The answer to your question is, I think, two questions: "Is ignorance bliss?" and "can we actually change things?" To the first, I would unequivocally say no. Even if I did think I could be happy ignoring the news, I would never be able to ignore it when I saw something wrong happening to someone else as a result of political decisions. Take that family separation policy for example, I would be just as pissed upon hearing about that while not following news as I would be while not following news, and afterward I wouldn't be able to keep ignoring the news. I'd be too worried that something else like that would sneak by me and I wouldn't know about it. Take the crap going on in Wisconsin and Michigan for example. I'm sure that's a story that would be likely to slip by me entirely if I wasn't an avid news-follower, but it would still negatively impact me. I'd still be frustrated by the way democracy is undermined and my preferred party kept from implementing their policy, but I wouldn't understand why it's going on. I'd much rather know why. As a counter-example, I used to get pretty frustrated trying to understand why some countries seemed to prefer states of chaos to democracy. Why couldn't Iraqis, for example, construct a functioning democracy after Saddam? Was democracy just doomed in that part of the world? When I read a bit more about the invasion, post-invasion, and the "democratic" process of rebuilding the Iraqi government the entire issue made more sense to me. Yes, I was pissed as hell by what I read and no, I couldn't do anything about it. Still, knowing the facts and understanding the conflict was better than just being constantly confused. I might have been angrier, but I was less anxious, if that makes any sense.
Now, as to whether or not we can actually change things, I think this is one of those answers that can't be conclusively answered until we actually live the results. History provides evidence for both sides. On the one hand, large-scale change and especially democratic change are the exceptions throughout history. Considered solely on the grounds of probability, it's a minor miracle that we've been able to maintain a semi-democratic government for the past almost 250 years, to say nothing of all the other democracies around the world. There's also the fact that every empire in history has collapsed in around 350 years (average), and, depending on how you classify our empire, we're at or past the expiration date. That bodes very poorly for our ability to enact meaningful change. That being said, there have been some very out of the ordinary occurrences in history, the American Revolution in particular and the subsequent establishment of a democratic republic in a world of autocratic monarchies being a stark example. Whether or not that gives you hope is all up to you. Yes, it could happen again, but what are the chances that historic luck would strike the same nation twice? And yes, the entrenched forces seem all-powerful, but so did the British Army back in the day, so did Napoleon's army to British forces, so did the French Monarchy to Robespierre, so did the Russian Monarchy to Lenin, so did the Berlin Wall to East Berliners, so did the French invaders to Toussaint L'Ouverture. You never really know how a historic victory can be won until it's won.
The one thing I will say is this, you never get the change you want if you don't fight for it. If you fight for it you may not get it, but if you don't then you definitely won't. Voting alone won't change things, protesting alone won't change things, donating alone won't change things, volunteering alone won't change things, arguing alone won't change things, being informed alone won't change things. But the more people do all of those things the more they'll start to accumulate, the more they'll matter, the better the chance that we actually can change things. You may not live to see it, but that doesn't mean what you did doesn't matter. The more you know about what's going on the more you can speak out about what you dislike, and the more you speak out the more people will hear you, the harder it gets for the people in charge to keep getting away with what they're doing. Even the Stasi would drop what they were doing and run when their victims cried out and drew attention to themselves. It is one of the most effective tactics against repression bar none, even if it doesn't always work. Knowing this, even if the news pisses me off it's a good kind of pissed. It's the kind that helps me keep sight on what I believe and lose focus on what isn't as important. It's the kind that reminds of what Plato said: "a good man can never be harmed, in life or in death." The goal of repressive forces is always the same: to break your mind and force you to submit to their worldview. So long as you have knowledge they can never do that.
@crunchymix said:
Following politics on the internet is one of the problems we have right now. People read inflammatory articles on all sides, get mad at people they see commmenting that they will never meet, and then create an archetypal enemy in their head that probably is not based on anyone they’ve ever known in real life. If we spent more time talking to human beings in person in a civilized way and less time getting pissed in the comment section of Facebook, we would come a long way towards healing.
Personally, these forums are one of the only places I go on the internet where discussion happens any more and I am WAY happier and less stressed as a result. No Facebook, Twitter or even Reddit for me. Highly recommended.
That may sometimes be the case, but in my experience it's just the opposite. I know plenty of people whom I talk to on a fairly consistent basis who fit the common archetype all too well, and spending time talking to them in a civilized way gets me nowhere. At least half the time they're the ones breaking civility and being aggressive and insulting because they can't force everyone into buying into their worldview wholesale. The rest of the time they're perfectly civil so long as no one ever says word one challenging their beliefs, but the second someone makes even the slightest statement that conflicts with their beliefs they start flinging around accusations and questioning people's character. In fact, even though at least half the time I'm here I'm arguing with someone, I'd say I have better interactions on this site than I ever have with people I talk to in person about politics.
I will say this, I think that in person people are more likely to consider the other person's whole experiences, whereas on the internet I think we just view people as a statement that either conflicts with what we think or conforms to it. That being said, I don't think you should jump to the conclusion that people who interact with other people in person are always or even mostly interested in considering other people's entire perspective. One thing I've learned so far in life, there are a lot of shitty people who just don't give a **** about anyone but themselves, and as many people as you think are like this, there are probably more. I don't know if I'd say they're a majority, but there's a lot of them. The internet isn't making these people shitty, reading the news isn't making these people shitty, they're just ****ing shitty for whatever reason, and they're going to be shitty to others no matter where they are. All those times you've gotten angry at people on Facebook or wherever? I guarantee that plenty of them, when they logged off and left their house, got into an argument with a friend or family member, or decided to go ruin the day of some poor cashier or waiter, or said some insensitive shit to some random person on the street just because they're ****ed and they take it out on other people. The internet didn't invent people like that, it just gave them a bigger platform.
Log in to comment