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.
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.
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.