Why is nobody talking about this?

[Snao Cone]

Sometimes I see the title sentence used to draw attention to a serious issue somewhere that's not making headlines. It's a fair question on the surface, but the motives behind saying it are far too often about claiming moral high ground as a more aware and enlightened person with a greater sense of humanity. Is there a level of awareness that should be expected, though?

 

I think we can all understand that there are a lot of injustices in this world and we don't, as individuals, have enough time or capacity to become informed about all of them. What we know about often depends on other decisions by more powerful bodies. What's on the news? What initiatives are being taken in our direct communities? Who lives around us and what do they tune into? Social media has made this more complex as we follow accounts that may lead us to follow other accounts of a similar nature and a pattern emerges of what we end up seeing. Advertising online can be tailored far more than on broadcast media. Do we have a responsibility to seek awareness of things beyond this? 

 

And then, if we are aware of injustices but not in detail, to which issues do we owe the time to become well-versed? From there, which ones should we put our voice to the most? Is speaking up on one thing a way of silencing others? I mean, obviously we can't speak up on everything, but that doesn't seem to stop people from criticizing it. Are any of these criticisms valid, and how do we assess that? Do we measure severity of injustices? Urgency? Locality? Does it make a difference on how self-serving the issue is? 

[LeChat]

12 minutes ago, Snao Cone said:

...Is there a level of awareness that should be expected, though?...Do we have a responsibility to seek awareness of things beyond this?...

Well, personally, I think it's fine if your average person doesn't know about certain issues.

 

It really only becomes a problem, however, if others who don't know about certain issues (especially those with more power to spread info, like certain news stations; politicians, etc.) try to act, assume, or think they know everything about an issue--without doing enough research--and keep repeating, spreading, etc. misinformation, to others, who then decide to believe that misinformation and do something more serious (e.g. the Jan. Congress mod breach, based on being told by those in power--t.v. stations like Fox; and politicians--that the 2020 Presidential Election was rigged).

 

More people (i.e. politicians working in Congress at that time) could've lost their lives that day, all due to others' political misinformation.

[Fraggle Underdark]

Quote

Why is nobody talking about

 

(In seriousness: great post)

[quadfasciata]

I think that sometimes news becomes overwhelming, so its sometimes okay to forget a few issues, as long as you are actually caring about others.

 

Here is one of my favorite comedians talking about it (Specifically past 3:30). Also, loads of swearing.

Spoiler

 

 

[GingerRose]

We have normalised this dystopia.

[AspieAlly613]

I mentally categorize it as "yet another form of clickbait to get people to read whichever article it happens to be".

[Sean_Bird]

1 hour ago, Snao Cone said:

Is there a level of awareness that should be expected, though?

I think everyone should be willing to research small ways in their everyday behavior to alter in attempt to help those around them, and learn how their behavior/actions impact the people around them. For example, I think people should inherently want to minimize the amount of sexism in their language, which on a larger scale, will minimize violence against women. Those small actions have a big impact on society as a whole, and taking personal responsibility for those things improves the lives of the people around them. The humility and willingness to change for the benefit of those around them (to a point, of course) are important qualities that I think should be emphasized more in society.

 

The bigger issue is what @LeChat pointed out, though, when people who don't do any level of research repeat falsehoods and misinformation that get people killed. People who don't know how to research well should be aware of such and open to critique when they're wrong about an issue/topic, and people who are good at researching should remember to stay open minded to different ideas/facts.

 

1 hour ago, Snao Cone said:

Social media has made this more complex as we follow accounts that may lead us to follow other accounts of a similar nature and a pattern emerges of what we end up seeing. Advertising online can be tailored far more than on broadcast media. Do we have a responsibility to seek awareness of things beyond this? 

I think if people can emotionally handle it, absolutely. An easy way I found to stay informed is to follow human rights organizations on Facebook, since they share worthwhile and (usually) fact checked articles. (They ended up overwhelming me, so I don't go on Facebook anymore in part because of this, hence adding "if people can emotionally handle it") People should do as much research about human rights and environmental issues as they can emotionally handle, imo.

 

Other things, like what's happening locally, international scale like wars in other countries, or just pop culture, are things that are beneficial to know, but prioritization will vary for each person. So long as people keep an open mind and are either willing to do the research or admit they don't know enough to form an opinion on something, they're fine on those issues. (I'd ideally like to keep up with more local things... I'd wanted to attend more local events this last year and be more active, but many of them were canceled due to Covid, and decisions started being made behind-the-scenes in ways I wasn't sure how to join)

 

Even though it doesn't feel like it, the average person staying informed and aware of current events generally benefits society as a whole. It keeps them from making stupid decisions, like voting for things that go against their interests or directly harm people in their community.

 

2 hours ago, Snao Cone said:

Is speaking up on one thing a way of silencing others? I mean, obviously we can't speak up on everything, but that doesn't seem to stop people from criticizing it.

I think it depends on the platform and authority the person speaking on it has. Generally, I don't see speaking up on one issue minimizing someone else's problems, but with news organizations they have a tendency to prioritize some stories over others which bury important news. The only thing that comes to mind with speaking up about one issue affecting another, is when hypocrisy is in play, or someone's solution to an issue causes damage/other problems in the process without actually addressing the issue they claim to want to solve.

 

Ultimately, patterns of what people choose to speak up about says a lot about them. People are ultimately going to speak up about issues that affect them personally, and advocate for policies that they think will benefit them on an individual level, or they relate to on a personal level somehow. That's just how humans are.

 

2 hours ago, Snao Cone said:

Sometimes I see the title sentence used to draw attention to a serious issue somewhere that's not making headlines. It's a fair question on the surface, but the motives behind saying it are far too often about claiming moral high ground as a more aware and enlightened person with a greater sense of humanity.

Ultimately I agree about the headline, though, and think that people in general should be more forgiving when someone doesn't know about a topic. It kind of reminds me of when I was going to community college and I interacted with a lot of people who did advocacy for homelessness; people in general seemed to either think homeless people were the scum of the earth or people you should actively give hugs to on a regular basis. Although I wholeheartedly agree with treating homeless people like people and giving them the tools to survive and live a better life, I'm not going to hug a random homeless person on the street, who is probably mentally unstable and potentially under the influence. I'm too cowardly for that, thank you very much, but I do wish them the best and would be willing to help in other ways that are safer for me.

 

I think it's fair to see what people choose to focus on and analyze that group to find patterns, but it's also important to keep in mind that people are people, and they can only handle so much information. Big corporations and news organizations that put big money into making people focus on certain things are also at play, and are important to keep in mind when looking at those patterns.

[Guest]

Why is nobody talking about the 3 species of glowing sharks discovered in NZ?? Why does nobody ever talk about the genuinely interesting stuff?! Y_Y

[Epitaph]

Honestly? Locality or proximity has always mattered the most to me. I tend to see a pattern among those that try to solve people problems. They'll often talk about issues in x places(which I think is still important on the basis of sharing information), but they'll ignore the issues going on at their doorstep. If not ignore, they'll just bypass them.

 

For instance, I could walk around my workplace and ask all my coworkers questions about the state of the US. Suddenly I'll get a dozen experts coming out of the woodwork with ideas and maybe even plans on how to fix things down there. But not a one of those people will know(or even care) that one of their coworkers is suicidal. Not one of them will know that maybe another is going through an incredibly difficult period of their life.

 

It isn't explicitely their fault that they don't know. But I think that's a portion of the problem with the interconnectivity of social media. The bombardment of information disperses focus. I can't put down communications networks for what they've done to help positive information propagate. But there's a dual nature to it all. I think of it this way. It's great that people want to help, and it's great that we've got the communication that we do. But if you don't have a solid foundation to stand on, how can you help others efficiently and effectively if you're not even aware or willing to pay attention to what's happening locally within your relative circle of influence?

 

For instance, I could talk about and raise awareness of issues about the genocide currently being enacted in China, but unless I was actually in China, and I had a lot of governmental power to boot, the only real difference I could make would just be awareness. And how far would that awareness go? I've heard more talk about the genocide in China, but nothing actually being done, because the ones talking about it are all beyond the sphere to influence much, if anything.

 

From my standpoint, it just seems inefficient. Not even that really. Just negligent. I could spend my effort and time focused on this one far away obscure issue(based on my locality), try to help out hundreds of thousands of people, and likely amount to doing little, all while totally ignoring warning signs from two co-workers in my workplace who I see every day. My chances of helping to maybe save one life is significantly higher than helping out hundreds of thousands if I focus mostly on what's happening locally rather than externally.

 

At the end of the day, to me, a problem is just that. A problem. The scale or severity doesn't matter because one way or another it is still classified as a problem, and therefore needs to be solved. Some take priority no doubt. Ultimately I think problems and issues are and should be treated as relative, just like time is relative to the observer.

[LeChat]

17 minutes ago, E said:

...For instance, I could walk around my workplace and ask all my coworkers questions about the state of the US...But not a one of those people will know(or even care) that one of their coworkers is suicidal. Not one of them will know that maybe another is going through an incredibly difficult period of their life.

 

It isn't explicitely their fault that they don't know...

That sounds sad. I'd care if I knew a coworker was suicidal because I used to have those thoughts, myself, when I was younger. I'm sure there'd be, at least, one other coworker out there, who would care, too, if they knew a coworker was feeling that way (i.e. that not all co-workers wouldn't care).

 

I kept my struggles and thoughts from my friends, classmates, coworkers, etc. So, naturally, they didn't know or suspect that I was struggling with anything in my life. Humans aren't mind readers, so, unfortunately, they aren't able to tell whether or not someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depressed.

[Epitaph]

6 hours ago, LeChat said:

That sounds sad. I'd care if I knew a coworker was suicidal because I used to have those thoughts, myself, when I was younger. I'm sure there'd be, at least, one other coworker out there, who would care, too, if they knew a coworker was feeling that way (i.e. that not all co-workers wouldn't care).

 

I kept my struggles and thoughts from my friends, classmates, coworkers, etc. So, naturally, they didn't know or suspect that I was struggling with anything in my life. Humans aren't mind readers, so, unfortunately, they aren't able to tell whether or not someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depressed.

 

I'm not a mind reader but I've been round enough people to spot the signs even if they hide them. Bit of a tangent off Cone's original question, but throughout my life it's one issue I keep encountering. People looking and trying to fix far without looking close. I'm of the mind that if more focused on fixing close, you'd need not look far very often to fix things, because far would be taking care of itself if it operated on similiar principles of taking care of close.

 

I guess on reflection, this is why movements and protests never grab me apart from other reasons. Back in the year when turmoil spawned from George Floyd's death down in the states, even all the way up here in a small town of 5k people there where small groups of protestors. I just remember looking at them and pondering, "why?" All the way out here, how's that going to accomplish anything when the issue is all the way down there? The fixing of said issue lies with those in the vicinity of that incident. But I can also understand sympathies, possibly.

 

Then again, I also understand my disconnect from Cone's broader questions. I'm a wandering nomad. I don't take part in communities much, let alone cities where there's a million issues and topics all the time. My environment is one of isolation and extreme distance from most other people. Which may be why I place more importance on problems within personal influence rather than larger social issues spread about among our structures(such as racism or sexism for example)

[Homer]

On 3/4/2021 at 11:45 PM, Snao Cone said:

to which issues do we owe the time to become well-versed

None. I don't owe anything to any specific issue.

 

 

On 3/4/2021 at 11:45 PM, Snao Cone said:

Is speaking up on one thing a way of silencing others?

No, it's not. It is a mindset that fits SJW-ism well though.

[Phalena]

Well, I guess it's okay not expecting everyone to know about everything. We can't really know anything, at all so... (you know like, Goethe's Faust? The more you learn the more you realise we can't know anything).

 

For a while I tried to know about and be aware of as many things as possible. Long story short: it made me sick. Anxious and angry. I had to stop. There is only so much one person can handle and it's good that many others exist that can take care of issues we don't have the (mental-) energy for. I can also perfectly understand that the will to change something usually stems from having experienced that particular injustice (or something similar) and that's okay.

What's not okay is when not being troubled by a certain problem leads to people dismissing the realities others (have) face(d). Some even go as far as to claim that victims/survivors of injustice are "just making a fuss" and are "just complaining rather than doing anything about it".

[LeChat]

1 hour ago, Phalena said:

...I can also perfectly understand that the will to change something usually stems from having experienced that particular injustice (or something similar) and that's okay.

What's not okay is when not being troubled by a certain problem leads to people dismissing the realities others (have) face(d). Some even go as far as to claim that victims/survivors of injustice are "just making a fuss" and are "just complaining rather than doing anything about it".

Yes; I agree. Also, it becomes a problem if a majority of people who dismiss and don't care about minority groups' experiences of how they're discriminated against throughout society, jobs, housing, etc. and continue to vote and elect politicians who aren't interested in helping/voting for minority groups have equal rights. (Those elected officials have the power to help improve/change things; hence, a majority group has that power, collectively, more power than a minority group (who aren't able to vote for elected officials who are willing to help them because they're a smaller proportion of a population, and their total amount of votes wouldn't be enough).