> Have you read the rest?
Regrettably yes, I did. It was a waste of time.
> You think you show much hearing on this side?
Yes.
> In front of what is happening in Nepal and elsewhere, the reduction of the matter to "oh a break from social media is healthy" is neither on point nor constructive - very simple.
I understand that that's your position. Would have been pretty hard to miss. I just feel otherwise. I'd think that's been hard to miss too.
> The constructive part you meant to convey, I still do not get.
That's regrettable. Unfortunately, you've spent all the empathy I had for you regarding this, so that's something you'll need to reflect on on your own terms if you want to figure it out.
> Apart from the one I pointed to
No, including that one, as that isn't one.
> because you clearly do not seem to get it
I'm not responsible for empathizing with myself on your behalf. I very clearly do get it, which you'd be able to appreciate, if you bothered to even consider its possibility.
> I hope you have seen the frontpage now, "14 Killed in protests in Nepal over social media ban"
I have not. Nepal is not what my world revolves around, and I've been working all day.
Not sure that's the most appropriate way to mention that by the way, you almost sound excited for it, as if those 14 people having deceased now lets you "prove" your point. Would be pretty dishonest and inciteful to frame it this way, right? Then why are you doing it to others?
> over social media ban" - which, as already a number of posts reveal, is not about social media
Can you be bothered to restrain yourself from encoding your conviction into every sentence supposedly meant to persuade? It's like announcing the decision before the trial.
It'd go an awful long way in at least making it appear like you actually wanted to persuade someone, rather than just talk about how hurt you feel and expecting to be finally heard for it by magical happenstance.
I get it, you think I should be treating this as if children were dying, as if there was a famine, whatever. I don't want to. I think that's beyond asinine and pointless. It can still be, and is, serious despite this, it's not a race. It can even escalate. It's also not just a single modality, things can be serious in different ways. Would be awfully cool if I didn't need to wade through your loaded sentences to be graciously allowed to have my own position, and not be portrayed as some heartless asshole for it.
> The benefits of your "abstinence" have little to do with this.
I disagree. Not sure how your insistence that we were being insensitive, and how that means we shouldn't have shared these things, helps these folks though.
By the way, you do recognize just how utterly ironic is it to campaign for us not to talk about something in a thread about censorship, right? I restrained myself from mentioning it so far, as a way to show some solidarity. But it's clearly not being appreciated, so fuck it.
Edit: I have since read the news on the unrest in Nepal. It did way more to contextualize this and why my comment might have been insensitive and misguided than this "discussion" ever could have. Turns out, mentioning that the place is volatile and despotic would have been pretty key info. It's still extremely hindsight heavy though. Like do you have even the remotest concept just how similar this news was in this thread to many many others before it? Where the place wasn't so unabashedly authoritarian that police is licensed to fire live ammo at citizens, and didn't result in an unrest and death? So far removed in perspective, no shit I didn't have a clue why you are making a scene! If this is you "raising awareness", there's a LOT you should improve on, holy shit.