3 ms·

I guess that depends on which side of the economic equality fence you're on.

• zepto 6y ago
  I’m not sure I follow you? Are you saying that poorer people can’t or maybe shouldn’t think about complex issues?
  • grawprog 6y ago
    No i'm saying economic equality becomes more important than those issues. When money isn't a problem, you have the time and resources to care about those things, when money is a problem, money becomes more important because Money == food,water and shelter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
    • lazypenguin 6y ago
      I wouldn't ignore the case where those higher level issues start to cause you to have less money, food and water because you are being manipulated to act against your own interests.
    • zepto 6y ago
      You say ‘no’ but then you present an argument which seems to evaluate to ‘yes’. If you are saying that a person who actually doesn’t have access to food, water, and shelter don’t have time to think about the problems of social media, I’d say there is merit to that. But then that seems like a clear ‘yes’ to my question. It also supports my original comment about how terrible the piece is. By your logic, someone in such a position can’t or shouldn’t be reading a Slate article discussing the relative importance of these issues.