7 ms·

Do people ever call you privileged? A common response I see to experiments like yours is that "it must be nice to be able to not care".

phito 3y ago
They're trying to make their problem yours. If they can't stop caring about pointless things, it's their problem, not yours.
- unshavedyak 3y ago
  Or hypothetically they think it's very much not pointless. I imagine most of us would have some current events that we think is not only worth listening to, but acting on. Which isn't an argument to watch news/etc, as it may be exceptionally rare. Just that i imagine we could all say quite similar things. To me, if anything, it really goes to show up important "yelling with appropriate volume" is. So many of those "with a cause" as is being discussed here are pretty widely ignored, as it seems they're always yelling. I can't tell what is meaningful from them when it's almost always of equal volume, fear, etc.
BuyMyBitcoins 3y ago
>” Do people ever call you privileged? A common response I see to experiments like yours is that "it must be nice to be able to not care".” I’ve seen this sentiment echoed a lot online and I suspect it comes from activists who wish to guilt trip those who aren't engrossed in their cause.
- tivert 3y ago
  > I’ve seen this sentiment echoed a lot online and I suspect it comes from activists who wish to guilt trip those who aren't engrossed in their cause. Exactly. There's almost nothing in the daily news that someone must have "privilege" not to care about. They have some articles about social issues that might fit that description, but that's a totally different thing than the news itself.
- pjc50 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - scarecrowbob 3y ago
    I understand that impulse. One thing I've observed, though, is that "the news" generally isn't how I get information about what fun, brave, new world people would like to make for us. "The news", qua the comercially-produced mass media doings of the day, generally has never talked about issues important to me and mine and when they do it's largely Fox punditry or it's reaction. I get a lot of information about the things I care about via various instagram folks and then following up by cursory searches to gt the larger picture. But the straight and cis folks I know (to choose one axis of this "culture war") or the wealthy center-right PMC/petit bourgeoisie/owning-class folks I know (to choose another) don't seem to understand much of anything no matter how much Fox/New York Times/ WaPo/ MSNBC they consume.
    - pjc50 3y ago
      > But the straight and cis folks I know (to choose one axis of this "culture war") or the wealthy center-right PMC/petit bourgeoisie/owning-class folks I know (to choose another) don't seem to understand much of anything no matter how much Fox/New York Times/ WaPo/ MSNBC they consume. Oh certainly. There was a survey a while ago (which I can't find) that found that reading UK rightwing press was correlated with being less informed about issues than simply not reading news at all - i.e. readers would underperform random guessing on multiple choice questions.
- Goronmon 3y ago
  I’ve seen this sentiment echoed a lot online and I suspect it comes from activists who wish to guilt trip those who aren't engrossed in their cause. Exactly. It's like when people complain about minimum wage. As a software developer, this will likely never impact me. Same thing with issues like abortion or gay rights. As a straight male, I gain nothing from getting bogged down in pointless arguments over those side-shows. Russian invading Ukraine? Why is that something I need to know about? I live in American, not Ukraine. People like me just don't need to worry about these types of issues, so what do I gain by reading news about things like that?
  - janalsncm 3y ago
    One possibility would be if you had a girlfriend or wife, the new anti-abortion laws would fairly directly impact you as well by limiting your family planning options depending on where you live.
    - throwway120385 3y ago
      If your wife happens to be pregnant, there are also states you might choose to avoid because she might need medical care if she miscarries late term, and doctors in those states might choose not to save her life for fear that the authorities might try to prosecute them for the loss of the baby.
  - AntiRemote 3y ago
    [dead]
- comte7092 3y ago
  I’ve seen the word “activists” used in this manner to describe a certain type of person, who in my mind hardly qualifies as an activist. At most they are a person who follows the day to day of our political theater, but I doubt they could point to a single policy or proposal they actually advocated for in any political forum. Coding behavior this way is misleading and counterproductive. Activism is a generally respectable activity, it entails actually showing up and giving your time towards something you care about, not just lecturing people about watching cable news.
  - Anthony-G 3y ago
    Twenty years ago such people would have been (disparagingly) referred to as “keyboard warriors” by “boots on the ground” activists. I haven’t come across the “keyboard warriors” term in a long time – most likely because the online “activists” vastly outnumber the activists who don’t confine their political activity to the online sphere.
  - colpabar 3y ago
    I get your point, but isn't this kind of a no true scotsman thing? Social media has a lot of people thinking that they are activists because they have a hashtag in their twitter name or post black squares on instagram. What would you call those people? They call themselves activists, or they at least call those activities activism. If I had written the comment you replied to, I would have put the word in quotes. Some people use the term "slacktivist", but I think terms like that are silly. And to be clear, I'm with you - when I think of an activist, I think of someone collecting signatures door-to-door, or organizing an irl event, etc. I think of someone actually trying to accomplish something rather than just signaling virtue. But I also think that if enough people use a word a certain way, that's what the word means, and a lot of people seem to think that "just lecturing people" counts as activism.
    - comte7092 3y ago
      > They call themselves activists My assumption is that parent comment was applying that label well beyond the group that labels themselves as such. Social media activism can still be activism. I’m not looking to gatekeep. Given the context of this forum, people really love to throw this and other similar terms around in a way that reads as a pejorative. Basically, “people with a specific type of politics that I don’t like and who annoy me”. Ex. Elons “I support the current thing” tweet.
batch12 3y ago
I have a hard time following that logic. To me, the opposite seems true. It's a privilege to habitually consume media that has no direct bearing on one's day-to-day life.
avgcorrection 3y ago
The news coming out of establishments like The New York Times is aimed at the upper-middle class. People who have enough power to “matter”. The news (at least some of it) is useful for them since it’s aimed at their interests and from their perspective. Who’s the privileged one? Hard to say.
spacebacon 3y ago
The mind can be self controlled. Everyone has a choice to consume or be unconsumed. Privilege to consume is easier to control than privilege to not consume. Limits can be placed on consumption. Limiting the choice not to consume is harder to limit. Imagine a scenario involving a protest within a prison population where the prisoners hunger strike. Force feeding with sedation and a pipe is the only choice in a total control environment. The choice to not consume is less privilege than the choice to over consume.
- spacebacon 3y ago
  In terms of logical analysis, the statements present a mixture of subjective claims, hypothetical scenarios, and value judgments. Some of the statements are opinion-based and lack objective evidence or logical proofs. Additionally, the argumentation is not entirely coherent, as there are shifts in the discussion from personal control over consumption to the scenario of a prison hunger strike. Overall, the logic within this statement is subjective and reliant on hypothetical scenarios and personal judgments, making it difficult to evaluate the validity of the argument objectively.
  - spacebacon 3y ago
    In programming the permissions required not to consume are less than permissions required to consume. This is where the dissonance begins regarding the meme of a programmer. A program can exist with near zero consumption (a few neurons). A human cannot. In short, every breath we take is a vote to participate in something greater than ourself.
    - spacebacon 3y ago
      Let's analyze the logic of the given statement: 1. In programming, the permissions required not to consume are less than permissions required to consume. This statement asserts that in programming, there are fewer permissions or privileges needed to restrict or avoid consumption compared to the permissions required for actual consumption. It suggests that it is easier to control or limit consumption in the context of programming. 2. This is where the dissonance begins regarding the meme of a programmer. This statement introduces the concept of dissonance regarding the meme (a cultural symbol or idea) of a programmer. It implies that there is a contradiction or inconsistency when it comes to the behavior or perception of programmers in relation to consumption. 3. A program can exist with near-zero consumption (a few neurons). A human cannot. This statement compares the ability of a program and a human to exist with minimal consumption. It suggests that a program can operate with very low resource usage (represented as a few neurons) while a human cannot function without some level of consumption. 4. In short, every breath we take is a vote to participate in something greater than ourselves. This statement makes a broader philosophical point. It suggests that every act of breathing or consumption signifies a participation in something larger or more significant than oneself. It implies that consumption is not just a personal action but has broader implications. The logic in these statements contains a mix of objective claims and subjective philosophical assertions. The first statement is based on the premise that permissions in programming can be differentiated between consumption and non-consumption, although it lacks specific evidence or context. The second and third statements introduce a comparison between programming and human existence, implying that programs require less consumption than humans. However, it's important to note that the analogy between programming and human biology is not straightforward, and the comparison may be oversimplified or metaphorical. The final statement offers a philosophical perspective, suggesting that consumption, represented by every breath, carries a symbolic meaning of participation in something greater. This statement relies on subjective interpretation and personal philosophy rather than objective logic. Overall, while the statements touch on different aspects related to consumption, programming, and human existence, the logical coherence is weakened by subjective interpretations and philosophical assertions.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

phito 3y ago

They're trying to make their problem yours. If they can't stop caring about pointless things, it's their problem, not yours.

unshavedyak 3y ago
Or hypothetically they think it's very much not pointless. I imagine most of us would have some current events that we think is not only worth listening to, but acting on. Which isn't an argument to watch news/etc, as it may be exceptionally rare. Just that i imagine we could all say quite similar things. To me, if anything, it really goes to show up important "yelling with appropriate volume" is. So many of those "with a cause" as is being discussed here are pretty widely ignored, as it seems they're always yelling. I can't tell what is meaningful from them when it's almost always of equal volume, fear, etc.

BuyMyBitcoins 3y ago

>” Do people ever call you privileged? A common response I see to experiments like yours is that "it must be nice to be able to not care".” I’ve seen this sentiment echoed a lot online and I suspect it comes from activists who wish to guilt trip those who aren't engrossed in their cause.

tivert 3y ago
> I’ve seen this sentiment echoed a lot online and I suspect it comes from activists who wish to guilt trip those who aren't engrossed in their cause. Exactly. There's almost nothing in the daily news that someone must have "privilege" not to care about. They have some articles about social issues that might fit that description, but that's a totally different thing than the news itself.
pjc50 3y ago
[flagged]
- scarecrowbob 3y ago
  I understand that impulse. One thing I've observed, though, is that "the news" generally isn't how I get information about what fun, brave, new world people would like to make for us. "The news", qua the comercially-produced mass media doings of the day, generally has never talked about issues important to me and mine and when they do it's largely Fox punditry or it's reaction. I get a lot of information about the things I care about via various instagram folks and then following up by cursory searches to gt the larger picture. But the straight and cis folks I know (to choose one axis of this "culture war") or the wealthy center-right PMC/petit bourgeoisie/owning-class folks I know (to choose another) don't seem to understand much of anything no matter how much Fox/New York Times/ WaPo/ MSNBC they consume.
  - pjc50 3y ago
    > But the straight and cis folks I know (to choose one axis of this "culture war") or the wealthy center-right PMC/petit bourgeoisie/owning-class folks I know (to choose another) don't seem to understand much of anything no matter how much Fox/New York Times/ WaPo/ MSNBC they consume. Oh certainly. There was a survey a while ago (which I can't find) that found that reading UK rightwing press was correlated with being less informed about issues than simply not reading news at all - i.e. readers would underperform random guessing on multiple choice questions.
Goronmon 3y ago
I’ve seen this sentiment echoed a lot online and I suspect it comes from activists who wish to guilt trip those who aren't engrossed in their cause. Exactly. It's like when people complain about minimum wage. As a software developer, this will likely never impact me. Same thing with issues like abortion or gay rights. As a straight male, I gain nothing from getting bogged down in pointless arguments over those side-shows. Russian invading Ukraine? Why is that something I need to know about? I live in American, not Ukraine. People like me just don't need to worry about these types of issues, so what do I gain by reading news about things like that?
- janalsncm 3y ago
  One possibility would be if you had a girlfriend or wife, the new anti-abortion laws would fairly directly impact you as well by limiting your family planning options depending on where you live.
  - throwway120385 3y ago
    If your wife happens to be pregnant, there are also states you might choose to avoid because she might need medical care if she miscarries late term, and doctors in those states might choose not to save her life for fear that the authorities might try to prosecute them for the loss of the baby.
- AntiRemote 3y ago
  [dead]
comte7092 3y ago
I’ve seen the word “activists” used in this manner to describe a certain type of person, who in my mind hardly qualifies as an activist. At most they are a person who follows the day to day of our political theater, but I doubt they could point to a single policy or proposal they actually advocated for in any political forum. Coding behavior this way is misleading and counterproductive. Activism is a generally respectable activity, it entails actually showing up and giving your time towards something you care about, not just lecturing people about watching cable news.
- Anthony-G 3y ago
  Twenty years ago such people would have been (disparagingly) referred to as “keyboard warriors” by “boots on the ground” activists. I haven’t come across the “keyboard warriors” term in a long time – most likely because the online “activists” vastly outnumber the activists who don’t confine their political activity to the online sphere.
- colpabar 3y ago
  I get your point, but isn't this kind of a no true scotsman thing? Social media has a lot of people thinking that they are activists because they have a hashtag in their twitter name or post black squares on instagram. What would you call those people? They call themselves activists, or they at least call those activities activism. If I had written the comment you replied to, I would have put the word in quotes. Some people use the term "slacktivist", but I think terms like that are silly. And to be clear, I'm with you - when I think of an activist, I think of someone collecting signatures door-to-door, or organizing an irl event, etc. I think of someone actually trying to accomplish something rather than just signaling virtue. But I also think that if enough people use a word a certain way, that's what the word means, and a lot of people seem to think that "just lecturing people" counts as activism.
  - comte7092 3y ago
    > They call themselves activists My assumption is that parent comment was applying that label well beyond the group that labels themselves as such. Social media activism can still be activism. I’m not looking to gatekeep. Given the context of this forum, people really love to throw this and other similar terms around in a way that reads as a pejorative. Basically, “people with a specific type of politics that I don’t like and who annoy me”. Ex. Elons “I support the current thing” tweet.

batch12 3y ago

I have a hard time following that logic. To me, the opposite seems true. It's a privilege to habitually consume media that has no direct bearing on one's day-to-day life.

avgcorrection 3y ago

The news coming out of establishments like The New York Times is aimed at the upper-middle class. People who have enough power to “matter”. The news (at least some of it) is useful for them since it’s aimed at their interests and from their perspective. Who’s the privileged one? Hard to say.

spacebacon 3y ago

The mind can be self controlled. Everyone has a choice to consume or be unconsumed. Privilege to consume is easier to control than privilege to not consume. Limits can be placed on consumption. Limiting the choice not to consume is harder to limit. Imagine a scenario involving a protest within a prison population where the prisoners hunger strike. Force feeding with sedation and a pipe is the only choice in a total control environment. The choice to not consume is less privilege than the choice to over consume.

spacebacon 3y ago
In terms of logical analysis, the statements present a mixture of subjective claims, hypothetical scenarios, and value judgments. Some of the statements are opinion-based and lack objective evidence or logical proofs. Additionally, the argumentation is not entirely coherent, as there are shifts in the discussion from personal control over consumption to the scenario of a prison hunger strike. Overall, the logic within this statement is subjective and reliant on hypothetical scenarios and personal judgments, making it difficult to evaluate the validity of the argument objectively.
- spacebacon 3y ago
  In programming the permissions required not to consume are less than permissions required to consume. This is where the dissonance begins regarding the meme of a programmer. A program can exist with near zero consumption (a few neurons). A human cannot. In short, every breath we take is a vote to participate in something greater than ourself.
  - spacebacon 3y ago
    Let's analyze the logic of the given statement: 1. In programming, the permissions required not to consume are less than permissions required to consume. This statement asserts that in programming, there are fewer permissions or privileges needed to restrict or avoid consumption compared to the permissions required for actual consumption. It suggests that it is easier to control or limit consumption in the context of programming. 2. This is where the dissonance begins regarding the meme of a programmer. This statement introduces the concept of dissonance regarding the meme (a cultural symbol or idea) of a programmer. It implies that there is a contradiction or inconsistency when it comes to the behavior or perception of programmers in relation to consumption. 3. A program can exist with near-zero consumption (a few neurons). A human cannot. This statement compares the ability of a program and a human to exist with minimal consumption. It suggests that a program can operate with very low resource usage (represented as a few neurons) while a human cannot function without some level of consumption. 4. In short, every breath we take is a vote to participate in something greater than ourselves. This statement makes a broader philosophical point. It suggests that every act of breathing or consumption signifies a participation in something larger or more significant than oneself. It implies that consumption is not just a personal action but has broader implications. The logic in these statements contains a mix of objective claims and subjective philosophical assertions. The first statement is based on the premise that permissions in programming can be differentiated between consumption and non-consumption, although it lacks specific evidence or context. The second and third statements introduce a comparison between programming and human existence, implying that programs require less consumption than humans. However, it's important to note that the analogy between programming and human biology is not straightforward, and the comparison may be oversimplified or metaphorical. The final statement offers a philosophical perspective, suggesting that consumption, represented by every breath, carries a symbolic meaning of participation in something greater. This statement relies on subjective interpretation and personal philosophy rather than objective logic. Overall, while the statements touch on different aspects related to consumption, programming, and human existence, the logical coherence is weakened by subjective interpretations and philosophical assertions.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]