Log In or Create Account
Tama_Yoshi82~2Y
The bit about learned helplessness, or just general pessimism about the ability to "change things", is relatable. I've talked to a lot of people who feel this way (not necessarily about the Ukraine situation, but about whatever political matter relevant at the time). It's an odd dynamic, because firstly helplessness and inaction are obviously not mindsets to nurture if you want to make "the people" more involved. On the other, you don't want to push people who don't have the mental energy to get involved. And then there's this whole question of what it does to have hope, whether it's good or bad, sets you up for failure, or instead gives you something to hang on to (hope is notably different from having the ability to change things). My feeling is that hope is generally good, as long as it's "grounded," but "grounded" is tricky, since different people will fill in the details differently.

I don't consider myself someone with the energy, or personality, to "get involved", unless you include "the conversation" as a part of getting involved. That I can definitely take part in. My girlfriend is vegan, and she involved me in a protest to shut down slaughterhouses locally. Nothing massive, but it was something. I don't think I chanted anything, even though the protestors were; it just felt like something other people do, but not me. It was odd.

Overall, my experience with my girlfriend's vegan group is overwhelmingly positive, though, because it means I can see people who share interests, and have "a conversation" with them (it wasn't during the protest, in case you were wondering). What's great about politics is that given enough depth, it becomes fairly all encompassing, and you can start talking about most things, including stuff like emotional intelligence, ostracization, introverts and the difficulty for socially excluded men to integrate. Most feminists, vegans, person-of-color's rights activists, etc. I've seen were generally in agreement about these kinds of stuff; there's an underlying idea that having empathy for one group increases your odds of having empathy for others (except for those who seem to act out an aggressive empathy out of a traumatic reaction, or something; how could I, a white cis-het man, have anything to say about anything?!?!).

I'm not sure this is insightful. My experience is that the sense of community that arises from certain political matters is quite strong. Communities are good at "grounding" yourself, better than random reddits or content creators. It's difficult to ground yourself on a new and ongoing conflict (esp. the Ukrainian conflict, which is a kind of a mess in terms of signaling) if you only ever read up on it; reading a post or blog written by someone is quite different from seeing them expressing themselves in a live format (or irl). I like discord at least for that reason. Or maybe it's because I'm a fast typer (it gives an edge).

God there are a lot of parentheses in this. It's difficult not to be scattershot since this encompasses so many things. Another reason why I prefer live conversations. The conversation would've driven the topic. The topic would have been shifty, but at least it would not have been my fault entirely. OH WELL. It doesn't help that the complexity of these conversations imply that a meaningful disconnect will have happened by the first paragraph, whereas I'm down here writing a fifth. It must be hard writing large blog posts about your emotional state to people you don't even know... O_o I'm struggling now and I at least know who I'm writing to (without being pedantic about the definition of "know" here -- ANOTHER PARENTHESIS).
1