zlacker

>>notion+(OP)
In 2019 my New Years Resolution was to avoid all news and social media. The reason I started the ban was because I found my mind unsettled after reading the news and I had trouble coming back to a tranquil headspace.

The inspiration is this simple quote: "The chief task in life is simply this: to identify and separate matters so that I can say clearly to myself which are externals not under my control, and which have to do with the choices I actually control." (Epictetus)

I held this resolution for about 5 months and it was profoundly glorious. It's not hard. Treat current events like Game of Thrones spoilers. Focus on what you have control over. Be frank with others that you are taking a break from the news cycle. If your results are anything like mine you will find yourself calmer and able to concentrate on what matters. Your mind wont wander to externalities you don't have control over.

At the end of it, you can go read Wikipedia for 30 minutes and be just as caught up as anyone else because you know the end result of the news cycle instead of suffering through it as it happened.

>>stevec+Jb
It’s easy when politics doesn’t actually impact you. If you had relatives being deported or being shot by the police, it’s likely that you wouldn’t just tell your friends/family « sorry, i have no control over this »

I know it’s extreme but it’s the reality. For someone who is impacting by politics (say lost their jobs due to COVID), you can’t just stay on the sideline and ignore it.

You just have the great privilege of letting other people take care of that dirty work.

Is taking a news diet good? Absolutely. Lots of crap out there and a mental break is needed once in a while. But ignoring the suffering of people around you is just bad.

>>jerome+Re
Exactly. As members of society we have an obligation to participate in society whether or not we are impacted negatively by its current shortcomings. In fact, the greater our privilege, the greater our obligation. Society would unravel if this were not true, because it would place undue burden on those lacking power to fix society - an impossible task without power. This is the subject of MLK's writing on justice and mutuality, that 'an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere' as well as Niemöller's poem about 'first they came for...'.

The question is really how to optimize awareness & participation with personal wellbeing. There's a big difference between getting psychologically clobbered by the outrage engines of social media or TV news, and being able to take in and understand current events in a way that encourages contemplation of how to best participate.

One way is to focus our attention and efforts on the things we can control as OP mentions. Another is to shift sources from fast/reactive news to more infrequent and considered sources. Another still is to participate locally and learn things firsthand.

>>npunt+Ji
> ...because it would place undue burden on those lacking power to fix society - an impossible task without power...

That in itself is an irresponsible view. Nobody has the power to change society. The power we have is to make arguments and present ideas and then sometimes society changes of its own accord. Nobody is powerless to make persuasive and compelling arguments.

>>roenxi+0O
I think you're splitting hairs here and, correct me if I'm wrong, it seems you're saying privilege does not exist?

>>npunt+HC3
Society improves due to ideas, influence and technological change. In a democracy, everyone has notionally equal potential and responsibility for society's improvement whether they are currently powerful or not. Power can be moved around if someone new is obviously a better wielder of it. The powerful have special responsibilities but 'fixing' things isn't one of them. That is a shared responsibility. The powerless also have a responsibility to talk, argue and come to agreement on how to improve things.

I don't know what you mean when you say privilege. It is a very broad word. The powerful being privileged is something of a tautology, but the privileged are not necessarily powerful.

>>roenxi+2d4
I appreciate your response and the nuances you're striking. Nevertheless, this still feels like splitting hairs and/or not seeing the forest from the trees. Powerful people have always had extra influence over societal changes. Someone working 70-80hrs/wk striving to make ends meet has far less time or ability to develop ideas or drive influence, as do people with little education or with health conditions, people shut out of certain parts of society, etc. Meanwhile someone born into privilege with time, connections, education, and wealth can participate in this game of ideas and influence and become a better wielder of those.

What I said before didn't imply people without power do not also have responsibilities, just that those with power have more, because of their position in society. Part (perhaps much) of that responsibility is to work towards a better society; I used 'fixing' as shorthand for this. In the US that is 'a more perfect union' but there are other concepts enshrined in other countries. I don't think this is a particularly controversial position to take.

Similarly the concept of 'with power comes responsibility' reappears throughout human history and I don't think is controversial.

Maybe we're in agreement on this, I can't tell from the way you're picking things apart. Anyway, I'm going to politely bow out.