Courtesy of Heaven of Horror

A few weeks ago I watched Netflix’s new series Adolescence. Though if i’m being honest, “watched” would be the wrong word, given that I finished the series the same day I started it. The show critiques modern society, specifically the attitude towards young men. The story basically follows a 13 year old boy who kills a young girl named Katie. This show is not meant to be a murder mystery, or anything of the sort. Instead it aims to point out the flaws in society, specifically regarding access to “red pill content” on social media, the school system, parenting, and society as a whole. No one is spared in the eyes of this show. And if i’m being frank, no one should be. The issue of young minds and their exposure to social media is only growing worse with time, and if nothing is done we are looking at a grave future. Though the show was about how social media can impact young minds, it led me to a different question:

In a case like the one in Adolescence, is the killer truly “evil” or is it the fault of others?

This is not to say that Jamie was without blame, because of course he was- he killed someone. I am more curious about his “true” nature. If he had not been exposed to misogynistic and extremist content, would the outcome have been the same? I think not, and because of this my mind naturally goes to the question of who is truly to blame. If someone is brainwashed into doing something, is it really their fault? And when someone is “brainwashed” by something like social media, does that define who they are- or rather who they have become? There are so many questions it becomes difficult to find the answers. The only thing I can say for certain is that things would have been a lot different if Jamie had stayed off the internet.

At the end of the day, murder is wrong (obviously), no matter the motive or reasoning, but it certainly is difficult to distinguish the defining cause. Perhaps those susceptible to the beliefs of red pill content have always had the violent ideas in them deep down, and exposure only “activated” them, and brought them to the surface. But then again, young brains that are still developing will always look to what they think is cool, and either consciously or subconsciously try to become that. This is the danger of social media. Exposure to people like Andrew Tate or anyone who supports the beliefs of the extreme right (or left) can really change a child. At 8 years old (which is how old some kids on social media are now) the brain won’t understand that the content they are seeing needs to be thought about logically and understood, before immediately agreeing. They will see someone who they think looks cool and who is a “real man” and think their word is gospel. And the rest of us aren’t doing anything to help. I’m not an advocate for complete control over kids lives, but I also dont think the free range technique works either. In the fourth episode Jamie’s father is having a conversation with his mother, and he makes a point that I think should really be taken into consideration by parents- You think nothing is happening because your kid is in their room all day; they’re safe. But if they are safe, why are young girls being killed?

It’s impossible to avoid social media and technology. It is an integral part of the world we live in. But there should certainly be some safeguards in place, something to keep the extremists away from susceptible minds, and to hopefully prevent a story that is becoming reality.