10 replies to this topic

[Generic]

In light of some recent threads, along with many recent AND historical real world events, I feel like it's worth discussing the view outside of the binary of being "For" and "Against" a cause.

To be more specific, what do you think about people who do not actively take part/lack a concrete opinion in the discussion of issues deemed important or are simply passive about them? What about people who sympathize with both sides and thus do not entirely pick a side to back?

 

I've heard it said by people who are passionately involved in a topic that not caring/not fighting is the same as being part of the problem - "if you're not with us you're against us" - but I've never understood how this is fair. I myself am quite empathetic to everyone and try to see the good in people/the reason they do things, so I have trouble saying that one side has no ground to stand on (unless they clearly don't).

[Coops]

I think there is a difference between having no opinion, or being uninformed versus being passive and/or not caring. 

 

That being said I don't blame people for not caring necessarily because humans are selfish little fucks who care mostly about their immediate surroundings or whatever is going to effect them most. However, on the flip side, if you're a majority and you're silent while your peers are being oppressed because it doesn't effect you, that's arguably terrible. I'm not saying it's their fault - we are conditioned to care most about what effects us (that's why I advocate all over my Facebook timeline about Ehlers-Danlos and not diabetes which has no effect on me personally, even though it's a dangerous disease), but it's shitty for the people who need us to rise up.

[Nanarie]

I agree with Coops in that people only have so many fucks they can give. There are a lot of social/environmental/political issues that I'm not well informed about and though I generally have an idea of where I stand, I don't know enough to make a passionate stance about it. On the other hands, there's a lot of issues that I am well versed in that others are not. For example, I don't think it'd be fair for a green activist to say that I'm "part of the problem" when they have no idea about asian american issues which I advocate for.

 

Overall it's shitty for everyone that there's not enough time/money/fucks to be given about all the things wrong with the world. But I also think it's worse when people have a passionate, misinformed opinion.

[Padme]

I'm going to passively avoid posting here

 

but this is kind of passive aggressive because I am posting this comment.

 

So I guess that sums up my feelings.

[NapisaurusRex]

In light of some recent threads, along with many recent AND historical real world events, I feel like it's worth discussing the view outside of the binary of being "For" and "Against" a cause.
To be more specific, what do you think about people who do not actively take part/lack a concrete opinion in the discussion of issues deemed important or are simply passive about them? What about people who sympathize with both sides and thus do not entirely pick a side to back?

I don't see anything wrong with it. There is a finite number of things for people to care about and not everyone is able to care about things society says are important right now. I think it's ignorant to waste time arguing about something that you don't really have an opinion on, but I can see how it would expand viewpoints and maybe create opinions. (I've learned a lot by doing this, and I'm okay with letting all of y'all know I'm ignorant about a lot of the world.) I don't have an opinion about black lives matter other than that yeah, it's shitty that it has to happen because we should have equal rights, but what makes that cause more important than causes I'm passionate about, like women's rights during maternity and delivery? 

[Generic]

This isn't towards anyone in particular, but: Do you think we're more accepting when the question is presented generally (like in the first post) rather than if the person said it directly to someone who did care about the topic? For example, if someone cares about Social Movement X, and they're asked the question (essentially) "Is it fair to have no opinion on/not particularly care about all social movements in general" I feel like they'll often say "Of course, you can't care about everything," but if they asked your opinion on Social Movement X and you said you didn't care about it they'd be potentially very offended or think somewhat less of you for being cold to their passion - depending on the person of course.

 

This is more of a question than a thought, I'm wondering if other people see this too - because I have.

Edited by Generic, 14 July 2016 - 05:21 PM.

[Swar]

This isn't towards anyone in particular, but: Do you think we're more accepting when the question is presented generally (like in the first post) rather than if the person said it directly to someone who did care about the topic? For example, if someone cares about Social Movement X, and they're asked the question (essentially) "Is it fair to have no opinion on/not particularly care about all social movements in general" I feel like they'll often say "Of course, you can't care about everything," but if they asked your opinion on Social Movement X and you said you didn't care about it they'd be potentially very offended or think somewhat less of you for being cold to their passion - depending on the person of course.

 

This is more of a question than a thought, I'm wondering if other people see this too - because I have.

 

I don't know how to elaborate my thoughts on the OP question, but I do see this a lot. Probably for the same reason people only care about what's around them (as @Coops said), humans are selfish. So yeah, when it's something you care about, you'll probably get offended if others don't.

[NapisaurusRex]

This isn't towards anyone in particular, but: Do you think we're more accepting when the question is presented generally (like in the first post) rather than if the person said it directly to someone who did care about the topic? For example, if someone cares about Social Movement X, and they're asked the question (essentially) "Is it fair to have no opinion on/not particularly care about all social movements in general" I feel like they'll often say "Of course, you can't care about everything," but if they asked your opinion on Social Movement X and you said you didn't care about it they'd be potentially very offended or think somewhat less of you for being cold to their passion - depending on the person of course.

Do you mean if someone asked me point blank or if it was a general like classroom/survey type setting where someone would overhear me say I don't care?

[Scot]

[Kaddict]

Spoiler

 

Haha. I love that.


Passive people are pussies. Just kidding, it just seemed somewhat alliterative. I don't mind people who don't pick sides. I have a few ethical issues that I am still chewing on, so it is tough for me to pick one side or the other. I also realize that everyone can't be informed and/or passionate about every topic in the world, so its fine. The things I don't like are that often passive people get antagonized by both groups by saying "If you aren't for me, you're against me, or you're for my enemy" type thing (like the people that say if you dont vote for Hillary or Donald you are voting for Donald or Hillary) and something else that I forgot while typing this sentence, but I felt like continuing on rather than changing "things" and "are" to "thing" and "is."

[DonValentino]

Being uncertain is fine, being willfully ignorant is not.