[bruce511]

Yes, social media seems to exist to create outrage. But so much of it seems to be outrage for outrage's sake. Like other things it seems to have no resonant permanence. it seems to be manufactured for a purpose, then abandoned, or worse, endlessly recycled.

On the other hand, raising items of concern about some other things get enormous pushback (and quick down votes.) Things like-

Does the military really need 777 billion dollars? Why are health-care outcomes so disparate? Why is the US so far behind socially (workers rights, maternity leave, et al)? Why is the answer to another school shooting more guns? Why is building housing in my neighbourhood so hard? How is our life and lifestyle contributing to climate change? Why does climate change even matter?

In the US (and Europe etc) the comfortable middle class is so scared of change, any change at all, that they'll do anything to keep the status quo. And where there has been change there's a desire to rewind the political clock, to return to "happier times" (where, incidentally , wages were $10 a week, a detail lost in inflation discussions.)

Change is scary. Suggesting things could change for the better scares a lot of people who are confortable-enough. So yes, Expressing dissatisfaction with certain things which seem to strike at the heart of that comfortableness is thus not OK.

But clearly, since life is not perfect, we should create narratives explaining our current shortcomings. We need to blame -something- so better that we are presented with the issue (immigration! Gay people!) lest we start thinking for ourselves.

So yes, social media is all about dissatisfaction, but it all seems terribly shallow, self-serving, and, dare I say it, manufactured.

[woah]

Sounds like you're mad that some people online don't agree with your political opinions.

Imagining that your personal politics are something that everyone would agree with if only the veil could be lifted and a mysterious "they" would stop suppressing the truth is the lowest form of political thought.

[bruce511]

Hmm, im sorry it came across that way, that wasn't my intention. For the record I'm not personally on social media, so this wasn't meant to reflect a specific case or issue.

Rather I was trying to convey a sense that people are generally more angry about things that don't matter, while not discussing things that do matter

I make no judgements on "what is right" here, rather on the concept of some topics being "off limits".

Yes, I do find it hard to engage with issues as important as to what some actor tweeted (to get attention) when, for example, kids are scared to go to school because of school shootings. I went to school at a time and place where actual bombs were a thing, but I never felt the way kids feel today.

I wouldn't say I feel angry about this. I'm not being shot at etc. And I don't feel like the truth is bring suppressed- it's not like the actual ills of our society are a secret. I guess it's more a sense that we're fighting about the wrong things. And perhaps it suits some that we continue to do so.