. Someone healthy … won’t ever be able to do that, no matter how long I sit down with them and try to explain. It’s not because they don’t want to … they just lack … information. This doesn’t mean they can’t react appropriately, though. And I’ve a lot of good experiences in how healthy people deal with that.

The second documentary was about “media-addiction”. This one showed two boys and a girl. I think the selection of “candidates” was far better.

It’s sad that I knew – before I saw – which game they’d use to depict gaming-addiction. If that’s the natural choice … maybe society should … step back and think? I can’t really fault much about what they said in this case. Been there, done that, got the f*cking T-Shirt. Seen it, and suffered by it.

They also showed a quite young boy who was “addicted” to TV. No he was not, he simply never learned what to do with himself. So he turned on (and to) the TV. That’s all. The documentary clearly showed, that he could – with guidance – quite well live without TV. If parents simply park their kids in front of a TV, without ever showing them, what else they could do, it’s no wonder.

Then they showed a girl who was “internet-addicted”. What she did was chat, admittedly a lot, but as far as the programm showed, she did not neglect anything to be able to do that. She was (actually very) good in school², she had social (RL) contacts and her family-situation seemed just fine. I know that there are people who neglect everyday things to be able to chat, and yes, they are addicted. But not this girl. This is a case where something normal and not harmful is depicted as an addiction.

I come up against much the same “accusations” and “realizations” often. Yes, for gods sake, it is possible to have friends online. To meet people, get to know them and form friendships. Yes, admitted, some of those are maybe fleeting, but the same happens in real life. Not every person I meet becomes a friend, not every friendship will last.

The Internet makes a geographically dispersed circle of friends possible. But why is that a bad thing? I reckon online-friends basically have the same interactions as offline-friends, minus the physical interactions. You get to know your counterpart, you can – over time – tell by what and how they type what mood they are in currently. How is that different from any other friendship?
I met nearly all of my closest friends online. Over time I have met just about all of them offline, in “real life”. Geographical distance makes frequent meetings difficult, so where’s the harm in tending to the friendship online? Keeping up the contact. Basically this is nothing different than an accelerated version of what pen-pals used to be. I have friendships that where formed online, which still last after 5 years. That’s more than I can say for most of my offline friends.

It is my considered opinion that the people talking about and (mis)judging this and other current “phenomena” simply never even tried them, have no experience or exposure whatsoever with them. Same goes for the so-called “killer-games”, but I won’t start on that subject!³
We are facing a generational rift. The people in positions of “authority” simply have no experience with the stuff they feel capable of judging. I guess I’d be in much the same position talking about … the sixties-movements, or the time following WW2. I wasn’t there, I never experienced them. Therefore I have no ability to judge decisions or behavior from then. In fact a good deal of what I am told sounds weird or wrong to me, currently. But I don’t decide I have a right to judge those things. I can try to understand, learn about, the circumstances and situations, and maybe – in the process – gain enough understanding to form an honest and objectively correct opinion. But I don’t really see the people currently doing the judging exposing themselves to whatever they think they have a right to judge about. They take a birds-eye view and a very distanced look and suddenly think they know it all.

I see in my personal surroundings people who halfway embrace these new opportunities. But at the same time I am faced with accusations and judgments by these exact same people. If a relative moved to Australia it’s just fine to keep in contact via Skype and at odd hours and for hours using your PC. But if a friend of mine lives in a different city within my country all of a sudden those exact same actions become dubious⁴. Isn’t that … wrong?

It’s saddening to see people judging my lifestyle without ever properly experiencing it. There’s this old (native american) saying: “To be able to judge a man you must walk in his moccasins for a moon.” (Well, something like that) I think that’s bloody good advice! Don’t you?

I hope … I was able to get my personal opinion across. I also hope no one feels offended by what I wrote. I think I might have stepped one some peoples toes by writing this, but it’s my opinion. I know I touched rather controversial subjects here. If you feel I mistreated you, please leave a comment or maybe even a trackback.
I might rework this … if so, I’ll either re-post it, or change the title.

This is one of the posts for which I’d be most happy for any comments or trackbacks. The subjects I mentioned are dear and important to me, but I know that my opinion ain’t the only one out there.

Y’all take care, okay?