Sharing is NOT Caring - breaking my 'don't post what you aren't involved in unless its funny' rule
breaking my 'don't post what you aren't involved in unless its funny' rule...
Extremely good rule!
isn't it! Yeah I noticed more people were sharing than contributing to a crowdfunder a while ago and I think it's the delusion of "doing something" can stop people actually doing something cos they feel they have! Also there's no end to the horrors you can share
Why would you enforce such a terrible rule to begin with?? So myopic and hermitesque. We need people to have concern and compassion for anything in the world that is alarming them.
Unless you drafted that rule in order to enjoy breaking it, and revel in rebelling against the authority within yourself?
no it's because I don't think sharing (posts) IS caring, it gives the delusion of it. And compassion fatigue is real. As is information overload So if something moves me enough to share I can ask myself if I care enough to take any action - even if that's donating a tenner or signing a petition or burning down a ski resort- and if so it's reasonable to ask others to. Otherwise im only sharing to present and perform care.
Yes, I agree. Sharing a post is simply sharing a post. Spreading the news. I don't understand how that could be misconstrued as caring though because it's far too easy to do. If you are a person that feels like a carer because you pressed share then you a bona fide 100% A-Grade knobhead. Having said that, you can't always get directly involved in a story you've read though, and so raising the alarm where others would be happy patting their backs in pious silence then becomes an act of conscience. (I don't think the word care in the online context is a very good word to use. It's too crude and equivocal).
Sharing is caring if we're classmates at school, and you think it would be fun to put drawing pins on Miss Fisher's chair. So when Miss Fisher demands to know from the class who is responsible for the puncture holes in her arse cheeks, everyone points at you, but then I stand up and say "I'm Tabitha!". And so I've shared the blame with you because I care, and more importantly, are willing to accept the consequences.
So sharing a post is simply what it says on the tin, unless things like the likelihood of becoming implicated yourself or the consequences you're likely to face as a result of sharing are factors in your ability to click 'post'. Like with all things in life - it depends.
I have such a strong loathing for rules that are devised so quickly, and given so much power over an individual's autonomy so easily. Such rules feel like oppressive decrees, and you cannot break laws like these and expect to escape punishment. But it is you (not you, you) who metes out the punishment for disobeying this rule with your guilt, shame, sense of unworthiness etc. I mean, you can take your pick really!...
What is the point in feeling shit because a crude sweeping law, which cordons off huge areas of human experience, making it unknowable, has had to be imposed in order for you to demonstrate to your public, friends and family that you wish to make it clear to them that sharing a story does NOT make you Mother Theresa! How limiting!!!
If my friends ever thought that by me sharing an article I was being kind then I'd get rid of them ASAFP!!! Give them the fucking boot! I don't need people around me giving me undeserved credit, imbuing me with warm fuzzy vibes of righteousness that are born out of illusions.
But I sometimes wonder if it isn't the other way around, and it's the public who have been framing their serial sharing friends as carers for years, and the realisation of this error of thinking has left them furious at themselves for being mugs, so they come done upon themselves like a ton of bricks? Who knows??...
Everything should be treated on a case by case basis. Every instance should be considered as it is, in its entirety and on its own merits. It seems like rules like the once employed in this post are overarching devices for people who don't enjoy nuance, have no time for getting their hands dirty or wading through the shit. They see the mapping out of idiosyncrasies as a labour intensive nuisance to be avoided. None of those things I associate with you actually. I thought you loved wading in shit!!?? So I'm glad you've broken the rule. But maybe its something else...
It's so understandable why people right now in 2019 feel they have to enforce such sweeping orders upon themselves, streamlining and simplifying their personas in order to not ever be misunderstood or taken out of context, because they can't afford to unintentionally dice with any negative fallout caused as a result of being misjudged by their peers, friends or random strangers.
Extremely good rule!
isn't it! Yeah I noticed more people were sharing than contributing to a crowdfunder a while ago and I think it's the delusion of "doing something" can stop people actually doing something cos they feel they have! Also there's no end to the horrors you can share
Why would you enforce such a terrible rule to begin with?? So myopic and hermitesque. We need people to have concern and compassion for anything in the world that is alarming them.
Unless you drafted that rule in order to enjoy breaking it, and revel in rebelling against the authority within yourself?
no it's because I don't think sharing (posts) IS caring, it gives the delusion of it. And compassion fatigue is real. As is information overload So if something moves me enough to share I can ask myself if I care enough to take any action - even if that's donating a tenner or signing a petition or burning down a ski resort- and if so it's reasonable to ask others to. Otherwise im only sharing to present and perform care.
Yes, I agree. Sharing a post is simply sharing a post. Spreading the news. I don't understand how that could be misconstrued as caring though because it's far too easy to do. If you are a person that feels like a carer because you pressed share then you a bona fide 100% A-Grade knobhead. Having said that, you can't always get directly involved in a story you've read though, and so raising the alarm where others would be happy patting their backs in pious silence then becomes an act of conscience. (I don't think the word care in the online context is a very good word to use. It's too crude and equivocal).
Sharing is caring if we're classmates at school, and you think it would be fun to put drawing pins on Miss Fisher's chair. So when Miss Fisher demands to know from the class who is responsible for the puncture holes in her arse cheeks, everyone points at you, but then I stand up and say "I'm Tabitha!". And so I've shared the blame with you because I care, and more importantly, are willing to accept the consequences.
So sharing a post is simply what it says on the tin, unless things like the likelihood of becoming implicated yourself or the consequences you're likely to face as a result of sharing are factors in your ability to click 'post'. Like with all things in life - it depends.
I have such a strong loathing for rules that are devised so quickly, and given so much power over an individual's autonomy so easily. Such rules feel like oppressive decrees, and you cannot break laws like these and expect to escape punishment. But it is you (not you, you) who metes out the punishment for disobeying this rule with your guilt, shame, sense of unworthiness etc. I mean, you can take your pick really!...
What is the point in feeling shit because a crude sweeping law, which cordons off huge areas of human experience, making it unknowable, has had to be imposed in order for you to demonstrate to your public, friends and family that you wish to make it clear to them that sharing a story does NOT make you Mother Theresa! How limiting!!!
If my friends ever thought that by me sharing an article I was being kind then I'd get rid of them ASAFP!!! Give them the fucking boot! I don't need people around me giving me undeserved credit, imbuing me with warm fuzzy vibes of righteousness that are born out of illusions.
But I sometimes wonder if it isn't the other way around, and it's the public who have been framing their serial sharing friends as carers for years, and the realisation of this error of thinking has left them furious at themselves for being mugs, so they come done upon themselves like a ton of bricks? Who knows??...
Everything should be treated on a case by case basis. Every instance should be considered as it is, in its entirety and on its own merits. It seems like rules like the once employed in this post are overarching devices for people who don't enjoy nuance, have no time for getting their hands dirty or wading through the shit. They see the mapping out of idiosyncrasies as a labour intensive nuisance to be avoided. None of those things I associate with you actually. I thought you loved wading in shit!!?? So I'm glad you've broken the rule. But maybe its something else...
It's so understandable why people right now in 2019 feel they have to enforce such sweeping orders upon themselves, streamlining and simplifying their personas in order to not ever be misunderstood or taken out of context, because they can't afford to unintentionally dice with any negative fallout caused as a result of being misjudged by their peers, friends or random strangers.
Comments
Post a Comment