All complaint, no perspective, no solution?
Baron Max said:
Pointing out the hypocrisy? I know that's usually what I'm trying to do when I do that. Not to ridicule, but to point out another perspective ...and point out their hypocrisy.
And what do you accomplish by that?
Someone makes a post about a girl throwing puppies into a raging river. The expressed "outrage" seems so hypocritical. If the cruel death of a few little puppies is so horrible for them, why aren't they outraged every single day of the year at the thousands, perhaps millions, of puppies/dogs that are killed by city governments all over the world? See? Or is it being manipulated by the news media?
And as I told you
three years ago:
Max, do you really think about every issue every day? No. I'm pretty damn sure you don't, because, technically, it's impossible.
For many people, when an issue is put before them by the news, it's the first time they've thought about it either ever or for a while.
And your response was the same line you're pushing now:
"Maybe they should do more thinking and less posting and talking, huh?
Surely you're not suggesting that people react without thinking, are you, Tiassa? Because that's exactly what it seems you're saying ...or at least excusing actions without thought."
For example, if "caring" is in limited supply in the human body/mind, then perhaps it's not hypocrisy at all, but a special mechanism in the mind that sets priorities for "caring". Don't want to use up all of that limited supply of "caring", do we? Like the Star Trek episode "The Empath", we don't want to "care" so much that we kill ourselves with it. "Here Lies Joe Blow; Died From Caring Too Much."
But then, I'm not so sure that "caring" is not the direct result of being manipulated by outside sources such as the news media or by posts on Sciforurms or YouTube or such as that. If the media had not posted about the girl throwing the little puppies in the river, would those "caring" people have still "cared" about all the little puppies in the world? If so, how do they respond to that "caring"?
Your cynicism is ridiculous.
Theoretically, it actually
is possible to die from caring too much. One can work themselves up to a heart attack, for instance. Or go out and get themselves killed by falling off a building trying to stop a suicide, or smashing their car into a tree because they've been driving too long or being too distracted.
But people are only as manipulated by outside sources as they are by the rain. I see this all the time living where I do. It rains, people use umbrellas. I hate umbrellas. They're a pain in the ass to carry and keep track of, and they provide minimal protection at best against the rain. Yet millions of people around the world use them.
You keep using that term "care", yet you can't explain it or define it or measure it. Tiassa, I don't like you and never did, but in this instance, I'm not trying to hassle you or ridicule you, I'm trying to point out the basic problems in your posts/ideas/thoughts.
That you don't like my explanation of caring doesn't mean it isn't there. This is a common sleight people seem to think works:
If you don't like the answer, ignore it and repeat the question.
"Caring" must be more than just posting ones outrage on some silly Internet site like Sciforums. Surely "caring" means more than that.
Sure. Sarah McLachlan makes weepy television commercials, and probably donates some money. Mia Farrow yells at Steven Spielberg, and probably donates some money. Sean Penn moves to Haiti; Wyclef Jean accuses him of being a cokehead. People show their compassion in many ways, some rhetorical and some demonstrative.
Some people care about an issue enough to write about it on the internet; we don't know what else they do. Others care enough about the fact that people care to complain about it on the internet. Life goes on.
So see why I keep asking?
Sure. Seems like neurotic cynicism.
What does "caring" mean? Or is it really just posting or saying that you "care" ...and that's it?
Diverse people, diverse outcomes.
And if people claim that they "care", how can you know they aren't lying?
We don't. Certainly, there are some cues. Some might claim to care about certain outcomes, and work to prevent those outcomes by advocating the conditions that bring them about. In such cases—and the American evangelical Christian right wing is often an obvious example—it isn't so much that they don't care, but that a neurotic complex hides from them the actual object of their caring because their pride would buckle if they actually looked it in the eye.
Allow them? How can you stop them from "caring"?
That reminds me of a stripper I once dated. She, too, couldn't see beyond such questions. Sure, you might not be able to stop them, but why object? Why condemn? Why do you care enough to make what you acknowledge is a futile gesture of opposition?
You care enough to condemn people for caring. But why? To use your example:
They aren't wrong, but they ARE often hypocritical. Obsessing over the horrid plight of one little puppy's death is, at best, idiotic when compared to the horrid deaths of the millions of other puppies and dogs in the world. And if they don't know about the other little puppies in the world, then that makes them even worse than idiotic! Or else they were just manipulated by the media.
Sure, people are often hypocritical, but we can set that aside for the moment. Don't worry, we'll come back to it.
The millions of other animals suffering horrid deaths in the world are what they are. There are diverse causes leading to such outcomes. In truth, people can't wrap their heads around the whole thing any more than they can the fact of starving children around the world. But Bob Barker reminds to spay and neuter, which cuts the number of animals society feels the need to put down. Sarah McLachlan campaigns against animal abuse, which cuts the number of animals that society feels the need to put down. No one person can contain and manipulate all the information needed to prevent tragic outcomes.
But when it comes to a Michael Vick, or a girl throwing puppies in the river, or even some batty lady cramming a cat in a bin, such incidents put a face to a problem. And it's not a problem with the animals. It's a
human problem. And human problems are
much more affecting to most people than animal problems. Colloquially, people see these humans as psychopathic, though that's generally an inaccurate formal diagnosis. But there is, in these incidents, an observable measure of human cruelty, and that is largely what people are responding to.
And there
is a "no-kill movement" working to change animal shelters around the United States; it's having its effect in
King County, Washington, where officials are working to find ways to drastically reduce the number of animals euthanized by shelters. In the end, though, the vast majority of these animal deaths is the product of
human problems. Still, though, it's a
different issue compared to Michael Vick, or the Bosnian teenager, or the British lady.
If "caring" is limited, then people should be careful about "caring", prioritize "caring", lest they run out of "caring".
People
do prioritize, Max. Indeed, that seems part of what you're complaining about.
You can't "care" about one stranger on the other side of the world without "caring" for ALL of the strangers ....without being a hippo-critter.
It's not an invalid proposition, but it also addresses a complex psychological arrangement. People's priorities are constructed according to diverse components and methods. Certes, there is hypocrisy about many people's outlooks. I would even accept that some degree of hypocrisy is a universal human trait. But your assessment of hypocrisy is not definitive; in the end, it comes down to how one arranges their priorities that determines if and how much one is hypocritical. And I don't blame you for not proposing a solution to
that.
Hey, Tiassa, what does it mean to "care"? How can we even talk about it when we don't even know what the hell it is or how to measure it? What does it mean to "care"?
For the time being, I stand by my earlier explanation.
1. To point out the obvious hypocrisy involved in the various statements of "caring".
Apply your principle to your own crusade against hypocrisy.
2. To point out the possible/probable dishonesty and/or insincerity of the person claiming to "care". I.e., can this be the first time that such happenings has ever come to their attention?
Rather, to point out one's presumption of dishonesty or insincerity. Whether or not a given occasion is the first time seems irrelevant.
3. To point out the obvious and blatant manipulation by the various news media. I.e., puppies are being killed by the thousands every day, yet people claim to care ONLY when the news media reports tells them to "care".
Depending on the circumstances, you might be referring to different issues. Or, perhaps, it is simply a matter of how acutely a given circumstance expresses the issue.
4. To point out that "caring" means more than just expressing ones outrage or horror or disgust on some Internet message board. Especially if it's in response to some news media report (reacting to the manipulation and continuing that same manipulation!).
In some cases, online expression is the first, obvious, or even only outlet people perceive. To the other, though, can you really say, without doubt, that this is the only thing any one person is doing? And when it comes to a Michael Vick, or Bosnian teenager, or British lady, what, really, do you expect people at large to do? Shall we all fly to Europe to stage interventions? Maybe we can get a TV show on A&E.
So, you have a complaint. What solution do you suggest?
____________________
Notes:
Ervin, Keith. "Euthanasia rate at animal shelters falls to all-time low". The Seattle Times. March 12, 2008. SeattleTimes.NWSource.com. September 15, 2010. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004276339_euthanasia12m.html
