zlacker

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+(OP)
You may not realize this (or you might, I don't know), but many people who don't want to participate in politics have the sense that our opinions are not at all condoned by the majority of employers or coworkers in our industry.

If I were to go around, attaching my real name or face to my opinions as some form of "participation" in society, I would be quite fucked. I don't call that a privilege by any means.

>>isoske+6b
To argue to the extreme for a moment, one can have privilege, such as by way of relative wealth and power in society, and still hold views that powerful groups in society believe are contemptible. Holding certain views does not cancel out privileges one has, nor transform one from privileged to victim. This is especially true in privileges that one has less control over, such as physical and intellectual attributes, place of birth, wealth and opportunities like education and socialization, etc.

One may also act on those views believing they are helping society, while consensus in society views those actions as detrimental. A recent example of this is the rioters and insurrectionists at the Capitol believed they were doing something to help society, whereas society judged their actions otherwise.

A possible solution to this conundrum is to focus one's participation on areas that are broadly agreed upon to be beneficial to society, so as to avoid accidentally becoming part of the problem, or simply minimize blowback from a disapproving environment.

This is a solution that is intentionally sidestepping any particular ethical framework, which may guide one's actions toward different tradeoffs.

Another thing worth considering is not all participation in society need be political at all, nor attached to your real name, nor known to your employer. Those are conditions you've attached to your response that were not part of mine.

>>npunt+(OP)
The entire story of MLK and the civil rights movement is the story of people without power (quite literally, without equal rights under the law) driving change. Same for Ghandi and indian independence, to take one contemporary example out of many.

Perhaps there is a moral obligation for people with privilege to engage; but it's clearly not a practical necessity for change to happen. Given the lack of progress in Black civil rights ever since the 60's; as this discourse around "we all must participate!" has strengthened, it is far from clear that it is helpful.

I propose that the other way is best. Live your life, respond with genuine outrage when injustice crosses your path, and don't feel like media consumption fixes anything.

>>jskell+Pp
I'd put it a bit differently: people with very little power banded together to create a movement that together has some power and was making incremental progress over the decades, but allies were needed to accelerate it and make big change. After Kennedy's assassination Lyndon Johnson lent his enormous political capital to revive a dying civil rights bill and get it passed, and that was a big push, so much so that it lost his party the south for 50+ years.

I fully agree media consumption doesn't fix a whole lot, and certainly not in today's media environment, I merely advocate for staying informed and engaged enough to discover a useful way to make impact. I want to live in a world where we mostly just live our lives as we please, but society's state right now is such that I don't think it will let us off that easy.

>>npunt+(OP)
> ...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+hv
I think you're splitting hairs here and, correct me if I'm wrong, it seems you're saying privilege does not exist?

>>npunt+Yj3
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+jU3
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.