5 ms·

Please stop this. You're just buying into the false narrative, pushed specifically by media companies, that "you can't disengage". This specifically serves thei

Please stop this. You're just buying into the false narrative, pushed specifically by media companies, that "you can't disengage". This specifically serves their purpose of creating content for the sake of conflict, in order to make money off your attention. You can disengage. In fact, I highly encourage it, and one's mental health greatly benefits from it. You're not more "enlightened" or "wise" if you follow along the twists and turns of every silly development, most of which can ultimately turn out to have no impact on daily life. Forest for the trees and all that. Trust the system you live in, and for most HN readers, from developed western economies, things will self-correct. If you have specific ideas and a platform that you feel isn't represented, jump into the political arena yourself, it's certainly your right. But please don't force the rest of us to tag along.

iron0013 7y ago
“Trust the system”?
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
I would paraphrase what you're saying like this: Don't hyperengage. Don't live and die by every news cycle. Don't let outrage consume you. Don't "other" those who disagree with you. Retain your civility, and your humanity. But, I would say, still engage to the degree of learning about the issues, learning about candidates' positions, and voting.
lotsofpulp 7y ago
>Trust the system you live in, and for most HN readers, from developed western economies, things will self-correct. The people are the system in a democracy. While I can understand not worrying about every little decision the government makes, ignoring it completely is what leads a community to decay. Any illusion of the system self correcting is a consequence of the US and western world’s dominance after winning WW2. With the kind of economic advantage, everyone was lifted up simultaneously. The real test is what happens when resources have to start being rationed.
- drdeca 7y ago
  “The people” are not the entirety of the system. The mechanisms in place for aggregating the inputs from the individuals also has an impact. There is no canonical “most democratic” way to do this, only a variety of different democratic mechanisms, which can produce different results even if the individuals made the same choices. That isn’t to say that people don’t have a responsibility to endeavor to vote well.
claudiawerner 7y ago
>Trust the system you live in, and for most HN readers, from developed western economies, things will self-correct. Why should I? Is there any evidence that things "self-correct"? Self-correct according to whose interests? Surely mine are different to yours, so we have different standards for what that "correction" entails. Have you read any normative social theory written within the past century?
deanCommie 7y ago
That is a highly privileged position from someone who benefits from the current system, or at the very least isn't actively harmed by it. I realize I know nothing about your station, but understand that being able to make that statement is inherently privileged, and one millions of people around the world cannot proclaim. If you have access to benefits and advantages in the system that others do not, then if you are not actively working to improve that system, you are COMPLICIT. Plain and simple. Nothing happens autonomously or through self-correction. It happens through the blood, sweat, tears, and sacrifice of others (including those as privileged as yourself) while you disengage and offer nothing.
- slg 7y ago
  People hate the word privilege nowadays (and that is probably why you are being downvoted), but I really can't think of any other word for the idea that something like civil rights for LGBTQ+ people happens out of some type of "self-correction". People fight for that. They literally die for that. It doesn't just happen automatically. To quote Desmond Tutu: >If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.
  - Viliam1234 7y ago
    Did Desmond Tutu participate in all conflicts in the world, or only the selected ones? Because people can care about many things, and yet your favorite cause may not be among them.
- cousin_it 7y ago
  Things were achieved by blood for millennia, and not much got better. But after a couple centuries of technological growth and free exchange, things are better. The person you're replying to doesn't "disengage and offer nothing", they participate in technological growth and free exchange, for which you declare them complicit and call for blood.
mac01021 7y ago
I think this is a false dichotomy. Most people should probably be less engaged than they are with the daily/weekly news and might even do well to ignore it entirely. But that need not have anything to do with how engaged you are with the democracy you live in or how much effort you spend trying to change society for the better.
kingbirdy 7y ago
> Please stop this. You're just buying into the false narrative, pushed specifically by media companies, that "you can't disengage". This specifically serves their purpose of creating content for the sake of conflict, in order to make money off your attention. You're creating a false dichotomy; being engaged with the political process is not the same thing as consuming a lot of media. Provided you're getting high-quality news you don't need to spend a ton of time to get a good grasp of the issues. > Trust the system you live in The "system you live in" is other people who are choosing to be engaged with the political process and shaping it based on their desires. If you chose to disengage, that doesn't stop their participation, but it means your interests aren't represented. That's your prerogative, but as OP says, it's an active endorsement of the status quo - you're choosing not to participate because you're happy enough with how things are for you right now and don't feel the need to affect change for others.
- mantap 7y ago
  Disengagement is orthogonal to voting. You can be disengaged from politics but still vote for representatives who will be engaged on your behalf.
topkai22 7y ago
You don't have to engage politically, but there is some reason to believe that broad civil society participation is important. This encompasses everything from programming meetups, to sports clubs, to churches, to charity, to a PTA. There is also a lot of evidence that finding a civil society group of some kind is very good emotionally for individuals, so it's a win win
yumraj 7y ago
> Trust the system you live in, In a democracy trusting the system ultimately means trusting the rest of the population in theory and trusting the people who actually vote in practise. If your are ok with that, you can disengage, but you have to understand that system is ultimately the people who are actually voting and that they all may have a different agenda than you.
PavlovsCat 7y ago
> You're just buying into the false narrative, pushed specifically by media companies, that "you can't disengage". This specifically serves their purpose of creating content for the sake of conflict, in order to make money off your attention. Making money off it is just one effect, the other is distraction from serious and important things. To just disengage from them and "let other people handle it" achieves the same. > But please don't force the rest of us to tag along. By saying people are evading their responsibilities?

iron0013 7y ago

“Trust the system”?

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

I would paraphrase what you're saying like this: Don't hyperengage. Don't live and die by every news cycle. Don't let outrage consume you. Don't "other" those who disagree with you. Retain your civility, and your humanity. But, I would say, still engage to the degree of learning about the issues, learning about candidates' positions, and voting.

lotsofpulp 7y ago

>Trust the system you live in, and for most HN readers, from developed western economies, things will self-correct. The people are the system in a democracy. While I can understand not worrying about every little decision the government makes, ignoring it completely is what leads a community to decay. Any illusion of the system self correcting is a consequence of the US and western world’s dominance after winning WW2. With the kind of economic advantage, everyone was lifted up simultaneously. The real test is what happens when resources have to start being rationed.

drdeca 7y ago
“The people” are not the entirety of the system. The mechanisms in place for aggregating the inputs from the individuals also has an impact. There is no canonical “most democratic” way to do this, only a variety of different democratic mechanisms, which can produce different results even if the individuals made the same choices. That isn’t to say that people don’t have a responsibility to endeavor to vote well.

claudiawerner 7y ago

>Trust the system you live in, and for most HN readers, from developed western economies, things will self-correct. Why should I? Is there any evidence that things "self-correct"? Self-correct according to whose interests? Surely mine are different to yours, so we have different standards for what that "correction" entails. Have you read any normative social theory written within the past century?

deanCommie 7y ago

That is a highly privileged position from someone who benefits from the current system, or at the very least isn't actively harmed by it. I realize I know nothing about your station, but understand that being able to make that statement is inherently privileged, and one millions of people around the world cannot proclaim. If you have access to benefits and advantages in the system that others do not, then if you are not actively working to improve that system, you are COMPLICIT. Plain and simple. Nothing happens autonomously or through self-correction. It happens through the blood, sweat, tears, and sacrifice of others (including those as privileged as yourself) while you disengage and offer nothing.

slg 7y ago
People hate the word privilege nowadays (and that is probably why you are being downvoted), but I really can't think of any other word for the idea that something like civil rights for LGBTQ+ people happens out of some type of "self-correction". People fight for that. They literally die for that. It doesn't just happen automatically. To quote Desmond Tutu: >If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.
- Viliam1234 7y ago
  Did Desmond Tutu participate in all conflicts in the world, or only the selected ones? Because people can care about many things, and yet your favorite cause may not be among them.
cousin_it 7y ago
Things were achieved by blood for millennia, and not much got better. But after a couple centuries of technological growth and free exchange, things are better. The person you're replying to doesn't "disengage and offer nothing", they participate in technological growth and free exchange, for which you declare them complicit and call for blood.

mac01021 7y ago

I think this is a false dichotomy. Most people should probably be less engaged than they are with the daily/weekly news and might even do well to ignore it entirely. But that need not have anything to do with how engaged you are with the democracy you live in or how much effort you spend trying to change society for the better.

kingbirdy 7y ago

> Please stop this. You're just buying into the false narrative, pushed specifically by media companies, that "you can't disengage". This specifically serves their purpose of creating content for the sake of conflict, in order to make money off your attention. You're creating a false dichotomy; being engaged with the political process is not the same thing as consuming a lot of media. Provided you're getting high-quality news you don't need to spend a ton of time to get a good grasp of the issues. > Trust the system you live in The "system you live in" is other people who are choosing to be engaged with the political process and shaping it based on their desires. If you chose to disengage, that doesn't stop their participation, but it means your interests aren't represented. That's your prerogative, but as OP says, it's an active endorsement of the status quo - you're choosing not to participate because you're happy enough with how things are for you right now and don't feel the need to affect change for others.

mantap 7y ago
Disengagement is orthogonal to voting. You can be disengaged from politics but still vote for representatives who will be engaged on your behalf.

topkai22 7y ago

You don't have to engage politically, but there is some reason to believe that broad civil society participation is important. This encompasses everything from programming meetups, to sports clubs, to churches, to charity, to a PTA. There is also a lot of evidence that finding a civil society group of some kind is very good emotionally for individuals, so it's a win win

yumraj 7y ago

> Trust the system you live in, In a democracy trusting the system ultimately means trusting the rest of the population in theory and trusting the people who actually vote in practise. If your are ok with that, you can disengage, but you have to understand that system is ultimately the people who are actually voting and that they all may have a different agenda than you.

PavlovsCat 7y ago

> You're just buying into the false narrative, pushed specifically by media companies, that "you can't disengage". This specifically serves their purpose of creating content for the sake of conflict, in order to make money off your attention. Making money off it is just one effect, the other is distraction from serious and important things. To just disengage from them and "let other people handle it" achieves the same. > But please don't force the rest of us to tag along. By saying people are evading their responsibilities?