[tgerhbes346]

Imagine telling future generations "We could have stopped it, but it was too stressful, so we played video games."

People died fighting to end slavery. People died fighting for an 8 hour work day. People died fighting to oppose Hitler. You are just as strong as those people.

No matter how bleak it seems, do not give up. Write, Complain, Vote.

Edit: Why the downvotes? Ok, maybe I'm being too tough. OP, you should know that it's OK to feel sad. Everyone replying to this comment wants you to know that you're not alone, and we hope you can find your way out of a dark place. Please take care of yourself.

Is it because of the last sentence? I'm not saying only do those three things.

Or is it because I mentioned hitler. Sorry, I was thinking of my Grandpa. He fought in WW2, and whenever I feel like scared, I think of him because he was a brave person.

[089723645897236]

Don't do those three things though. Do something that will actually change society. Fix, Build, Create, Expand, Move Beyond.

[tgerhbes346]

Why can't we do all of them?

I'd also like to add: we need to organize.

[mattcaldwell]

Why do we have to fight for this stuff? Why can't people just be decent humans? That is the part that I struggle with.

[tgerhbes346]

We shouldn't have to fight for stuff. Everyone should be decent.

But some are not. I don't know why. But they are not. They rig the system in their favor. They hurt others.

Maybe we can all evolve into enlightened beings of pure energy. Until then, we have to put in hard work to make our world a better place.

Everything you enjoy as a free person - someone had to fight for it.

(I'm not literally saying fight like beat someone up. I mean fight for your rights and the rights of others. Get involved in something.)

[mlevental]

>Why can't people just be decent humans?

because everyone has a different definition of what it means to be decent - the people on the other side of the debate do believe they're being decent as well

[jonhohle]

I've been thinking _a lot_ about this recently and how to communicate this in a loving way because I think it's critically important to understand that people have differing priorities that aren't necessarily morally wrong, just different.

Jonathan Haidt's TED talks[0] are a good starting point. Getting people from both sides of an argument to see others as humans, neighbors, partners and how different perspectives add value.

Miyazaki comes to mind quite a bit. For the most part the "villains" in his movies are easy to empathize with and the protagonists learn about their goals and view points and work within those to solve the problem they originally set out to solve. I'd like to think people within a country are more like Ashitaka, San, and Lady Eboshi than Luke Skywalker and Emperor Palpatine.

My own personal conviction would like to see more constructive action from everybody. I don't consider threatening people, screaming at others, demeaning them, or name calling constructive. I think if more people found thing they thought could make _any_ impact, and went and helped real people, a lot more would be done than by lamenting the current state of the universe. And unless you need help, don't talk about it, don't expect anything in return, and don't put down others for not thinking the areas you choose to focus on aren't as important as the areas they've chosen to focus on.

0 - https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind , https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_can_a_divided_ameri...

[mlevental]

I don't believe in this kind of moral relativism - my intent was not to relativise but to explain. You can believe you're moral and be immoral. I don't believe in vitriol only because it is ineffectual - I don't care if some regressive's feelings are hurt. I think power needs to be wrested from the conservative class - that means more progressives in law schools, in b schools, on judiciaries, in office, on boards.

[jonhohle]

I don't believe in moral relativism either, however, what you believe is moral and just is likely different from what I believe is moral and just. I'm sure I'm right (except where I'm wrong ;-) and I'm sure you believe you're right. If we differ, I believe one of us is wrong.

However, when we come to such an impasse, I'd prefer to acknowledge it, respect one another, and come to a common solution. What common things do opposing groups have in common and how can that be built on?

With the knowledge that I'm stepping into the deep end: many conservatives are convinced that life starts at conception and believe abortion is equivalent to murder. How would you react if your government was legally permitting selective death of a class of people who could not defend themselves?

Another group of people are convinced that separating children from families detained at the border is equivalent to putting them in concentration camps. How would you react if your government was allowing a class of people to be detained without charge?

For whatever reason, it seems many people choose to think one is OK and not the other (sure, there's nuance), but in both cases the outraged party has complete conviction that their view is correct and logical justification for why.

Calling the other group regressive, libtard, or any other demeaning name and showing disgust for them rather than understanding the perspective that their coming from makes it easier to treat the other with disrespect and dismiss their views no matter how sane or logical they may be. Both political cultures have deep contradictions. I see the current political climate as not dissimilar from Cowboys vs. Packers fans. Flip flop on issues all you want, as long as it means winning.

It may not seem like it, but there are very good and culturally healthy reasons to have conservative and progressive viewpoints. I say this outside of a political context.

[mlevental]

>no matter how sane or logical they may be

this presumes all perspectives are equally as sane/logical. that's not the case: any group of people can choose to believe anything they'd like and structure their politics around those beliefs. that doesn't mean they're legitimate beliefs or politics.

i can understand why someone might believe the earth is flat and why that's a value for them, or why climate change isn't real and that's a value. that doesn't mean i'm going to try to compromise with either of these political identities.