Anonymous #1 1d

that’s evidence for why regulating your nervous system matters, not for why detachment is justified. if everyone reasoned ‘i’d rather not know,’ nobody’s suffering ever gets addressed by anybody, which is the actual problem with universalizing that stance. balance makes sense; opting all the way out doesn’t. especially for people who have the privilege to opt out sustainably in the first place.

1

Anonymous #3 1d

i think detachment is being aware of the situation while not letting it affect you that much because if your nervous system is dysregulated that makes you less equipped to help

1

Anonymous #3 22h

NTA. It’s not your job to deal with everyone else’s issues at the risk of your own mental health, especially if there’s nothing you can really do to fix the problem.

8

Anonymous #3 22h

I actually think it’s privileged to think that everyone needs to know everything at all times. People (especially those working multiple jobs) quite literally don’t have the time for that. Getting accurate information requires fact checking, understanding context… especially now that the media is so polarized

10

Anonymous #5 47m

Rhetoric like that gets on my nerves. The OP didn’t say anything about being white, straight, or male! What privilege YOU must have to have the time to not only be completely informed on absolutely everything while also having time to fact check and make sure everything you see is actually true, but to be mentally okay enough to deal with all of it! Have you ever thought some people (Like those who have been SA’d) purposely choose to not know what kind of vile shit comes out of Trump’s mouth…

0

Anonymous #4 45m

Knowing everything at all times may be fine for you (although I’m willing to bet even your virtue signaling self doesn’t know EVERYTHING), but other people have completely VALID reasons for wanting to not know, and calling them privileged is unbelievably disrespectful.

1

Anonymous #4 24m

Being human toward others’ struggles doesn’t require you to “risk your mental health” or become an expert in their suffering. Most people already have that covered. Demanding fact-checked, context-verified information before you’ll trust someone’s account of their own experience is a very Cartesian move, treating testimony like it needs independent proof before it counts as knowledge. That’s not the same as knowing everything, and it’s not the same as fully detaching either. Kinda the asshole.

0

Anonymous #4 20m

#5 never said OP was white, straight, or male. Those were examples of what ‘privileged’ can look like, not an accusation against OP specifically. You’re arguing against a claim nobody made. The actual point stands: not needing to know something because it doesn’t affect you is a privilege, whether or not it happens to apply to OP. That’s not disrespectful, it’s just what the word means.

0

Anonymous #3 12m

Quick example of what I mean bc no I’m not talking about fact checking someone’s testimony 😒. Remember October 7th? Without context, I would have been on Israel’s side. (it would have looked like HAMAS attacked innocent people for no reason.) Obviously, that’s not what happened, which I needed CONTEXT to figure out.

1

Anonymous #3 4m

And yes, anyone who blindly believes what they see on the news or social media (that’s obviously not just someone saying what happened to them) is an idiot.

1

Anonymous #4 3m

That’s a different situation. Believing someone’s account of their own suffering isn’t the same as weighing competing narratives in a geopolitical conflict where multiple sides make claims about each other. Context matters for adjudicating conflicting accounts, nobody said otherwise. It doesn’t require distrusting someone’s testimony about their own pain before it counts. Those are two different epistemic problems, and conflating them is why this thread keeps talking past itself.

0