4 ms·
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 e
by 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 agoThat's the point. You shouldn't have to be directly effected by it to think it is worth discussion and other attention.
- Karunamon 6y agoAnd 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 agoMaybe 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 agoDefinitely 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.
- maxerickson 6y agonot within your sphere of influence in any way That's never true. Influence might be tiny, but it's not zero. There's an irony, in that believing nothing can be done ensures that nothing is done.
- winston_smith 6y agoOP already addressed that. When it's time to vote or choose your charitable donations or whatever, you can: > ...go read Wikipedia for 30 minutes and be just as caught up as anyone else because you know the end result of the news cycle instead of suffering through it as it happened.