4 ms·

I can never ever understand the sentiment of - 'If I do/do-not-do XYZ, it won't make a difference since millions of people are still not-doing/doing XYZ in the

I can never ever understand the sentiment of - 'If I do/do-not-do XYZ, it won't make a difference since millions of people are still not-doing/doing XYZ in the world'. It gives same energy as "If I avoid murder, it won't make a difference since murders still happen in the world. If I avoid meat to help climate change, it won't make a difference since millions still eat meat". The goal is not to get the WORLD to stop. It is to get ME to stop. I will reap its benefits regardless of what happens to others.

vrganj 29d ago
But you won't reap the benefits. You'll just be cut out of the conversation that's still happening. To me, what you advocating for is performative self-flagellation, not a solution to the systemic issue. The system's still there. You're just pretending it isn't and losing access to its contents. The more correct approach is to exfiltrate the information from the system while starving it of ad revenue.
- partyficial 27d ago
  > You'll just be cut out of the conversation that's a bad thing ? > you won't reap the benefits but that IS my claim - I will reap benefits proportional to my actions (good or bad). e.g. if global warming causes a flood, my house may be destroyed because I drove cars, but a boat would save me because I was vegetarian. (the next salvo in this conversation will immediately turn into religious theology, so if that's not your thing, ignore this)
left-struck 29d ago
I think the problem is that it’s not black and white, it’s case by case. Some things are just not worth your effort/energy/opportunity cost. Like the difference you’re making by boycotting is so minuscule compared to the enormous downside to you. So you gotta draw your own line in that situation. I also think the murder thing is different. A lot of these do/dont do xyz things are bad because so many people do/dont. If you were alone in doing/not doing it wouldn’t be an issue by itself. Of course that’s not true for Murder.

vrganj 29d ago

But you won't reap the benefits. You'll just be cut out of the conversation that's still happening. To me, what you advocating for is performative self-flagellation, not a solution to the systemic issue. The system's still there. You're just pretending it isn't and losing access to its contents. The more correct approach is to exfiltrate the information from the system while starving it of ad revenue.

partyficial 27d ago
> You'll just be cut out of the conversation that's a bad thing ? > you won't reap the benefits but that IS my claim - I will reap benefits proportional to my actions (good or bad). e.g. if global warming causes a flood, my house may be destroyed because I drove cars, but a boat would save me because I was vegetarian. (the next salvo in this conversation will immediately turn into religious theology, so if that's not your thing, ignore this)

left-struck 29d ago

I think the problem is that it’s not black and white, it’s case by case. Some things are just not worth your effort/energy/opportunity cost. Like the difference you’re making by boycotting is so minuscule compared to the enormous downside to you. So you gotta draw your own line in that situation. I also think the murder thing is different. A lot of these do/dont do xyz things are bad because so many people do/dont. If you were alone in doing/not doing it wouldn’t be an issue by itself. Of course that’s not true for Murder.