You're sort of implying that anybody who doesn't do something substantive (as opposed to giving out money) for a given cause doesn't "actually care", which is f

You're sort of implying that anybody who doesn't do something substantive (as opposed to giving out money) for a given cause doesn't "actually care", which is fallacious. You're maybe just frustrated by the conflict between caring and doing, as anybody would be - it feels hypocritical to care and not do, but it often just comes down to basic cruel practicality and individual-scale attention economy, and trying to articulate this "excuse" out loud sounds bad. One alternative defense mechanism is to say, "Actually, I just don't care. That's the simple truth! I think most people don't care, in fact, and just can't admit it." I don't even necessarily think this is a full-blown lie, because "care" is a very subjective term. You can internally assert that the threshold for "care" is higher than what you feel, but using the simplest intuitive definition, it's impossible for most people to not "care" about human misery to some degree just because we are completely detached from it.