4 ms·

On the long run I believe it's a good thing. I just hope the take on it will be to understand the watcher is also suffering a lot, and the people you hate as w

On the long run I believe it's a good thing. I just hope the take on it will be to understand the watcher is also suffering a lot, and the people you hate as well. Life is full of of suffering, for every body. Yes, even the person you are thinking about right now. And sure, we can always rank suffering by taking examples and saying a raped tortured 6 years old suffers more than your average tech billionaire. But the main point is, suffering is universal. It's a common ground we all share. It's goes beyond context and morality, because we all agree we don't want to suffer, and we do anyway. That's one of the rare things we all get to experience again and again, and that shapes your life. I really wish people looking at the internet window will get this as the message, as a way to get closer to the other humans, instead of classify suffering and divide us in categories. Maybe develop a deeper understanding of suffering, which is not just pain or other obvious manifestations. And also be more kind, tolerant, wish others, and oneself.

gchamonlive 3y ago
This is important. Life is not a contest of who suffers the most, but suffering brings us together. There also isn't a scarcity of suffering in the world, so we don't have to go looking for it. On the contrary, we as a society are failing to reduce the suffering of others. Maybe because we can't reconnect with people? They are just numbers and dates in political history? In any case, welcoming pain as immanent in life while not being numbed and crushed by the sheer amount of it is a very important skill to develop.
- Podgajski 3y ago
  But I’m sure you want to help the person who is suffering more before you help the person who is suffering less yes? The idea that “suffering is suffering” is almost sociopathic.
  - gchamonlive 3y ago
    Can't both be done? Can't society provide for both in immediate danger as well as those suffering less? Do we need to stop tending for people's mental health because many are not eating? Maybe the effort involved in categorising, understanding and prioritising suffering would be better used... well... actually reducing suffering. Because when we think like this we risk dismanteling efforts that are really important, like protecting other animals from abandonment or abuse, or protecting the environment, because we risk putting them in lower hierarchical priority compared to our own most immediate form of suffering.
    - Podgajski 3y ago
      Apparently we can’t. So I’m looking at this as a form of triage. At the very least, we can help those who are suffering the most, right? Because right now I’m neither being treated for my mental illness or my homelessness so there you go. But yes, many people would rather protect and house animals than protect and house people. So I guess as humans we should have the same priorities, no? But if you think protecting the environment is more important than providing people shelter I don’t know what to say. And in fact, I am going to state that it is easier to care about the climate than to provide people with housing, which is why people focus on the formal rather than the later.
  - karmakurtisaani 3y ago
    > The idea that “suffering is suffering” is almost sociopathic. I'm somewhat troubled by this line of thinking. Some people suffer due to war, climate change, hunger and so on, and others because their mother passed away peacefully at age 90. These are absolutely not the same and saying suffering is suffering greatly devalues the (somewhat preventable) suffering caused by unmet material needs, political actions and the like.
ZeePelli 3y ago
And also be more kind, tolerant, wish others, and oneself. I agree that this is the ideal response, but unfortunately this hasn't been the general result and I doubt it ever will be. When an animal learns (or is tricked) that its environment is more harsh and dangerous than it previously believed, its instinctive reaction is to become less trusting, less curious, more withdrawn, and very often more prone to anger and violence. Humans are no different by and large.
- parineum 3y ago
  > I agree that this is the ideal response, but unfortunately this hasn't been the general result I think rates of poverty, starvation, rape, murder, etc. all disagree with you here.
  - ZeePelli 3y ago
    To be clear, my comment was specifically about the effect of "horror news bombardment" on individuals, particularly via social media. I'm not sure it can take credit for the trends you mentioned, which started a very long time ago.

gchamonlive 3y ago

This is important. Life is not a contest of who suffers the most, but suffering brings us together. There also isn't a scarcity of suffering in the world, so we don't have to go looking for it. On the contrary, we as a society are failing to reduce the suffering of others. Maybe because we can't reconnect with people? They are just numbers and dates in political history? In any case, welcoming pain as immanent in life while not being numbed and crushed by the sheer amount of it is a very important skill to develop.

Podgajski 3y ago
But I’m sure you want to help the person who is suffering more before you help the person who is suffering less yes? The idea that “suffering is suffering” is almost sociopathic.
- gchamonlive 3y ago
  Can't both be done? Can't society provide for both in immediate danger as well as those suffering less? Do we need to stop tending for people's mental health because many are not eating? Maybe the effort involved in categorising, understanding and prioritising suffering would be better used... well... actually reducing suffering. Because when we think like this we risk dismanteling efforts that are really important, like protecting other animals from abandonment or abuse, or protecting the environment, because we risk putting them in lower hierarchical priority compared to our own most immediate form of suffering.
  - Podgajski 3y ago
    Apparently we can’t. So I’m looking at this as a form of triage. At the very least, we can help those who are suffering the most, right? Because right now I’m neither being treated for my mental illness or my homelessness so there you go. But yes, many people would rather protect and house animals than protect and house people. So I guess as humans we should have the same priorities, no? But if you think protecting the environment is more important than providing people shelter I don’t know what to say. And in fact, I am going to state that it is easier to care about the climate than to provide people with housing, which is why people focus on the formal rather than the later.
- karmakurtisaani 3y ago
  > The idea that “suffering is suffering” is almost sociopathic. I'm somewhat troubled by this line of thinking. Some people suffer due to war, climate change, hunger and so on, and others because their mother passed away peacefully at age 90. These are absolutely not the same and saying suffering is suffering greatly devalues the (somewhat preventable) suffering caused by unmet material needs, political actions and the like.

ZeePelli 3y ago

And also be more kind, tolerant, wish others, and oneself. I agree that this is the ideal response, but unfortunately this hasn't been the general result and I doubt it ever will be. When an animal learns (or is tricked) that its environment is more harsh and dangerous than it previously believed, its instinctive reaction is to become less trusting, less curious, more withdrawn, and very often more prone to anger and violence. Humans are no different by and large.

parineum 3y ago
> I agree that this is the ideal response, but unfortunately this hasn't been the general result I think rates of poverty, starvation, rape, murder, etc. all disagree with you here.
- ZeePelli 3y ago
  To be clear, my comment was specifically about the effect of "horror news bombardment" on individuals, particularly via social media. I'm not sure it can take credit for the trends you mentioned, which started a very long time ago.