6 ms·

That ties right back into the original comment, though. The quantity of suffering in the world is great, and even those of us with the ability to do something a

That ties right back into the original comment, though. The quantity of suffering in the world is great, and even those of us with the ability to do something about some small part of it (already a pretty small number) are severely limited in their impact. For the most part, it's non-actionable info. You bring up "relatives being deported or shot by the police", but the number of people on HN that describes is going to be tiny. The average HN user is less likely than most to have been burned by COVID due to the remote-friendliness of tech jobs. For me, the calculus works out like this: 1. Is it possible for me to do anything substantial about it? (Throwing a few bucks at a charity or "raising awareness" about the large social problem everyone already knows about does not count as "substantial") 2. If it is possible, do I have the ability? (Financially, mentally, physically, temporally) 3. If the answer to both of these questions is "no", then it is non-actionable and not worth expending my own limited energy on. The vast majority of things you hear from the news media fail both of these tests. They are intended to provoke you or scare you about something that is mostly out of your sphere of influence.

tehjoker 6y ago
This is a profoundly dispiriting stance. Many individuals have made a difference in the past and will continue into the future. The primary way individuals make differences is either by changing the way people think about something, by assembling a group to strategize around their issue, or physically preventing the bad thing from happening.
- Karunamon 6y ago
  All of those people you mention had something where they could physically and practically do something about the problem. My comment addresses the vast majority of instances a human learns about a problem where that isn't the case. Your sphere of concern and your sphere of influence are two different things at the end of the day. If you've decided some social problem is within your sphere of influence, then by all means, take whatever helpful action you can - just do not pretend that this encompasses all problems, or for that matter that the number of problems is not infinite. Down that path lay depression and burnout.
  - tehjoker 6y ago
    You get to pick which problems you want to work on, just don't pretend you can't work on them.
    - Karunamon 6y ago
      Don't pretend you can. What would you suggest I do about North Korea's or China's human rights abuses, for instance? These are the kinds of problems I'm talking about.
      - tehjoker 6y ago
        That's going pretty far afield. I would recommend following the rubric I learned from Scahill and Greenwald which is pay attention to things happening domestically because you can do something about them. I don't pretend there aren't infinite problems, or ones difficult to access, but I strongly caution against treating political problems as something that are immovable.
      - fsflover 6y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycotts_of_Chinese_products https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycotts_of_Chinese_products
    - BeetleB 6y ago
      That is very consistent with the stance Karunamon has.
- BeetleB 6y ago
  > The primary way individuals make differences is either by changing the way people think about something, by assembling a group to strategize around their issue, or physically preventing the bad thing from happening. As someone who spent time in both volunteer groups and activist groups, I can assure you that well intentioned people can easily make things worse, not better. It's why I got out of such groups. The first method you cite: "Changing the way people think about something" is a common example of this. It's very easy (in fact, I would say it is the norm) that people's beliefs are strengthened the more they feel besieged, and that often happens by others trying to make them think about something differently (or about something they don't want to). Easily 80-90% of such interactions have this outcome, and definitely over 50% even here on HN. I noticed this earlier in life, and it was confirmed when I started studying communications and influence (almost all books will mirror what I have said). That's not to say you can't change people's minds. You do need to have the skills to do so, and the ability not to make things worse in trying to do so. It's great if you want to change things, and I don't aim to discourage you. It is, however, your responsibility to be able to gauge how effective you are, and know whether you are causing damage or not. Do it poorly, and you will merely make it harder for those who do have the skills. Giving money is the safest way to help without doing harm - provided you have the ability to identify which organization to give the money to. In that sense, I have no problem with folks who tune out. They could make things much worse by trying to help.
maxerickson 6y ago
You bring up "relatives being deported or shot by the police", but the number of people on HN that describes is going to be tiny. You are pretty much silently appending and fuck them when you present that like this.
- Karunamon 6y ago
  I'm sorry you feel that way, but it's an argument based on pure statistics. HN doesn't have the headcount necessary for a significant number of its members to either be directly or indirectly (via relatives) affected by either of those two events.
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    That's the point. You shouldn't have to be directly effected by it to think it is worth discussion and other attention.
    - Karunamon 6y ago
      And of what good is that discussion and other attention if you can't actually do anything about it (or have already done all you reasonably can), other than ruining your own mental health?
      - maxerickson 6y ago
        Maybe none. But I'm not sure dismissing the suffering of other people is actually the thing that will be better for mental health.
        Karunamon 6y ago
        Definitely none. Nobody said anything about dismissing anything, only being realistic about what you have the ability to do and how you let your attention be directed by third parties. If something is not within your sphere of influence in any way, then it is, by definition, a waste of your energy to be concerned about.
myWindoonn 6y ago
You might just be lazy. I haven't kept strict count, but I've chased at least four cryptofascists out of technical communities in the past couple years. My techniques are pretty simple; I introduce basic facts and some background empirical knowledge, and then use them to demonstrate that fascist rhetoric is usually disconnected from actual historical happenstance. My calculus is this: 1. Are they being unmitigated pieces of shit? Are they failing basic norms of conversation and going off on irrelevant and hateful tangents? 2. Is their bullshit correctable? Are there simple and plain truths which, when added as historical context, reveal them to be hateful and insipid? 3. How much will the average person care about this nuance? Even if my points are right, will they actually convince onlookers or are they too technical or tiny? If the answer to all three isn't "yes", then I don't bother writing a reply. I don't know which part of the country you're from. My senator is Wyden, so all I have to do in order to make a positive difference is just vote him back in. Anything beyond that is icing. It is as easy as that; electing antifascists and their sympathizers is not difficult.
- Karunamon 6y ago
  See, keeping your communities clean is the kind of thing that very much is in your sphere of influence. So is voting (and campaigning, if you can) for good candidates. I'm talking about larger problems than that. Most anything that happens at the federal/geopolitical level, for instance, is non-actionable for the vast majority of people outside of voting or sending letters/phone calls. Also, no need for the insult.
rchaud 6y ago
> They are intended to provoke you or scare you about something that is mostly out of your sphere of influence. And yet, every post about H1B visa rule changes will have hundreds of comments bemoaning the selling out of the American IT worker. There will also be much hand-wringing about the on-shoring of foreign jobs and anecdotes about how terrible it is working with Indian consultancy firms. HN commenters want to vent as much as anyone else. They just do it on political posts that they feel affect them personally, even if it's not something they can change directly.

tehjoker 6y ago

This is a profoundly dispiriting stance. Many individuals have made a difference in the past and will continue into the future. The primary way individuals make differences is either by changing the way people think about something, by assembling a group to strategize around their issue, or physically preventing the bad thing from happening.

Karunamon 6y ago
All of those people you mention had something where they could physically and practically do something about the problem. My comment addresses the vast majority of instances a human learns about a problem where that isn't the case. Your sphere of concern and your sphere of influence are two different things at the end of the day. If you've decided some social problem is within your sphere of influence, then by all means, take whatever helpful action you can - just do not pretend that this encompasses all problems, or for that matter that the number of problems is not infinite. Down that path lay depression and burnout.
- tehjoker 6y ago
  You get to pick which problems you want to work on, just don't pretend you can't work on them.
  - Karunamon 6y ago
    Don't pretend you can. What would you suggest I do about North Korea's or China's human rights abuses, for instance? These are the kinds of problems I'm talking about.
    - tehjoker 6y ago
      That's going pretty far afield. I would recommend following the rubric I learned from Scahill and Greenwald which is pay attention to things happening domestically because you can do something about them. I don't pretend there aren't infinite problems, or ones difficult to access, but I strongly caution against treating political problems as something that are immovable.
    - fsflover 6y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycotts_of_Chinese_products https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycotts_of_Chinese_products
  - BeetleB 6y ago
    That is very consistent with the stance Karunamon has.
BeetleB 6y ago
> The primary way individuals make differences is either by changing the way people think about something, by assembling a group to strategize around their issue, or physically preventing the bad thing from happening. As someone who spent time in both volunteer groups and activist groups, I can assure you that well intentioned people can easily make things worse, not better. It's why I got out of such groups. The first method you cite: "Changing the way people think about something" is a common example of this. It's very easy (in fact, I would say it is the norm) that people's beliefs are strengthened the more they feel besieged, and that often happens by others trying to make them think about something differently (or about something they don't want to). Easily 80-90% of such interactions have this outcome, and definitely over 50% even here on HN. I noticed this earlier in life, and it was confirmed when I started studying communications and influence (almost all books will mirror what I have said). That's not to say you can't change people's minds. You do need to have the skills to do so, and the ability not to make things worse in trying to do so. It's great if you want to change things, and I don't aim to discourage you. It is, however, your responsibility to be able to gauge how effective you are, and know whether you are causing damage or not. Do it poorly, and you will merely make it harder for those who do have the skills. Giving money is the safest way to help without doing harm - provided you have the ability to identify which organization to give the money to. In that sense, I have no problem with folks who tune out. They could make things much worse by trying to help.

maxerickson 6y ago

You bring up "relatives being deported or shot by the police", but the number of people on HN that describes is going to be tiny. You are pretty much silently appending and fuck them when you present that like this.

Karunamon 6y ago
I'm sorry you feel that way, but it's an argument based on pure statistics. HN doesn't have the headcount necessary for a significant number of its members to either be directly or indirectly (via relatives) affected by either of those two events.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  That's the point. You shouldn't have to be directly effected by it to think it is worth discussion and other attention.
  - Karunamon 6y ago
    And of what good is that discussion and other attention if you can't actually do anything about it (or have already done all you reasonably can), other than ruining your own mental health?
    - maxerickson 6y ago
      Maybe none. But I'm not sure dismissing the suffering of other people is actually the thing that will be better for mental health.
      - Karunamon 6y ago
        Definitely none. Nobody said anything about dismissing anything, only being realistic about what you have the ability to do and how you let your attention be directed by third parties. If something is not within your sphere of influence in any way, then it is, by definition, a waste of your energy to be concerned about.

myWindoonn 6y ago

You might just be lazy. I haven't kept strict count, but I've chased at least four cryptofascists out of technical communities in the past couple years. My techniques are pretty simple; I introduce basic facts and some background empirical knowledge, and then use them to demonstrate that fascist rhetoric is usually disconnected from actual historical happenstance. My calculus is this: 1. Are they being unmitigated pieces of shit? Are they failing basic norms of conversation and going off on irrelevant and hateful tangents? 2. Is their bullshit correctable? Are there simple and plain truths which, when added as historical context, reveal them to be hateful and insipid? 3. How much will the average person care about this nuance? Even if my points are right, will they actually convince onlookers or are they too technical or tiny? If the answer to all three isn't "yes", then I don't bother writing a reply. I don't know which part of the country you're from. My senator is Wyden, so all I have to do in order to make a positive difference is just vote him back in. Anything beyond that is icing. It is as easy as that; electing antifascists and their sympathizers is not difficult.

Karunamon 6y ago
See, keeping your communities clean is the kind of thing that very much is in your sphere of influence. So is voting (and campaigning, if you can) for good candidates. I'm talking about larger problems than that. Most anything that happens at the federal/geopolitical level, for instance, is non-actionable for the vast majority of people outside of voting or sending letters/phone calls. Also, no need for the insult.

rchaud 6y ago

> They are intended to provoke you or scare you about something that is mostly out of your sphere of influence. And yet, every post about H1B visa rule changes will have hundreds of comments bemoaning the selling out of the American IT worker. There will also be much hand-wringing about the on-shoring of foreign jobs and anecdotes about how terrible it is working with Indian consultancy firms. HN commenters want to vent as much as anyone else. They just do it on political posts that they feel affect them personally, even if it's not something they can change directly.