This is a good point. What would people think if there was constant political discussion here about, for instance, South Sudan and things happening there now? I'm sure there's bad stuff going on there and it's unfortunately, but if we had constant references to and discussions about the internal politics of South Sudan, I think a lot of people would get annoyed about issues that don't affect them at all in their day-to-day lives, esp. when they're coming here for discussions about technically- and computer-related topics. That must be how it seems for American political discussions.

▲

LoganDark 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Do you think it's socially acceptable to ignore everything that doesn't affect you personally? Many activists would certainly have you think otherwise. As far as I can tell, fighting that habit is a huge goal of activism.

▲

appreciatorBus 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That may be a huge goal of activism, but activists do not get to control what other people want to do.

Activists wanting something is not synonymous with that thing being a good idea. It just means that someone wants something out of you could be good, could be very bad. No different than a sales person trying to get you to buy something.

▲

moi2388 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes. Activists also don’t focus on all causes, not even most. They cherry pick whatever topic is hot in that moment. Sorry, I don’t care about that when I’m browsing something about software.

When I care about politics I’ll deal with actual politics. Reddit won’t change my mind nor the world.

▲

user205738 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Do you think it's socially acceptable to ignore everything that doesn't affect you personally?

Yes, yes, and yes again.

> Many activists would certainly have you think otherwise. As far as I can tell, fighting that habit is a huge goal of activism.

That's their problem. As soon as you start contributing to them, you will not pursue your own goals, living your own life, but those imposed by activists or their supervisors.

It's convenient for them, you give them a political resource. But why do you need it?

▲

FormerBandmate 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

A huge chunk of activism is pointless and annoying. Especially when every cause is lumped together into Activism (TM) and the Omnicause.

I don’t agree with them and I don’t think they should be in my software, or dealing with anything they don’t understand (for instance crime, homeless people, geopolitics, or really anything outside of overpriced vegan coffee shops). All they really do is end up getting Fox News people to vote for fascists like Trump out of spite

	▲	autoexec 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> A huge chunk of activism is pointless and annoying. Activism can be annoying, but it's never pointless (not even when it fails to be effective). > All they really do is end up getting Fox News people to vote for fascists like Trump out of spite It wouldn't be worthwhile for activists to resign themselves to inaction out of fear of offending the "Fox news people". "Fox news people" are already more likely than not to vote for fascists like Trump, and they'll use any excuse/justification they're being fed including "I don't like the way the wrong people are using their freedom to protest the wrong things".

▲

appreciatorBus 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

People on HN are happy to talk about the internal politics of distant nations, so long as the name of the distant nation is Israel or Palestine.