The Insistence of My Pet Issue

[Some Schmo]

Here's something I've been thinking about lately when it comes to message boards like this one. People seem to think (or at least, act like they do) that if you don't have an opinion or a comment on a particular issue, you're part of the problem.

By that standard, we're all part of a lot of problems. And maybe we are.

Here's the larger problem. Every person is allotted a finite bandwidth. There's only so much you can think about in the limited time you have. There's also only so much you can care about.

I think I've said it here before, but I'm of the firm opinion it's perfectly fine not to think everything through. There's too much. There are only so many subjects you can really dedicate yourself to because there's more information and subjects than the time you get. The key, therefore, is to never opine on subjects you haven't thought through. Leave them alone, unless you're willing to think them through first.

When I see someone post some message to the effect, "Don't you care that [insert their pet issue here]?" all I think is, no. Not really. I haven't thought about it enough to care. I have other things I care about.

And then I think how self-centered they must be to think everyone should have the same pet issue.

Am I wrong?

[Jersey Girl]

I haven't seen anyone ask why someone doesn't care about a certain topic but I haven't really been all that interested in the board lately. I think one thing is that there are folks here whose passions are simply different than my own. Example, some of the posters here have deep knowledge of politics and history that I don't have. The reason I know more about those topics now is because I thought the Dump Truck administration was destroying my country and I joined threads to ask questions in an effort to understand what I was seeing happening and to learn. So for me, that became a temporary passion. Now I think the country is in relatively good hands and it seems like DT is fading into the background so I don't participate much. I keep up with the news but it's not interesting to me to keep discussing it long term.

Another thing that I think touches on what you wrote is that we have so much information coming at us these days that we (maybe it's just me) can't begin to digest it all and I don't even want to try to. I'm interested in doing other things and pursuing other passions that aren't at all topic worthy in my opinion and have virtually nothing to do with this board.

So...I think I get where you are coming from, Schmo.

[Dr. Shades]

Good topic, Some Schmo.

I well remember the guy who kept insisting that since I haven't denounced the poor treatment of women in Islam, then I must be in favor of how poorly women are treated in Islam, and pretty much demanded, repeatedly, that I make a public statement denouncing it.

For my part, being disgusted by the poor treatment of women in Islam is pretty much the default setting, so his assumption that I was in favor of it, simply because I hadn't come out and said I wasn't, was quite insulting.

As you more or less implied, there simply aren't enough hours in the day to make formal statements denouncing all the things we disagree with.

[Physics Guy]

I think there could be some issues that I don't have on my front burner, but that I should have there, if I had all the facts or if I were thinking straight or if I confronted my own anxieties or whatever. So I don't think it's necessarily always wrong for someone to urge me to care more about something than I currently do.

It's a high standard of urgency, though, for something to be so urgent that everyone in my situation ought to be keenly interested in it. Even issues that amply deserve widespread attention may not warrant attention from absolutely everyone. To do anything effective for any one good cause, anyone has to ignore other causes. If you're not doing much for my pet issue, maybe it's because you're busy saving some other part of the world.

Perhaps some issues really threaten the whole world direly and imminently, so that the only reasonable approach to them is to scream and yell until everyone in the whole world starts working hard on them. If my issue is obviously not quite that urgent, though, then it probably doesn't serve my cause well to exaggerate its importance, even if its importance is real, by making it out to be of overriding importance. That will just make people stop taking it seriously.

Even if my pet issue will later become overwhelmingly important, over-hyping it now could still be making things worse rather than better. Maybe I'll have been a Cassandra who was right all along but ignored, but maybe I'll just have been a kid who cried, "Wolf!", whose false alarms were in large part to blame for people missing the wolf when it did come.

[Kishkumen]

Good thoughts, Schmo.

To them I would add, if there are two sides in a contest of opinions, they do not exclude the existence of opinions outside of the positions of the two sides. I don't think it is wrong not to choose one of two sides in the contest. Those who do not choose one of the sides are not part of the problem.

[canpakes]

Good thoughts, Schmo.

To them I would add, if there are two sides in a contest of opinions, they do not exclude the existence of opinions outside of the positions of the two sides. I don't think it is wrong not to choose one of two sides in the contest. Those who do not choose one of the sides are not part of the problem.

Exactly. Many times, the larger problem is the person demanding that others pledge allegiance to one of only two rigid positions regarding an oftentimes complex issue.

[Some Schmo]

Sir, aren't you interested in ways to help reduce violence? I thought you cared about your daughter.

This is quoted from the other thread. Seems appropriate here.

So, to me, this is psychotic. At the very least, it's not a serious question. Aren't you interested in ways to help reduce violence? What is the actual subtext of this question? He doesn't believe I'm "interested"? Or is it just a child's way of baiting me into providing a considered response to his pet issue? Given the completely unrelated follow-up regarding my daughter, I'm forced to conclude he's trying to bait me.

I've been trying really hard lately not to comment on stupid or psychotic behavior on the internet. I've noticed that by avoiding it, there are a ton of people not worth talking to or talking about. As a consequence, I don't spend as much time online.

I've been thinking a lot about opportunity cost lately. Getting older does that to you. The time I'm spending on any one thing eliminates the opportunity to do infinite other things, so I want to spend time wisely.

Jersey Girl, I totally understand limited use of the board. It's good for you (for anyone). I really appreciate the people here who post honestly, because they are the only ones really worth reading and make the time spent worthwhile. But sometimes it feels slow because nobody's talking about anything in which you're interested. I don't blame anyone for talking about whatever they want, and this is the place to do it, but certain subjects are going to be of interest to certain people at certain times. If I'm not interested in a subject enough to be willing to think it through, I resist talking about it. Sometimes I'm content to just read what others have to say, if I'm interested at all.

[Some Schmo]

Good topic, Some Schmo.

I well remember the guy who kept insisting that since I haven't denounced the poor treatment of women in Islam, then I must be in favor of how poorly women are treated in Islam, and pretty much demanded, repeatedly, that I make a public statement denouncing it.

For my part, being disgusted by the poor treatment of women in Islam is pretty much the default setting, so his assumption that I was in favor of it, simply because I hadn't come out and said I wasn't, was quite insulting.

As you more or less implied, there simply aren't enough hours in the day to make formal statements denouncing all the things we disagree with.

Yeah, your example also sounds not like a serious question, but baiting (or trolling, I guess). That's a clear sign to me they aren't in for a serious conversation and you'll be wasting time responding to it.

[Some Schmo]

I think there could be some issues that I don't have on my front burner, but that I should have there, if I had all the facts or if I were thinking straight or if I confronted my own anxieties or whatever. So I don't think it's necessarily always wrong for someone to urge me to care more about something than I currently do.

I enjoyed your whole post.

I thought something similar to what I quoted here after I posted. I think we should value someone making a helpful observation. I'm really just talking about someone on the internet freaking out about their own thing.

But you're absolutely right. I don't mean to imply we couldn't get interested in certain causes if we knew more about them.

[Some Schmo]

Good thoughts, Schmo.

To them I would add, if there are two sides in a contest of opinions, they do not exclude the existence of opinions outside of the positions of the two sides. I don't think it is wrong not to choose one of two sides in the contest. Those who do not choose one of the sides are not part of the problem.

Exactly. Many times, the larger problem is the person demanding that others pledge allegiance to one of only two rigid positions regarding an oftentimes complex issue.

Yeah, that really is a salient point, Kish. Even if you are interested in a subject, being presented with a false dichotomy and forced to choose one of their options is a real conversation turn-off.