It presents a thought I have not thought about before. Whether, as some other commenters suggest, the hypothesis that you are dating an ecosystem, has always been true is a different question.
Of course people are complex systems. When have you ever felt the thoughts:
"I am the same person I was last year, therefore people should treat me as such and not consider my growth, changes, or nuance." "My partner is the exact same person they where when I married them, therefore I do not need to pay attention to their growth, changes, or nuance."
You realized these things before you read the piece, but like me, found solace in seeing this "author" rationalize it as not our fault, but instead the fault of the new society/the other.
Which...is certainly not wise for sake of self-growth.
My wife will notice a change in me tonight. That's because I've taken on another advisor.
It's a velocity + availability "no Tom Brokaw" argument as applied to relationships. Like the question it's poking at "if an ecosystem can radicalize a person, what are its effects on a relationship?" is at least interesting to consider.
I do think that's a good question to ponder and one I hope I'm thoughtful enough to consider in my future relationships. If it were my idea I would keep growing it into something, but that's just me.
> What used to be a disagreement becomes “emotional labor.” A bad mood gets labeled “toxic energy.” Forgetting to text becomes “avoidant attachment.” Opinions from friends, refreshed by the hour.
Smells like the angst of some recently dumped man. The girl is a slave to the whims of tik tok candy therapists but the boy is influenced by "ghosts." Please.
What this post is hitting upon correctly is that people are products of their environment, and trying to perfectly separate the two is impossible.
In fact, I would guess the strongest relationships are those where those are shared.
I made this point elsewhere in thread, but another difference is the daily content aspect of online influencers. Instead of reading one or two shallow, vapid articles a month about "what's wrong with your relationship" they are seeing new content every day, and they are mostly seeing the content that is upsetting the most people.
96% AI generated according to gptzero.
Which I wouldn't mind, honestly, if it had something useful, insightful, or original to say.
In a way I'm glad it doesn't seem to be written by a human:
> What used to be a disagreement becomes “emotional labor.”
> A bad mood gets labeled “toxic energy.”
This sounds like someone who dismisses their partner's feelings as fragmented memes, and sees her as almost brain-washed by the algorithm.
It contrasts this against a time where a relationship was something entirely different, where he could know everyone she's interacting with.
> And it doesn’t stop there.
> She has friends.
God forbid...
If this was a person and not an AI, they would sound incredibly controlling. Maybe the "toxicity" and "red flag" ideas didn't form in a vacuum?
Nothing in this "Article" is based in any fact or input-causality examination that was (before) unclear. Just a person putting esoteric emotional reasoning on a blog.
(And of course, my own comment here breaks HN good-faith commenting rules. But c'mon.)
superb-owl•1mo ago
zwnow•1mo ago
jeremyjh•1mo ago
The closest thing I can think of to something like that were certain types of magazines but they'd come out monthly, you weren't steeped in it.
zwnow•1mo ago
I mean horoscopes have been a thing for a while or very conservative religious people. Same thing. "Don't do that, dont do this" type of content has existed way before the internet.
gwd•1mo ago