Mediaboss Marketing

Whatever stage of life it hit you at, the pandemic has accentuated the process of ageing. Whether youre seventeen or seventy-one, there is a sense that irretrievable time has been snatched. Blank pages have been inserted at an essentially random point in billions of biographies.

Youd think that sympathy towards the youngest, for whom time passes more slowly and novelty recurs daily, would be well established (at thirty-four, I think of the careless freedom of my own seventeenth year and it remains fundamental to all that I am). But there is also a virulent strain of thought that responds to any crisis by relentlessly othering the young just at the moment when demographics has squeezed what little voice they might have had to the margins of public life.

Despair at youthful decadence might reach back to antiquity, but there is a strange variation on this tendency today. We are blessed with unprecedented life-spans and the great gift of more people living longer, but we have yet to seriously think about how we might adapt to the cultural implications of this trend.

Because the elderly today are also the first generation to experience mass popular culture, and the youth subcultures that arrived with it, this entirely unique moment in human history is doubly confusing.

The first cohort to embrace youth as a meaningful identity, rather than a fleeting phase, are now moving into their seventies and eighties. This means that they act as both patrician elders and the original radical non-conformists: careering around social media with largely fictional claims about storming the Normandy beaches and embracing free love in Haight-Ashbury.

This glut of popular memory will only grow in the coming decades. Already, punk is a term deployed by crabbit auld gits around bar room tables. They still ponder their own generations battle cry: is it better to burn out than to fade away? Theyllnever know now.

These attitudes remind us that thekids are often held to an impossibly high and contradictory set of standards both too disobedient and too compliant, too square and too rebellious, too skittish and too rigid, snowflakes and social justice warriors.

This has profound consequences for politics. As David Runciman argues in How Democracy Ends, twentieth-century radicalism, particularly on the far right, emerged in societies that are far younger than our own, amongst generations that had lived through the trauma of total wars and demobilisations.

Therefore, even in a country like Greece which has seen a recent decline in living standards comparable to that of the Great Depression (we could add parts of post-2008 America too) violent overthrow of democratic governments has never been a serious proposition.

Some enthusiasts of fascist militancy may gather to cosplay rebellion from time to time, but they are essentially decrepit, unable to command mass appeal or topple democratic institutions. This is partly because older societies are less prone to political violence there is a relative shortage in the global north of young male cannon fodder the base ingredient of insurrection.

But the angry young men of yesteryear still flock to the frontlines of the culture wars. By some measures rates of violent crime have plummeted in recent decades. However, it often feels like the ambient hostility and aggression of political discourse, enabled by social media, is unprecedented. So much of life is now mediated that abuse too has often become immaterial. Unlike previous zealotries, the cost of entry is minimal and you dont even have to look your opponent in the eye.

Some of our anxietiesabout division are ahistorical. For example, despite its new pervasiveness and intensity, polarisation in the contemporary United States can hardly be said to be any greater than when protestors raised the Vietcong flag in Chicago during the 1968 Democratic Convention. In Britain, we could say the same of the bitterness of the Miners Strike.

But the culture war is more insidious because it is bound up with the way media now operate. Increasingly, legacy media, mindful of their ageing audiences, demonstrate a willingness to channel reactionary currents. Thus the mainstream press can publish op-eds decrying the rise of cultural Marxism a key concept within the manifesto published by the far-right terrorist Anders Behring Breivik, and fear no risk to their reputation.

Increasing sections of the press are dedicated to regurgitating tropes from the culture war genre. Nick Srnicek recently noted that were 2,983 mentions o the word woke in the Daily Telegraph. The Herald ran a front-page story today on an apparent rash of wokeism within the Scottish educational establishment.

The fog of the culture war often makes it difficult to distinguish whether such claims have any coherent point to make in good faith, or whether they are simply written to perpetuate the engagement and discussion that the genre often brings.

Like political correctness, woke is often simply a dog-whistle to console those who feel discomfort about the assimilation of minority identities into mainstream society. Remarkably, this has led some of the least oppressed groups of people on the planet to fantasise that they are excluded by society because language and etiquette has changed; but no one asked their permission.

What separates out this discomfort from a dislike of other changed social habits such as say, wearing hats indoors is its capacity to be weaponised within the attention economy.

This may reach a tipping point. Online culture wars about trans rights, for example, can cross over into real life, red in tooth and claw, because of the emotional pull of certain issues. Some topics have an innate capacity to polarise and are particularly well incubated in the closed systems that are now often used to consume and distribute content.

The knock-on effect as recently shown by both the BBC and Ofcom is to equivocate. The BBC remains true to form in its impossible attempts to achieve impartiality against a mendacious reactionary press, and ending up suggesting that issues related to fundamental human rights are up for debate.

This capacity of emotive content to thrive and expand within networks feeds off social isolation and loneliness issues that can intensify with ageing and retirement. There is no form of loneliness more crippling than the variety defined by paranoia. Based on often legitimate reasons, a generation brought up to trust public institutions have been re-educated to trust no one; whilst many lack the skills to navigate a hazardous digital realm. In the race for attention, we risk creating a desolation devoid of the community of readers, viewers and listeners that could offer some form of continuity and comfort in the face of the confusion and chaos of modernity.

We therefore have a situation where lonely, vulnerable, people, who are often also gifted with wealth, time and knowledge, are increasingly drip-fed narratives that instill a kind of collective trauma about the future. There is nothing inevitable about their journey into the cesspools of online extremism but they are undoubtedly sped along the way by a late-capitalism that sees in the lonely only another market, that deifies youthful beauty to the exclusion of all else, that turns our regrets and nostalgia into revenue streams.

In response to the vast and novel demographic changes we are living through, Runciman impishly suggests that children ought to be allowed to vote in order to re-balance the scales.

Another no less radical approach is to understand that the connective tissue of our complex societies civic institutions like the press and places to grow genuine associational cultures need to be restored, expanded and revived. Perhaps the greatest thief of our time on this earth is not the pandemic, but the keyboard itself: we need a whole new set of cultural norms that frees us to step away from it and become more human again.

View original post here:
To move beyond the culture wars we must end the loneliness of capitalism - bellacaledonia.org.uk

Not long ago, few people had heard of critical race theory. Then, all of a sudden, the relatively obscure legal theory was leading cable news stories and ripping through school board meetings. Its been a particularly hot topic on conservative channels: Fox News commentators mentioned critical race theory close to 2,000 times this year, according to Media Matters.

Critical race theory isnt new; it is a 40-year-old academic concept that explores the ways racism is woven into our legal and social institutions. But conservatives are using critical race theory, misleadingly, as an umbrella term to describe and demonize efforts to combat racismsuch as anti-bias training in the workplace and anti-racism curriculum in schoolsmany of which have been in place for a very long time.

The New York Times 1619 Project, created by Nikole Hannah-Jones, has become a target because it places slavery at the center of U.S. history and challenges the assumptions and heroes that have always dominated the American origin story.

Conservative politicians and commentators describe critical race theory (CRT) in feverish terms, deriding it as racist, anti-white, anti-American, and Marxist, and arguing that its goal is to foment racial tensions and make white students feel bad. As Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis tweeted: Critical Race Theory teaches kids to hate our country and to hate each other. It is state-sanctioned racism and has no place in Florida schools.

If it were merely a media or social media phenomenon, it would be perhaps less concerning. But the panic is leading to state legislation that makes school districts and educators vulnerable at a time when they are already struggling to stay ahead of the COVID-19 resurgence. Its also connected to broader legislative attacks on multi-racial democracy.

As in the case of so many public policies and the discourse that informs them, philanthropy and nonprofits are playing a key role, but funding has been lopsided, with conservative donors fueling the uproar and most progressive funders keeping their distance, according to media investigations and nonprofit sources we spoke with. Many of those advocates enmeshed in the CRT fight and broader efforts to defend anti-racism work find themselves wishing they had more extensive financial backing.

Understanding the frenzy

This new spin on critical race theory was first introduced by Christopher Rufo, a documentarian and senior fellow at conservative think tank the Manhattan Institute; he was also a fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Rufo unveiled the term on Tucker Carlsons show last summer, which brought it to the attention of then-President Donald Trump. The battle took off after that, inflaming conservative pundits, state legislators, and parents across the country.

Whipping up grievance is the goal, as columnist Eugene Robinson argued in the Washington Post: This manufactured controversy has nothing to do with actual critical race theory, which, frankly, is the dry and arcane stuff of graduate school seminars, he wrote. It is all about alarming white voters into believing that they are somehow threatened if our educational system makes any meaningful attempt to teach the facts of the nations long struggle with race.

Rufo himself is frank about this objective, tweeting: The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think critical race theory. We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.

Rufo and his allies have been successful, as the widespread hysteria over critical race theory demonstrates. Around the country, conservative legislators are jumping all over the issue, rushing to craft bills restricting what teachers can teach. As of August 26, according to Education Week, 27 states have introduced bills or other measures that would restrict teaching critical race theory or limit how teachers can discuss racism and sexism. Twelve states have enacted bans. (To learn more about state legislation, see this analysis by Education Week).

Water balloons vs. bazookas

Conservative philanthropists and nonprofits are major players in the campaign against critical race theory and anti-racism efforts, although it can be difficult to tell who, exactly, is directing funding specifically to the cause.

On the nonprofit side, some of the names behind the movement are familiar, including conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation and its advocacy arm, Heritage Action for America. Disclosure laws dont require Heritage to reveal the donors funding its activities, but in a Politico report, a representative for Heritage Action said that there is huge donor interest in this. While funding is often not earmarked, the organization has been a frequent grantee of leading conservative funders, including the Koch network, the Bradley Foundation, and through DAF platform DonorsTrust. The same can be said of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which designs model legislation on conservative issues and is also championing anti-CRT activities.

Political scientist Isaac Kamola took a close-up look at members of the 1776 Commission, which the Trump Administration created in response to the 1619 Project, in a recent article published in Inside Higher Ed. Kamola draws links between commission members and think tanks and funders, including The Heritage Foundation, the Bradley Foundation and the Koch network. Some lesser-known conservative philanthropies are involved as well, including the Thomas W. Smith Foundation, as Judd Legums Popular Information recently reported.

These conservative funders and advocates occupy a small world: Some of the same names figure prominently in efforts to undermine public education, as IP reported. The New Yorkers Jane Mayer identified that some of the same funders, including the Bradley Foundation, are also bankrolling efforts by Trump and his allies to discredit the results of the 2020 election. Earlier this year, Mayer also reported on the Koch Networks opposition to voting rights legislation, HR1, also known as the For the People Act.

If conservative activists and their funders are fueling the anti-critical-race-theory fires, progressive philanthropy has been slow to respond. In a recent opinion piece in the Chronicle of Philanthropy, Alvin Starks, who leads the Open Society-U.S. Equality Team at the Open Society Foundations, and Pamela Shifman, former executive director of the NoVo Foundation, pushed philanthropy to take a stronger stand.

Pointing to conservatives well-orchestrated efforts and deep pockets, Starks and Shifman wrote, In progressive philanthropy, there simply has not been the same long-term, trust-based commitment to racial justice work. We are, bluntly speaking, playing catch-up, and the defenders of white supremacy have a head start.

Nat Chioke Williams, the executive director of the Hill-Snowdon Foundation, agrees, pointing to the wealthy interests and powerful conservative media that are backing anti-CRT efforts.

The myth out there is that this is Regular Joes fighting for Regular Joes, but what we are up against is so well funded and so well organized. They have ALEC rolling out bills, they have conservative state legislators introducing the bills, and they have the echo chamber of Fox News and other conservative mediaits chilling, and we dont have anything like that. Its like bringing water balloons to a bazooka fight.

Pushing back

There has been opposition to anti-CRT campaigns, of course. Americas powerful teachers unions, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the National Education Association (NEA), for example, have both vowed to defend teachers from anti-CRT attacks, according to a report by The 74. Mark my words: Our union will defend any member who gets in trouble for teaching honest history, AFT President Randi Weingarten said at a recent union conference. We have a legal defense fund ready to go.

If funders do decide to push back, there are several progressive organizations taking steps to counter the anti-CRT blitz. The African American Policy Forum (AAPF), for example, launched a platform called #TruthBeTold, which provides information and resources to counter anti-CRT disinformation, and tracks legislation.

Last year, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the ACLU both opposed then-President Trumps Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping, a frontal attack on diversity training. (The order would become the prototype for many of the state bans.) These and other organizations are keeping a close eye on the new anti-CRT state laws and exploring possible litigation.

The Partnership for the Future of Learning, a diverse network of education and social justice organizations that support public education, has created a messaging guide called Truth in Our Classrooms Bridges Divides. The guide counters anti-CRT information and underscores the value of culturally responsive education.

Texas state Rep. Mary Gonzlez, who is associate director of the partnership, helped create the guide. Gonzlez has observed the on-the-ground fallout of anti-CRT campaigns in Texas. One bill that was recently passed by the Texas Senate, for example, would end rules requiring public schools to include writings on womens suffrage and the civil rights movementworks by Susan B. Anthony, Cesar Chavez, and Martin Luther King Jr., among othersin social studies classes.

I think the outcome of this struggle will impact the health of our democracy, she said. In El Paso, in my district, students and teachers have had a year of trauma. Having this CRT fight only adds additional traumawe need to be having conversations, not telling kids they cant talk about issues that affect their lives. We need avenues for less trauma, not more.

Gonzlez believes funders need to work together to develop a counter strategy. Philanthropy cant shy away from this conversation because it is political in nature. That isnt stopping the funders behind this effort.

Chris Westcott, political educator at the Solidaire Network, agrees. The idea that philanthropic and charitable work isnt politicaleverything has political choices tied to it. Now isnt a time to hang back. This is a time for us to show up in the work and make bold commitments to change.

Showing up means not necessarily firing off short-term, CRT-specific grants, but making deeper commitments to organizations pushing for racial justice and doing advocacy work. The Solidaire Network has raised money to help the African American Policy Forum respond to CRT attacks, and also supports racial justice efforts through two giving vehicles, the Movement Infrastructure Fund and the Black Liberation Pooled Fund. The Hill-Snowdon Foundation, which Chioke Williams heads, explicitly funds Black-led organizing and movement infrastructure under its Meeting the Moment: Black Movement Infrastructure for Racial Justice program.

Chioke Williams believes philanthropy needs to listen and be in relationship with those on the front lines. We need to be in service to the folks doing this work, not in service of our own interests. One of the opportunities philanthropy might offer, for example, is providing support for research. And providing spaces for folks to come together to strategize. Because that is what happens on the right. They have spaces, they have conferences all the time. So loosening the reins and recognizing that this is a deep battle and we are way, way, way, behind.

Midtermsand beyond

In the short-term, anti-CRT efforts are part of a midterm election strategy: a tool to galvanize conservative voters and get them to the polls. But the broader agenda of those attacking CRT has to do with far more than education.

Schools are only one front in this battle, Chioke Williams said. Yes, its about education, and opposition to multicultural education, but if you just look at education, you are missing the larger power and threat that this represents.

Chioke Williams draws a link between new laws banning CRT and other items on the conservative agendaincluding laws restricting voter access that are sprouting up around the country.

Nikole Hannah-Jones made this connection in a recent interview with Ezra Klein, pointing out that attacks on CRT and the 1619 Project are particularly virulent in states where laws restricting voting have been introduced:

It is the narrative that you guys are under attack, you are losing your demographic advantage, Black people and other people of color are not legitimate citizens, they never have been, they want to steal your history, they want to make you feel like you are less than themit is that narrative that then justifies these anti-democratic policies that are being passed.

Indeed, the head of Heritage Foundations advocacy arm told Politico that critical race theory is one of the top two issues her group is working on alongside efforts to tighten voting laws.

For Alvin Starks of OSF, the anti-CRT crusade is an obvious reaction to the power of last years drive for racial justice. But it is also a measure of that movements success.

We saw amazing energy behind the concept of building a more inclusive society, Starks told me. The right had to figure out how to take the wind out of the sails of that movement. So this is really a distraction. The opposition has learned how effective a disinformation campaign can be. And so the attacks on critical race theory are part of a disinformation campaign to incite fear and create divisions to hold back the promise of an inclusive and just society.

Read more:
As Conservatives Stoke the Critical Race Theory Culture Wars, Where is Philanthropy? - Inside Philanthropy

Erik J. Chaput| Guest columnist

Erik J. Chaput teaches in the School of Continuing Education at Providence College and at Western Reserve Academy. He is the author of "The Peoples Martyr: Thomas Wilson Dorr and His 1842 Rhode Island Rebellion" (2013).

Over the last 30 years, the politics that surrounds the teaching of American history has from time to time burst into the mainstream. For U.S. History teachers preparing to work with students in the classroom in the coming weeks, there will be no shortage of political minefields to navigate.

As historian Matthew Karp noted recently in Harper's magazine, the study of history is a battleground where we must meet the vast demands of the ever-living now. Our culture wars are not only about the rough and tumble surface of cultural life. They also deal with the clash over public symbols, discourse, and the enduring myths of society. Though todays warring political factions are guilty of flattening multidimensional stories, often about race in America, each side believes that they have a hotline to Clio, the muse of History, making the teachers job that much more challenging.

As a nation, sitting on knifes edge, we have been here before. The debate over how to teach, to celebrate, and be critical of American history has been a perennial part of the culture wars. The question of whether the chronicles of the American past in textbooks should fall on the celebratory or condemnatory spectrum is nothing new. In 1993, a public battle was waged over new national history standards.

Lynne Cheney, then chair of the National Endowment of the Humanities, led a charge against historical standards drafted by the late historian Gary B. Nash and several others. According to Cheney, the end product lacked a patriotic element that was necessary in the classroom. Of course, one can find similar sentiments expressed as far back as the 1920s. Recently this debate has played out in controversies surrounding the New York Times 1619 Project and the Trump administrations counter-effort, the 1776 Commission and its connected report.

Sociologist James Davidson Hunters landmark study, "Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America," should be required reading for teachers as they prepare for the fall semester. Hunters work, which is enjoying its 30th anniversary this year, remains a must read for those looking to further their understanding of the fault lines that have developed in modern America.

Hunters "Culture Wars" chronicles the fundamental alterations in America since the 1960s and how they have led to a greater level of division. According to Hunter, by the end of the 20th century, a battle was raging between conservatives who were committed to an external, definable, and transcendent authority, and liberals who were defined by the spirit of the modern age, of rationalism and subjectivism. The competing visions, and the rhetoric that sustains them were threatening to become the defining forces of public life.

In one of his last major essays in The New Republic in the early 1990s, Irving Howe, the prominent literary critic, noted that a serious education must assume, in part, an adversarial stance toward the very society that sustains it … But if that criticism loses touch with the heritage of the past, it becomes weightless, a mere compendium of momentary complaints.

This is indeed the balancing act that classroom teachers must perform. If teachers paper-over complexity and nuance, if they shut down debate and dismiss opposing views, they lose the ability to explain anything that happens over time, relying on weak and ineffectual metaphors. We must not be, as the abolitionist Frederick Douglass noted after the Civil War, apostles of forgetfulness.

View post:
Opinion/Chaput: The culture wars and the politics of history - The Providence Journal

We have developed an expansive understanding of trauma, from acute to childhood to systemic and intergenerational.

Each knowledge base validates the existence of distinct, human developmental needs and reminds us we cant discount the needs of identity or group belonging any more than an infants need for a secure attachment to a caregiver. When we neglect to understand and support authentic experience, identity and story, the evidence of harm is compelling. So where does this leave us in the quagmire of identity politics and culture wars?

After teaching on these subjects for many years, I have developed some ideas about the culture wars not commonly found in our literature.

Decades ago, I learned about the right-wrong impasse from relationship expert Harville Hendrix. This term refers to a mindset in which people disagree and lock up, and relationships break down. Realizing this happens on every relational level between friends, families, communities and nations was a revelation, but it did not account for the importance of power dynamics. Simply put, it isnt enough to strive for mutual respect in our differences where power differences or abuses go unacknowledged and unchanged.

Understanding the need to address power inequities is critical, but we must also strive to support basic human developmental tasks beyond ego fulfillment. Consider a child who develops a sense of mastery or competence in a talent or skill. If that child does not also learn strategies for self-care, how to serve on a team or how to apply their ability for the greater good, they are left with an ego-based sense of achievement. Similarly, when we foster personal or group identity without a broader sense of social conscience and awareness, we can only empower our identities to an ego-based degree. From this place, we are more apt to reap the negative consequences of ego-based relations, such as tribalism, culture divides and culture wars.

On ExpressNews.com:Commentary: History justifies fears of voter suppression

So, what can we do?

There is no need to associate with oppressive groups and people, but if we are not encouraged to actively develop relationships with people from outside groups, these culture wars are no great spiritual mystery. We are actively creating our dilemmas. And while its easy at times to point a finger at the toxic activism in others, what really matters is the ability to discern this kind of exploitation from our own.

Some good questions to ask oneself are: Do my community members and leaders speak truth without disparaging remarks? Do they engage in polarization or dehumanizing language and tactics? And most importantly, do they encourage us toward relationships with outsiders, not to be confused with acts to convert or control them?

One lie of the culture wars is that we cannot co-exist. Another is that we will be stripped of our identities and values through exposure to those who are different. These lies can feel real because those who operate from ego-based group promotion can willfully drive the divide. Often, they encourage us to focus solely on negative people or encounters in order to rationalize our negative stereotypes, while neglecting to encourage a deeper understanding from the perspective of the outsiders.

Using discernment, we can remove ourselves from ego-based infighting without ceasing to support our disenfranchised groups. We can also remind ourselves that ego-based victories are short-lived. More often they act like a pendulum, creating a negative force of momentum that hurts or knocks out the opposition, but in time, they swing back to harm our own.

One of the best things we can do to foster diversity free of ego is to look inward for change within ourselves. In my classes, students are tasked to conduct scholarly, empirical investigations on the histories of unfamiliar groups, but they are also tasked to interview aspirational members and leaders, and to connect with those members in the safety of their respective communities. Through activities like these, they form a realistic optimism and deeper understanding of human relations, where so many others remain stagnant.

On ExpressNews.com:Commentary: Our mental health system is overwhelmed

Direct experience can teach us that our different identities cultural, political, sexual, national or religious are often not the heart of these issues. Regardless of background or belief, there is no unsafe person to connect with or learn from who commits to engage from a higher place. Some describe that place as one of higher intention, conscience or consciousness. In my words, it combines the highest wisdom of our soul with the purest love in our heart. The research shows this is where diversity thrives, and where those with divergent identities find solutions and common ground.

Lamar Muro is an associate professor of counseling and development at Texas Womans University in Denton.

Go here to read the rest:
Commentary: Reaching beyond the front lines of the culture wars - San Antonio Express-News

There was something inevitable about Piers Morgans response to Simone Biles decision to withdraw (temporarily) from the 2020 Olympics on mental health grounds.

Biles later rejoined the competition and went on to win a bronze medal.

But before this, writing for the Mail Online, Morgan accused Biles of being selfish and stated: I dont think it is remotely courageous, heroic or inspiring to quit. He also suggested that she had pulled out, not because she was struggling with her mental health, but because she had underperformed in her first exercise. Morgan has a steady track record of not giving people the benefit of the doubt. Earlier this year, he mocked and cast doubt on Meghan Markle when she spoke openly about her mental health struggles. Brendan ONeill, Editor of Spiked, was similarly dismissive of Biles, arguing that: the current celebration of her quitting the Olympics as true heroism feels deeply troubling.

Firstly, it is laughable for Morgan and ONeill to imply that Biles was somehow weak, or lacking determination. The 24-year-old American gymnast is arguably one of the greatest athletes of her generation. She was the most decorated gymnast of all time by the age of 22. She has won 25 world championship medals, and four Olympic gold medals. She even has a gymnastics move named after her, called the Biles Vault.

But the star gymnast didnt have the easiest start in life. Her early years were spent in foster care after her biological mother was unable to look after her children, having struggled with drug and alcohol addiction. Biles has even spoken about going hungry as a child. But despite the setbacks, she has demonstrated a remarkable ability to succeed in the face of adversity. The criticisms waged by Morgan and ONeill, arguably pale in comparison to this athletes tough past.

None of this seems to matter, however, to the likes of Morgan and ONeill. For them, the mental health crisis seems to be another example of snowflakery. ONeill has explicitly said as much. A few years ago he complained that young people are being told its cool not to be able to cope, to embrace the identity of fragility and that we shouldnt ditch the stiff-upper-lip; we should rehabilitate it. To the likes of ONeill and Morgan, mental illness is clearly a sign of weakness and yet another example of generation snowflake being unable to cope with the harsh realities of the real world.

In one respect they are right; athletes and other public figures have been increasingly vociferous about their mental health issues. Recently, the Japanese tennis player Naomi Osaka pulled out of the French Open, citing mental health as her reason for doing so. It is also true that more and more people are claiming to struggle with mental health issues more generally, especially the young. Since lockdown, mental health referrals amongst young people doubled in England. But cases have been rising even before the pandemic. In 2018, a study found that the proportion of young people saying they had a mental illness had increased sixfold over two decades.

There are many reasons why more people might have been complaining of mental health problems in recent years, especially those in the public eye such as Biles and Osaka. One obvious explanation is social media. Almost anyone, anywhere in the world can be abusive about you on platforms like Twitter and Instagram. We saw this in the aftermath of Englands defeat in the Euro 2020 final, when three black players were subjected to torrents of racist abuse online. These people may be public figures, but they are also human and therefore not impervious to cruelty and verbal assault. Such things leave scars that can later trigger or exacerbate existing mental health concerns. Therefore, for someone like Biles, a nerve-wracking experience of competing at the Olympics could be made even worse knowing what some people might say about her if she performed poorly especially if she already felt that she was not in the right frame of mind to perform her complex and dangerous routines on global television. It has since been revealed that her aunt died unexpectedly during the tournament, adding pressure to an already fragile mental state.

It is also quite possible that, as the stigma around mental illness has lifted in recent decades, more people have felt confident enough to speak openly and candidly about their struggles.

Neither Piers Morgan, nor Brendan ONeill, nor any of the other culture warriors are experts in this field. To my knowledge, neither of them have any qualifications in medicine or psychology. We should be listening to the people who do, rather than those who continue to stigmatize and prosecute individuals for showing mental health ailments.

Simone Biles has revealed that she was experiencing something known as the twisties. This is when gymnasts lose their sense of control and bearing while in mid-air. Performing a complex set of moves without being able to spacially plant your landing could result in serious injury and worse. It was the right call for Biles to put her physical and mental health first.

On Good Morning Britain, Dr Amir Khan praised Simone Biles for being open about her struggles. Further, he confirmed that many of his patients who experience physical symptoms such as fatigue and chronic pain are actually suffering from psychological issues such as depression and anxiety.

During the pandemic, we have (mostly) put our faith in experts. Its time that we listened to the experts on mental health as well rather than attention-seeking, outrage merchants like Piers Morgan. This should include considering how the world has changed, and how the challenges of the modern world (especially social media), might impact peoples ability to cope with stress.

View original post here:
The Mental Health Crisis is Becoming a Casualty of the Culture Wars - Shout Out UK