I cannot read that and feel how short-sighted it is. The death of online communities due to money sucks. But how about the actual death of physical people and their physical communities due to literally the exact same thing? It seems douchey to complain about capitalism killing message boards and not connect the idea at all to how it has been killing everything on earth since humans became a thing.
Here it is: good ol’ “Whataboutism”, I almost had hope that one discussion could survive without someone going “wait, what about this other thing that people know and probably care about, but is completely irrevelant to the current conversation at hand?” but ah well, today just wasn’t the day, I guess.
Seriously tho, to borrow your first sentence: I can’t help but read something like “But how about the actual death of physical people and their physical communities” and think…are people just incapable of caring about two seperate issues of different scales at the same time? I don’t know, maybe I’m weird because I don’t suddenly think of the all starving people around the world and bring them up when the topic of the closing of the food joint a couple of blocks down gets brought up by the regulars…
I output what I feel. I feel that text is blind to itself, it talks about a shitty issue with too much grandiosity. It could be written with some more self-awareness to its place in the general discussion about freedoms. It is nothing, or at least not very much, but presents itself as everything.
I was too harsh in my original comment, I apologize, honestly. I’ve seen Whatabout-ism so much recently and it’s just draining to basically hear people constantly try and change the subject or bring up something completely outta left field instead of contributing to what’s in front of them, I’ll be real with you.
I get what you’re saying, but, well, the issue is that important to the author to be writing about it in such a grand way. Or they’re flexing thier writing skills, who really knows. That isn’t to say they don’t give a shit about the death of people and thier communities or other injustices to people and freedoms…they’re just not relevant to this particular problem they wanna focus on at the moment. They know there’s worse shit out there that also needs attention, most people with half a brain know it too. But that’s a whole different beast to what’s being talked about here.
“Yes, I understand the problem, but have you considered there are larger problems?” is a pretty uninteresting take. You can care about more than one thing at once.
You can also take a step back and see that you’re exaggerating certain problems because you’re being swept away by your emotions. I think that that text lacks perspective and feels narcissistic and blind to itself at best.
I disagree. The way you discuss a subject is important to understand why you are discussing a subject. The melodrama in that text overshadows its message and makese me cringe and disconnects me from its valid point.
I cannot read that and feel how short-sighted it is. The death of online communities due to money sucks. But how about the actual death of physical people and their physical communities due to literally the exact same thing? It seems douchey to complain about capitalism killing message boards and not connect the idea at all to how it has been killing everything on earth since humans became a thing.
Here it is: good ol’ “Whataboutism”, I almost had hope that one discussion could survive without someone going “wait, what about this other thing that people know and probably care about, but is completely irrevelant to the current conversation at hand?” but ah well, today just wasn’t the day, I guess.
Seriously tho, to borrow your first sentence: I can’t help but read something like “But how about the actual death of physical people and their physical communities” and think…are people just incapable of caring about two seperate issues of different scales at the same time? I don’t know, maybe I’m weird because I don’t suddenly think of the all starving people around the world and bring them up when the topic of the closing of the food joint a couple of blocks down gets brought up by the regulars…
I output what I feel. I feel that text is blind to itself, it talks about a shitty issue with too much grandiosity. It could be written with some more self-awareness to its place in the general discussion about freedoms. It is nothing, or at least not very much, but presents itself as everything.
I was too harsh in my original comment, I apologize, honestly. I’ve seen Whatabout-ism so much recently and it’s just draining to basically hear people constantly try and change the subject or bring up something completely outta left field instead of contributing to what’s in front of them, I’ll be real with you.
I get what you’re saying, but, well, the issue is that important to the author to be writing about it in such a grand way. Or they’re flexing thier writing skills, who really knows. That isn’t to say they don’t give a shit about the death of people and thier communities or other injustices to people and freedoms…they’re just not relevant to this particular problem they wanna focus on at the moment. They know there’s worse shit out there that also needs attention, most people with half a brain know it too. But that’s a whole different beast to what’s being talked about here.
“Yes, I understand the problem, but have you considered there are larger problems?” is a pretty uninteresting take. You can care about more than one thing at once.
deleted by creator
You can also take a step back and see that you’re exaggerating certain problems because you’re being swept away by your emotions. I think that that text lacks perspective and feels narcissistic and blind to itself at best.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
What point are you even trying to make? That has nothing to do with this topic.
I disagree. The way you discuss a subject is important to understand why you are discussing a subject. The melodrama in that text overshadows its message and makese me cringe and disconnects me from its valid point.