Apathy or Realistic?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-01-2013, 10:52 AM
Apathy or Realistic?
I get a lot of shit for not showing/having emotions when it comes to bad things happening. Like that elementary shooting? Didn't give a fuck about it. Glad the gunmen is dead though. But as for the children well, me being sorry for them isn't going to bring them back. What will help is taking precautions to prevent such an ordeal from happening again. Say for starters by not broadcasting the event over the entire world. And you wonder where people get the incentive to try something stupid like this?

I do feel sorrow for those who suffer around the world, but there is nothing or very little I could do to spare them from their suffering. There is only one course of action which I could choose that would make a significant change in their world for the better, but that would likely lead to my death and will take a long time to make happen. But me being sorry for them won't help make things better, actions might, but not how I feel. Therefore the only thing that my emotions do is block me from seeing what is making them suffer, and thus allowing more of it to happen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2013, 11:28 AM (This post was last modified: 08-01-2013 11:31 AM by Peterkin.)
RE: Apathy or Realistic?
I see nothing wrong with your attitude: it's rational.
I suspect that you may be recoiling from the epidemic of public emotionalism (accompanied by hand-wringing impotence) that has swept America in the last few years. Eleven years, i make it: it seems that displays of sputtering outrage, wailing or choking on tears, has become a mandatory feature of infotainment since the Shrub's performance on September 11, 2001.
I, too, find it distasteful, and think that it makes analysis, response and effective action more difficult - that may well be its purpose.

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peterkin's post
08-01-2013, 11:33 AM
RE: Apathy or Realistic?
(08-01-2013 11:28 AM)Peterkin Wrote:  I see nothing wrong with your attitude: it's rational.
I suspect that you may be recoiling from the epidemic of public emotionalism (accompanied by hand-wringing impotence) that has swept America in the last few years. Eleven years, i make it: it seems that displays of sputtering outrage, wailing or choking on tears, has become a mandatory feature of infotainment since the Shrub's performance on September 11, 2001. I, too, find it distasteful.
Remember that part where I said being emotional about bad things kept you from questioning how it happened? Well 9/11 is one of those things that DEFINITELY needs to be questioned, regardless of the outcome. Such a big event can not just be taken on it's word alone. Not when the event has caused 11 long years of war and created even more suffering. If by recoil you mean silently observed as the stupid became incoherent imbeciles by pure force of emotion then yes. You'd be correct.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Nappa's post
08-01-2013, 12:10 PM
RE: Apathy or Realistic?
Emotion can be quite powerful. Often, you just have to go it alone with emotional stuff because it can fog up rational decision making and perspective.

Personal and emotional processing of world events or even local events, doesn't need to be a group thing... it shouldn't be. I learn about things at my own speed and form my own opinions in my own way.

I have a TV set but I rent videos. I check out the news on a variety of internet sites. I make up my own mind about shit. I choose to watch what I might find interesting... not what someone else thinks I should find interesting.

I haven't had television(piped in cable) for almost 20 years. I feel like it spoon feeds emotional, reactionary, sensationalism right into one's brain. Not to sound too paranoid; it serves to feed someone else's agenda not of my own making.

I got my own brain, I got my own emotions; it's all I need to rationally pay attention to world events.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2013, 12:17 PM (This post was last modified: 08-01-2013 12:22 PM by PoolBoyG.)
RE: Apathy or Realistic?
You're "impotent", so you're making excuses.

You know you lack any personal courage or resources to make an effort to take steps to prevent current travesties, or similar travesties from occurring in the future, so you try to distance yourself. "Oh, well, I can't do anything about it anyway, so it's not my problem. I have no reason to feel bad now."

note: anyone, can make a difference. But it requires actual effort, and/or the benefits won't be readily available (but that's just due to your failing for the need for immediate gratification).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2013, 12:23 PM
RE: Apathy or Realistic?
There's a big difference between "I don't let it bother me" and "I don't give a shit". Even if it's only semantics, the first implies that you do care but you get on with your life without letting it bother you and the second implies that you simply don't care.

As humans, we're socially programmed to care. We're also socially programmed to distrust and/or dislike people who don't care. I'm pretty sure evolution brought us to this programming, though I know a few people around here like to argue otherwise so I don't want to spiral into that debate - evolution or not, it's how the majority of mankind operates.

So when you give the impression that you don't care, you alienate yourself from the rest of us who do care and are programmed to distrust you for not caring. If you gave the slightly more socially acceptable impression that you do care but don't let it bother you, then you don't alienate yourself (much - there's always the bleeding hearts who won't understand that position).

So it's not really surprising that you get shit for your presumably uncaring attitude. If you actually don't like getting shit for it, then change your ways because you're not going to change society.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2013, 12:40 PM
RE: Apathy or Realistic?
(08-01-2013 12:17 PM)poolboyg88 Wrote:  You're "impotent", so you're making excuses.

You know you lack any personal courage or resources to make an effort to take steps to prevent current travesties, or similar travesties from occurring in the future, so you try to distance yourself. "Oh, well, I can't do anything about it anyway, so it's not my problem. I have no reason to feel bad now."

note: anyone, can make a difference. But it requires actual effort, and/or the benefits won't be readily available (but that's just due to your failing for the need for immediate gratification).
I did say there was one course of action, but I also said that it requires time (and a good deal of money) to happen. In the grand scheme of things there is little one can do, though there still is something that they can do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: