The irony in this article is pretty thick. In his original article, Jeff not so subtly admitted that he considered suicide and therefore likely battled depression as well. Yet Reed says Jeff has "a reckless lack of knowledge about how depression really works". Why does Reed label Jeff as ignorant in both his knowledge of depression and Aaron's situation when Reed himself doesn't know Jeff's?
Jeff was simply drawing an analogy to suicide that most of his readers would understand. A small percentage of us have experienced depression while almost all of us have played games. Yes, the annoyance of being quick scoped in Call of Duty can't be compared to the pain of depression, but it doesn't have to be for the analogy to still be helpful. Honestly, I don't think it benefits anyone to be offended by imperfect analogies.
> Yet Reed says Jeff has "a reckless lack of knowledge about how depression really works". Why does Reed label Jeff as ignorant in both his knowledge of depression and Aaron's situation when Reed himself doesn't know Jeff's?
Not implying this is the situation here in the least, but I have met multiple people who - despite acknowledging that they, themselves, were at one point depressed and suicidal - still claim that suicide is a choice and a coward's way out and have no interest in helping those who are too weak to do so themselves. Again, this is not to belittle Jeff's own turmoil, but rather to illustrate that the severity of one's struggle is vastly different than another's, even when they have both had similar solutions to their problems at some point.
I thought the title of "ragequit" was inappropriate, as that's an insensitive joke regarding a very sad and serious act and in no way reflects on all of the aspects of what that person is/was going through.
Whether or not you want to admit it, I think Jeff said what a lot of us were thinking. Suicide is a unique form of death because it elicits not just sadness, but frustration. Personally, I'm glad he gave those feelings a voice. (And personally, I believe that it's a bad sign if your argument mostly hinges on "I'm offended!")
Just because he said what you were thinking doesn't make him right or the argument right. These feelings of frustration and anger are pretty normal with depression and its ugly cousin suicide.
Depression and suicide aren't feelings that you can reason away with friends or cheer in the best of times. To say that he killed himself because of the court case is speculation at best and likely wrong. Aaron wrote candidly about his struggles with depression and thoughts of suicide. I'm sure the court case didn't help with his feelings of unhappiness, loneliness, guilt and crushing anxiety but to say that he killed him self as the easy way out is... ignorant. Depression isn't rational; it is a terrible disease. It whispers in your ear and tells you that compliments are mere mockery. It tells you that your accomplishments are hollow. It poisons relationships with mistrust and isolation.
I understand that it makes one feel frustrated! Why didn't he just hold out a bit longer or realize that he had so many friends and supporters or realize that even if he lost it wasn't the end of the world or ... He probably did but was poisoned by a disease that affected the very essence of his thinking. Even if he rationally knew that he had lots of supporters, he would be clouded with self-doubt about their motivation or what not. Depression can be painfully frustrating because you just want to shake the person and shout and tell them that people are here for them and that they are smart and passionate and accomplished and somehow make them realize that they have it all wrong if they would just listen.
The OP's argument doesn't hinge on "I'm offended." They give several reasons why Atwood argues from ignorance. Comparing suicide with ragequitting is a horrifically callous thing to do.
Many other people have managed to express Atwood's point before his mostly superfluous post (e.g., Lessig) in a much more appropriate manner.
Those who are dead don't mind. (One of the things forfeited in death is the right to be offended.)
Atwood's interpretation and, essentially, anger and disappointment is one of the ways that survivors try to come to terms with suicide.
That it might not be a clinically correct interpretation, in any one particular case or even most cases, may not matter. Does it help Atwood? Might this framing help others get on with their lives?
If you think this 'ragequit' analogy will harm the living at risk of suicide, do you have evidence for that view? I think its effect could go either way: such judgmentalism is unlikely to reach the severely suicidally depressed, but might interfere a little with some mild/early suicidal ideations.
I'd like to summarize by saying that criticizing someone else's way of grieving as 'inappropriate' is itself inappropriate. I'd like to say that, but I can't, because that'd be more than a little self-negating. Whipping out our various still-vital impulses for indignation and criticism is another way that we, the living, poke each other forward.
It's callous because it displays a severe lack of empathy and understanding. As someone who has suffered from serious depression and suicidal thought (to the point where I physically harmed myself) I can say that I was disgusted by the notion of suicide being a deliberate, egotistical choice. I'm disappointed in Atwood, and I can't help but think less of him now.
You're hallucinating most of what you take to be my opinion, to the point that I wonder if it's a waste of time trying to correct it. (I.e., assuming that I consider the dead to be offended by Atwood's post, that I think it harms the living, etc.)
Being callous means showing a lack of empathy toward others, in this case people who are depressed. Not all depressed people are dead.
Atwood's post may very well be self-therapy, but that doesn't immunize him from the social fallout of his post. One could might argue, for instance, that Achilles' effort in the Trojan war was his way of coping with the death of Patroclus, but that hardly condones his war crimes.
The way I see it, depression, like poverty, can be a disease, a choice, and a tragedy of circumstance all at the same time and frankly I'm surprised to see people vehemently arguing what I consider to be the same side.
Hi nemo. Thank you for your response. Did you really read my post? The fact that I was "offended" doesn't have anything to do with my point (although it was important to me - obviously). Stating that suicide is like ragequitting is absolutely uncalled for. Stating that Aaron should have gone on suffering because he was an "activist" is utter bullshit. He was a human being, he had a disease, and that diseased caused him to take permanent action against a temporary problem. It is incredibly said but fuck anyone who feels like they are in a position to judge him.
Cure the depressives and you kill a great deal of literature, art, music, and other poetic forms of expression. Even as we approach a world dominated by engineering and social sciences, people will still find a way to be sad, to the benefit of all.
In the same way great writers need to be alcoholics?
In all seriousness though: depression is quite different from feeling down or being sad, and one of the most frustrating things for people who have been depressed is that they can't really convey what it's like. I've been 'happy', in a way, that depression has been talked about more lately, because I feel that especially us geeks often have a hard time accepting something we cannot understand or figure out.
In some ways, you could compare depression to addictions. For people who have no addictions, and/or people who just do not have an addictive personality, it is really hard to understand. Even if they try to understand, it often feels like an addicted person is just not trying hard enough.
This is especially difficult with addictions that are similar to non-addictive behavior, like consumption of alcohol. Non-alcoholics just don't get it. I don't blame them for this, but it's frustrating.
Yeah. I'm much less angry about this than might be, mostly because of this same impression I get from him.
I find that 'geeks' have a tendency to really not handle issues well when they are difficult to understand. Suicide is like that. Most people hesitate to say anything about it, but 'geeks' can be lacking in that.
And honestly, I like that. He's saying what a lot of people are thinking, and it starts a good discussion.
I wouldn't assume that Swartz killed himself because he was depressed per se. He was facing ruination, after all, the likes of which even a strong hardworking person might never recover from. Made worse by the fact that it was a victimless crime. I take the view that a corrupt prosecutor hounded him to his death, and ignore any depression he had.
That reminds me...I get all excited when I hear someone mention Django on a more mainstream site and then mildly disappointed when I realize they only meant the movie. I've probably been programming too much when that's the first thing that comes to mind.
I'd like to thank everyone for your thoughtful replies. There is no black/white or cut/dry arguments here. Most of us, including myself, did not know Aaron; it was not my intention to insinuate otherwise (unlike Jeff who did say, "I never knew Aaron, but I knew Aaron") - emphasis by Jeff. Yes, I'm sure Jeff knew Aaron well enough to write his article.
We will never know what pushed Aaron over the edge. His legal issues couldn't have helped matters. That said, my entire point was that relating suicide to ragequitting is an ignorant thing to do and that sentiment belies a practically infinite misunderstanding of why some people with mental illness decide to end their lives.
Offensiveness aside, the analogy Atwood makes is just nonsensical. Ragequitting is storming out in a temper-tantrum, maybe analgous to a school shooting. In this instance, there is no "rage" in evidence. Swarz didn't gave no indication that he meant his suicide to be symbolic or carry a message (as ragequitters do, the message generally being "fuck you all, I'm out of here.") Atwood's whole thesis is flawed.
There's a concept of a transcendent mission or quest, that is worth any effort, any suffering, any pain. It's unreasonable to expect this of anyone - it's just that it's an approach that some have used to transcend suffering.
oh please. aaron knew what he was getting into when he broke the law. in the end suicide is the easy way out. depression or not. i don't claim to know what aaron was going threw, but i do know he knew a huge community of people were ready to fight for him, yet he choose the easy way out.
"aaron knew what he was getting into when he broke the law. in the end suicide is the easy way out"
Wow, that just a horrible thing to say. Really, screw you.
I'm deeply disappointed reading the replies in this thread. Jeff Atwood's article IS offensive, and if you knew the anything about depression you wouldn't be saying what you just said.
I'm not much for starting fights on the internet, but seriously, you deserve a big "Screw you!" :(
> Aaron committed suicide because depression is a disease. Aaron made a very unfortunate choice. Jeff is right in that we lost an amazing person… someone whom we all should have helped. But I can guarantee that Aaron wasn’t thinking of software or what his death would mean to our community when he made his decision. All he wanted to do was stop the pain.
I realize this is a touchy subject for lots of people and I dont mean to offend anyone. However, I feel obligated to advocate that Jeff's reasoning may have been that "Aaron was not really depressed, it as a mental and moral choice, he was already playing with all of his cards so it was a strategy" -- If Aaron didnt leave some last words stating his intentions it is hard to say for sure, isnt it? There are many people in human history outside of Christianity who have committed suicide on moral grounds[1] and while I honestly have NO IDEA which way it went, speculating strongly on either perspective seems unwise. There is a wide range of reasons why someone would do something like that. One of them is definitely mental illness and depression, one far less likely reason is the case for honor and morality -- e.g. to continue to strike the enemy and strip the enemy of their ability to attain victory no matter what must be sacrificed of ones self. Since Aaron was already playing with what he deemed "his life" some amount of mental illness could have pushed him over the edge. It could have been one, the other, or a combination of the two. I have no idea which and I dont think anyone really does, maybe Aaron did not even know. But as far as I have read all of the possibilities are on the table... Jeff was reasoning that no matter what the punishment, if the intention is to show that a law is immoral the person breaking the law should go through with being punished by the system to respect the law and have it changed. Since Aaron didn't do that, that is why he went "off the rails"
It uses language that people can relate to and lets the man express his feelings in the best way he knows how. The article was likely a true catharsis for Atwood.
Jeff was simply drawing an analogy to suicide that most of his readers would understand. A small percentage of us have experienced depression while almost all of us have played games. Yes, the annoyance of being quick scoped in Call of Duty can't be compared to the pain of depression, but it doesn't have to be for the analogy to still be helpful. Honestly, I don't think it benefits anyone to be offended by imperfect analogies.