I recognize that not everyone has family that lives nearby, and some have lost their natural families, which is very difficult. And there many who are estranged from their families for various reasons. I was estranged from my family, but that improved greatly with some considerable (and still ongoing) effort on my part, even though some of them have diagnosed mental illnesses.
I guess my point is that if you have family members, it is well worth it to try to salvage what you can. If you do not have any family, it is well worth it to try to make one. Yes, those family members could be found on Reddit. Better to make the effort to have "real-life" friends and family you can see and talk to and touch daily so you don't have to be miserable alone. It can be hard to see when you're in the midst of it, though.
I for one am not miserable when I'm alone. I love my alone time. And to be clear this is not because it is rare. I make a conscious choice to be alone a lot of the time.
I sometimes love time with people too, but only in small doses and only a very few people (this does not mean I can't enjoy being out in public - being around people I'm not interacting with constantly is just fine).
I certainly don't want to have people around to see and talk and touch daily. The very thought is an exhausting nightmare to me.
People manage to do that just fine all the time. All that's required is to write with the presumption that people might have different experiences. It's fine to suggest that some people are not living healthy lives if they don't have more social contact, and that it's a good idea to ask yourself why you might have a negative reaction to someone suggesting you have more, because everyone ought to understand their own needs and sometimes we don't.
What came across as insulting was that it is worded in a way that suggests this applies to everyone, and that people with different experiences just don't know how bad we have it. That generalization was unnecessary and took away from the overall point.
> when there are a e.g. million+ people in japan who don't leave their bedrooms and never grow up or grow out then there is obviously a new unsustainable pattern of anti-social behaviour
And the way to address that is to with the simple qualification of addressing specifically those who are unhappy with their situation, instead of suggesting that everyone who chooses to have most of their social contact online must necessarily be miserable.
I have no problems believing that lots of people are terribly lonely. At the same time I know that ironically a lot of people put a lot of energy into telling people who are not lonely to be more social. If only they'd spend that energy on people who want more contact (here's a simple one I wish more people would try: give eye contact to people you meet, and ask "how are you?" and actually wait for an answer when e.g. interacting with people in service jobs - you'll be astonished how quickly people will pour out built up emotions on near total strangers the moment someone shows the smallest sign of caring even if that sign is something as basic as actually waiting for an answer instead of just treating questions like that as meaningless greetings) instead of continuing to try to get people like me who are perfectly happy to be more social.
You'd be out there trying to find real friends at meetups, clubs, gatherings, etc. don't ya? It helps a lot if you assume that internet doesn't exist for a day and see what miracles your mind comes up with then!
But it's not like it would make more sense if the term was longer. The whole reason the Internet was created was to be the network that could survive a nuclear war. It'll always be there. People communicated via the Internet way before reddit and others, and would continue doing so if they were to disappear.
"Imagine living without the Internet" is a useless imagination. It's a thing of the past with no way of reappearing. If your ISP were to go down, I assume you'd just switch to mobile data. Assuming you're using two different companies, it would take quite a catastrophe for both of them to be down at the same time, at which point your survival instinct would kick in, not a desire to make meaningful relationships offline.
You can't build a healthy social diet on just approval. Some people do that with real life. It just happens to be far easier to do on the internet because we figured out that approval is addictive and drives user engagement.
For example, I see this every time a discussion about code review culture comes up. The thread is always popular, and it always gets exactly two opinions: "we should be nicer" and "grow a thicker skin." God forbid there could be a situational truth to either point! You'd think from the discussion that every developer is either a caustic veteran or a thin skinned newbie who needs to get over themselves.
For one, the current top comment in the thread to which you link is careful not to take the word “insane” at face value, in keeping with the spirit of the featured (OP) article.
> The OP uses the word "insane", not outlier. It's clickbaity, and used in jest, but I think it better captures a subtlety of this phenomenon: The prolific commenters are molding every discussion in their image. [0]
The OP also observes
> Edit: I guess my tone-projection is off. A lot of people seem to be put-off by my usage of the word "insane." I intended that as tongue-in-cheek and did not mean to imply that any of them literally have diagnosable mental illnesses. I have a lot of respect for all of the individuals I listed and they seem like nice people, I was just trying to make a point about how unusual their behavior is. [1]
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18884146
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9rvroo/most...