I wasn’t aware that accusing someone of not understanding your argument is a personal insult, but forgive me. I am aggravated because i do not seem to have the privilege of being taken seriously here. I’ll break this down line by line, since you refuse to do any sort of critical thinking regarding what the implications of my points might be. “I made very specific points, such as the clear and severe consequences of Hannah’s suicide for others she loved, and the completely cold and pointless and totally UNGLORIFIED nature of Alex’s act.” I did in fact address these “specific points” by way of the following remark: “Alex’s suicide represents success on Hannah’s part. Suicidal teens don’t necessarily believe that the world would be better off without them. They believe that they would be better off without the world; they feel hopelessly misunderstood, and a suicide by dramatic means such as Hannah’s may be their final attempt to force others to understand the nature of their suffering.” But I suppose I need to explain myself further. The “clear and severe consequences” of Hannah’s suicide are WHAT IS DESIRED BY SUICIDAL YOUTH. They want their deaths to be as impactful as possible. They want to inspire regret in those who have wronged them, just as Hannah very successfully inspired regret in Alex. They want to convey the sentiment that they HAD to do this, because the people in their lives left them no further options. The suicides aren’t “glorified by some mysterious psychological mechanism,” they’re glorified because the pretense under which they are committed falls perfectly in line with the massive anti-recovery movement that can be found amongst people my age online. It is becoming increasingly common for mentally ill youth, especially those with personality disorders such as borderline, to respond to the suggestion of treatment as if it were an insult. They are suffering, and the world ought to feel the weight of their despair. What better way to lash out at an unaccepting society than to put your blood on their hands. Next. “Hannah would 100% meet the criteria for ‘Major Depressive Disorder.’ So you can easily say she was ‘mentally ill’ just by watching the show. What did you want from the producers? That she be ‘diagnosed’ during the show?” What I would have liked from the producers would be some portrayal of the symptoms, by which I mean the disordered thought processes that preclude a suicidal episode, rather than the revenge porn we’re provided with. Even the show markets itself by prompting the audience to keep watching to find out “who killed Hannah Baker.” Hannah Baker killed Hannah Baker, and she presumably did it in the midst of a whirlwind of conflicting thoughts and feelings. The audience does not get any insight to the sort of mental life that precedes a suicide. They are merely shown an act of direct retaliation. Following this remark you ask, “If being ‘mentally ill’ is simply grouping together unexplained ‘symptoms,’ how is that different from saying that a person, for whatever reason, is overwhelmed by the conditions of his/her life?” What? Are you trying to tell me that the obsessions and compulsions suffered by individuals with OCD are merely “conditions of their lives?” You sound like you are denying the very existence of neurodiversity and are rather trying to pin all psychological symptoms on some inherently evil society. We can observe very clear examples of symptoms that are purely circumstantial, symptoms that are purely endogenous, and several that fall somewhere in between. It is not nature vs nurture but nature AND nurture that result in the development of mental illness. Additionally, “without a somatic cause” and “unexplained” are not the same thing. I don’t know about you, but I’m not a determinist who subscribes to the notion that we lack free will because all of our actions are predetermined by chemical reactions in the brain. Mental events have causal effects as well, and mental events are not somatic. Just because we can’t explain mental illness in terms of bodily deviance doesn’t mean that we can’t try to explain it at all. I’ve ignored your protests about saying this show is ideal content for suicidal youth because I haven’t actually accused you of saying that in the first place. My original comment was this: “You and many other commenters simply lack the phenomenological authority to be championing this show as a good thing for suicidal youth. It is not. It does not encourage teenagers to seek help. It does not encourage better clinical practices or less insidious procedures regarding involuntary hospitalization (which I do agree, of course, are a real problem).” By “a good thing for suicidal youth,” I mean something that will impact SOCIETY in a way that will improve conditions for suicidal people, like I tried to emphasize with my point about failing to provide any portrayal of suicide prevention tactics or addressing the practical realities of the act. Furthermore, even if that WERE what I was originally trying to say, the fact that you deny your recommendation of the show to troubled teenagers while simultaneously lauding the show as “valuable” is deeply misguided. As I’ve already said: “It seems as if you’re suggesting that the show is still valuable because it allows older individuals insight into the dramatic opera of high school, regardless of how egregious its affects on that age group may be.” If a show about suicidal youth has a negative impact on suicidal youth, I simply don’t care how touching other demographics may find it. The suicidal individuals are the ones whose well being ought to be prioritized, and as I’ll remind you, the only thing that could possibly abolish my negative judgement is a sudden reversal of the testimonies from suicidal youth that condemn this show as callous and unrealistic.