Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Being angry from news like this isn't a bad thing. You SHOULD be angry. Why? What are you going to do? Just get high off the dopamine drip fed by social media rage cycles? Angry rants on Twitter? Maybe start a Youtube channel and make a buck or two with banal political essays? Recognize that the news is designed to make you angry because that anger prevents you from taking any form of effective action, it misdirects…
[flagged]
And I couldn't care less. Here, you're just posturing for karma like everyone else.
>Anger doesn't prevent people from taking action or coordinating, that's the purpose of pushing people into basically wage slavery. Bad political actors WANT you to stop having a reaction to the things they do. They WANT you to feel hopeless and helpless. A politically apathetic population is the goal.
The opposite of anger isn't apathy, or feeling hopeless or helpless. Those are more often than not the results of anger. The opposite of anger is reason. Coordination and action only happen once you move past the narratives of anger. You can't do anything about most of what you see on the news, so there's no point in getting angry about it.
Yes, anger doesn't prevent people from taking action, but being angry from the news isn't necessary for that, only caring enough about the issue enough to take action. More often than not anger leads to apathy, hopelessness and helplessness.
>Look at Russia right now. Nobody to rise up and stop literal genocide.
People are losing their lives fighting Russia every day. What the fuck are you talking about?
>A problem is people thinking that lots of anger inducing headlines is not an accurate reflection of reality, but some sort of "bias" or "misleading".
It isn't an accurate reflection of reality. It's not entirely inaccurate but it is always biased and misleading. And the narratives on social media even more so.
But hey, you go ahead and get as angry as you like. I'm sure you'll let us all know when it leads you anywhere.