Summary

The author is frustrated with sensationalist articles on the internet that spread fear and misinformation about global issues, particularly regarding climate change and COVID-19, and the negative impact they have on mental health, especially for impressionable teenagers.

Abstract

The article expresses the author's anger and exhaustion after a conversation with a despondent teenager who had been reading alarmist and untrue content online. The author acknowledges the freedom of speech that allows for such articles but criticizes the lack of responsibility taken by writers who spread fear and falsehoods. An example given is an article advocating for doom-and-gloom reporting on global warming as a call to action, which the author believes overlooks the detrimental effects on individuals' mental health. The author argues that while it's important to be informed about global issues, constant exposure to negative and exaggerated content can be harmful. The author's own exploration of these articles found them to be lacking in credible sources, filled with triggering language, and often containing outright lies. The author emphasizes personal knowledge and proactive steps taken to stay informed without succumbing to fearmongering, and suggests that a more respectful and less condescending approach by writers could be more effective in reaching a wider audience.

Opinions

The author is critical of sensationalist articles that exaggerate or lie about global issues, particularly climate change and COVID-19.
There is a belief that such articles can have a severe negative impact on mental health, leading to depression and anxiety.
The author values credible sources and fact-checking, expressing frustration with the lack of reliable data and citations in the articles reviewed.
The author disagrees with the notion that constant exposure to negative news is necessary to motivate action, instead suggesting it can lead to despair and inaction.
The author feels that the writers of these articles are condescending and do not respect readers who choose not to engage with their content.
The author advocates for personal responsibility in seeking information from reputable sources like the CDC and WHO, and for taking action through voting and personal habits.
The author emphasizes the importance of protecting one's mental health by muting or avoiding content that is overly negative or anxiety-inducing.

I Hear You, But I Don’t Respect What You’re Saying

No, that doesn’t make me stupid

I’m sure this article will piss a few people off. I don’t care. I’m angry and exhausted after spending hours last night talking to a despondent teenager about the world’s ills. He’d read a bunch of sensational bullshit on the internet and couldn’t process it.

The things he read contained gross exaggerations and a few flat-out lies. When I asked him why he read this junk, he told me that it was everywhere and that he couldn’t get away from it. “Just look at the headlines, mom!”

We live with freedom of speech, at least I think we do, and so these articles aren’t doing anything wrong. You are allowed to be of the opinion that the world is ending, and you are allowed to write about it. But, if you choose to spread fear, or lie about how everyone is going to die of COVID, for example, you should take some responsibility for how you affect some people’s mental health.

I recently read an article written by someone I follow every so often here, essentially stating that doom and gloom articles about global warming are necessary in the world today and shouldn’t be ignored just because they may cause depression and despair. To the contrary, this writer thought these types of articles should be treated as calls to action. Take that despair, turn it into anger, and get moving!

I don’t think this person truly understands the negative effects these types of articles have on many people, or how depression actually works. They have probably never tried to talk a dangerously depressed teenager back from the ledge, after he’s decided the world is ending because of something he read online.

The article was well-written and I believe I understand the author’s point that we need to pay attention to the scary stuff going on and take action against it. Fair enough. But, in the comments section, the author and many other superior human beings admitted they have no respect for anyone who chooses not to read and pay attention to these types of articles.

When I first got here, the popular disaster writers took up most of my feed, so I read a few of their articles. It didn’t take long to get frustrated by their constant whining, so I muted them and haven’t read anything since. But, in the interest of further understanding, after reading that recent article, I went ahead and read a handful of those writers again.

I wish I hadn’t.

The sample of articles I read contained a lot of exaggerations, triggering vocabulary, and very few statistics or citations to back anything up. I even found outright lies in one of them. One writer provided links to what I thought would be source materials, but they turned out to be articles written previously by the same author. I gave up and I didn’t investigate further.

After reading them, my anxiety grew and I can understand how someone might want to give up, start drinking heavily, and wring their hands in despair. The articles were mostly rants about how bad human beings have been, and offered little in the way of solutions. In one article, the author actually proclaimed that the human race doesn’t deserve to survive the climate disaster.

Is this supposed to motivate me?

Each of these articles got a few angry comments from people calling out the writer’s lack of source material and accusing them of stretching the truth or fear mongering. If the writer responded to these comments at all, it was usually to ridicule the commenter, or put them on the defensive. At any rate, it was clear to me that the author didn’t want any meaningful intelligent discussion about the issues they’d raised, just absolute agreement.

Most of the comments to these articles appeared to be from devoted fans who agreed with the writers, told them they rocked, that they spoke the truth, and that more people should pay attention to them. A few of them accused those of us who don’t read them of not caring, or of being stupid or naive.

The writers, themselves, used phrases like, “you’re not listening,” and implied through the use of the word “you” that the world’s problems were somehow the reader’s fault. For example, you are still driving that car, or you are not wearing a mask. You are not taking me seriously. I felt like these authors were trying to lecture me.

Yeah? Well, nobody likes getting lectured. And, contrary to popular belief, I am not stupid. I know how to nose around the CDC or WHO websites. I am well versed in the economy through education and experience, and anything I don’t know, I can look up. I’m really good at fact-checking.

Also, I know about the issues and the steps I can take to personally help control them. I also vote and will do so responsibly. I don’t need to read any more repetitive articles about how bad things are because I ALREADY KNOW.

Evoking fear is an effective way of controlling people and social media uses it brilliantly. It’s incredible manipulation and I don’t fall for it.

I wish these writers would tone the crazy down and stop being condescending. Maybe they’d reach more people, including those that actually do have their heads in the sand.

Honestly, I don’t need any more anxiety in my life, thank you very much. So, I will continue to mute these writers and get on with things. This doesn’t make me unconcerned or stupid, just careful with my mental health. I actually think it’s the responsible thing to do.

Besides, it’s hard for me to respect these writers, especially since it’s so obvious that they don’t respect me.