I think this is a deeply flawed way of looking at the world.
Now, I have talked about Ferguson, and I’ve talked about Gaza. (In fact, I’ve been writing and talking about Israel and Palestine for more than a decade.) But there are many important problems facing the world that I haven’t talked about: I haven’t talked much about the civil war in South Sudan, or the epidemic of suicide among American military personnel, or the persecution of Muslim Rohingya people in Myanmar.
Is that okay? Is it okay for me to talk about, say, racism in football and lowering infant mortality in Ethiopia? Or must we all agree to discuss only whatever is currently the ascendant news story? Is it disrespectful to Ferguson protesters to talk about continued political oppression in Egypt now that we are no longer reblogging images of the protests in Tahrir Square? I think this is a false choice: If you are talking about Ferguson and I am talking about Ethiopian health care, neither of us is hurting the other.
I think the challenge for activists and philanthropists online is in paying sustained attention, not over days or weeks but over years and decades. And I worry that when we turn our attention constantly from one outrage to another we end up not investing the time and work to facilitate actual change. We say “THE WORLD IS WATCHING,” and it is…until it isn’t. We’ve seen this again and again in Gaza and the West Bank. We’re seeing it in Iran. We’re seeing it in South Sudan. And we’re seeing it in the U.S., from net neutrality to Katrina recovery.
The truth is, these problems are complicated, and when the outrage passes we’re left with big and tangled and nuanced problems. I feel that too often that’s when we stop paying attention, because it gets really hard and there’s always a shiny new problem somewhere else that’s merely outrageous. I hope you’re paying attention to Ferguson in five years, anon, and I hope I am, too. I also hope I’m paying attention to child death in Ethiopia. I don’t think these things are mutually exclusive.
I really don’t want to minimize the effectiveness of online activism, because I know that it works: To use a personal example, I’ve learned a TON from the LGBT+ and sexual assault survivor communities in recent years online. People on tumblr make fun of me for apologizing all the time, but I apologize all the time because I am learning all the time, and every day I’m like, “Oh, man, Current Me has realized that Previous Me was so wrong about this!”
But we can only learn when we can listen. And when you call me a hypocrite for talking about X instead of talking about Y, it makes it really hard to listen.
At times, online discourse to me feels like we just sit in a circle screaming at each other until people get their feelings hurt and withdraw from the conversation, which leaves us with ever-smaller echo chambers, until finally we’re left only with those who entirely agree with us. I don’t think that’s how the overall worldwide level of suck gets decreased.
I might be wrong, of course. I often am. But I think we have to find ways to embrace nuance and complexity online. It’s hard—very, very hard—to make the most generous, most accepting, most forgiving assumptions about others. But I also really do think it’s the best way forward.
"One of the most interesting things about Elizabeth Turner was her Kiss of Death. Throughout the trilogy, all of the men she locked lips with has died - including Sao Feng in At World’s End, and (if you want to be petty about it) her father, Weatherby Swann. Usually they would die moments after kissing her for the first time. This excludes Will Turner who has kissed her several times before and beat the odds every time. However, even he succumbed to her kiss and died as well minutes after the two were hastily married by Barbossa.
This is most likely a just coincidence and not something that was intentional, but years later it’s still fun to point out to friends and watch a dawn of realization hit their face when they realize that Pirate Queen Elizabeth may have also been the Grim Reaper.”
i dont give a shit about those kids but who the fuck is that old man
is that elderly bilbo
that IS elderly bilbo
I always wondered who the heck that character is? (I always hoped Hogwarts had more adults watching the hundreds of kids).
I did a Google search and it’s probably either Silvanus Kettleburn (Care of Magical Creatures before Hagrid) or an unnamed professor that they put into the scene to prove that yes, there are more than three teachers at this school, look, we’re responsible and invested in keeping these kids alive sometimes.
Where sometimes is the key word.
when guardians of the galaxy finished and the credits started, a few people got up and started leaving and i said to my dad “this process is what i like to call ‘weeding out the weak’” and the woman in front of me heard me and laughed so hard she choked on her drink
do not think about your crush in an old sweatshirt with scruffy hair and a sleepy smile ok dont think about them humming to themselves as they make breakfast in this attire ok dont think about how the light hits them as they sit down across from you and eat breakfast ok just dONT
|thor:||f is for friends who do stuff together|
|thor:||u is for you and me|
|thor:||n is for anywhere at any time at all HERE IN THE GOLD CITY|
|loki:||..f is for FIRE that burns down the whole town|
|loki:||u is for uranium (PATHETIC HUMAN BOMBS)|
|loki:||n is for NO SURVIVORS, WHEN I|
|thor:||LOKI THAT'S NOT WHAT FUN IS ABOUT|