Over the weekend I enjoyed a spirited discussion with Cassel concerning the value of news, and I think it would be interesting to get the rest of you dudes in on it.
The conversation started when I mentioned that I was considering going to grad school for journalism, a pursuit I consider noble and important. It’s long been my belief that as living, thinking and functioning members of society, as well as active participants in history, it’s our responsibility (and right) to be socially aware. To this end I’ve made a concerted effort over the last several years to become a tireless consumer of current events, scouring multiple sources daily to educate myself on global injustices, government processes and notable figures. I often find myself lost in a world of bylines and inverse triangle story structure, breaking news and continually updated feeds scrolling across the bottom of my computer screen. At times I become irritable, too busy inhaling policy discussions and opinion polls to take a minute to breath. Too distraught by death and tragedy to live my life in the here and now. And when people around me are oblivious to the world and don’t see the harm in their ignorance, I’m disgusted.
It boils down to this: the news makes me a pessimist. Politicians are lying snakes. People in general are cruel, bigoted, and irredeemable. We’re all fated to die by war or murder or natural disaster or reliance on foreign oil. Every corner of the globe is rife with hatred, greed, jealousy, rage and violence. And I’m in Minnesota, living my life, not saving the world, and too powerless to know where to begin.
Awareness of mass injustices that I can do nothing about only raises my awareness that the world may be utterly hopeless. My righteous indignation, diluted as it sprinkles over the planet, doesn’t save lives, doesn’t right wrongs, doesn’t change the hearts of the oppressors or lift the spirits of the oppressed. My skepticism over the validity of even “just wars” will never end war (I read somewhere that in 3500 years of civilization there have been a mere 230 years of peace). I fill myself with stories of wrongs that I can’t right, that have no outlet. My outrage is internalized, and I fear I may one day explode. I’m like Mr. Furious from the movie Mystery Men (obscure reference alert).
Thus I arrive at this proposition: perhaps ignorance truly is bliss.
What do you think?
Thanks for reading.
February Zizzle-Zot Reader of the Month
Congrats, Kevan "K-Han" Hanson!
November Zizzle-Zot Reader of the Month
Conratulations, Thomas "Mr. Antagonist" Helgen!
October Zizzle-Zot Reader of the Month
Congratulations Jake "Swajac" Swanson!
September Zizzle-Zot Reader of the Month
Congratulations, Drew "Werd Yelof" Foley!
August Zizzle-Zot Reader of the Month
Congratulations Christopher "I log on while I get my Late Night log on" Casselman!
July Zizzle-Zot Reader of the Month
Congratulations Joe "Joey" Ritchie!
June Zizzle-Zot Reader of the Month
Congratulations Patrick "P Corcs" Corcoran!
Zizzle-Zotians' Favorite Actress
You all couldn't make up your minds, so at the request of Joey I give you Jessica Alba!
Zizzle-Zotians' Favorite Actor
Johnny Depp, you've got the chops.
Zizzle-Zotians Think You're Bad at Acting
Paul Walker, you stink! (Vin Diesel, you're no prize, either).
Zizzle-Zotians' Favorite Board Game
Zizzle-Zotians' Favorite Superhero Team: It's a Tie!
Zizzle-Zotians' Favorite '90s Sitcom
Congratulations, Friends!
Zizzle-Zotians' Favorite '90s Nickelodeon Show
Zizzle-Zotians' Favorite Cereal
9 comments:
I'm a pretty ignorant guy I guess. I skim over Google News a couple times each day to look for articles that catch my eye, but I find myself mainly interested in the entertainment, sports and technology sections. It is a sad statement that I rarely read about world events or governmental issues (I've followed the primary madness, but nothing internationally).
This is probably the reason that the news doesn't make me anry or pessimistic. I usually read for entertainment rather than education. I tend to focus on my own little world and making it better, and don't usually pay much attention to the bigger picture or events outside of my circle of influence. Of course there are exceptions, but it takes something pretty severe for me to pay close attention or to really search out more information.
Yes, I am probably the most ignorant Zizzle Zotian here. I'm a bit ashamed to admit it, but what I'm trying to say is that I'm ignorant and I'm happy. I'll happily keep donating to groups like the Children's Miracle Network and American Idol gives back, and feel that I am helping out. My view is that I'm probably never going to understand the world, so I'll just contribute to the few causes thrown in front of me and leave it at that. Ignorant? Yes. Mad that I'm not going to change the world? No.
I think ignorance may be bliss. It's not right, and I wish I had a more philanthropic attitude, but I guess that's me. Maybe someday I'll change.
I feel like an asshole right now
Grubs,
Great post buddy.
I have to say that i would land more on the side of the fence with K-han. I am for the most part ignorant to a lot of the world issues, politics, etc. I am ignorant for reasons such as not really caring, not interested in putting in the time, and the feeling that even if i care what difference will i actually make.
I tend to shy away from media sources throughout the day. I listen to the radio for music and my ipod in the car. I watch shows on MTV, ESPN and the movie channels in the evenings. And when i'm at work i use my lunch to check up on the current events on tmz.com.
Some people probably think i'm wasting my time with the above mentioned, but i beg to differ. Most people i know that listen to talk radio and watch news channels on a constant basis are always arguing about current events. They get all bottled up about the other people’s perspectives that don't coincide with their own and they are always ready to pounce on the first person that goes against their beliefs. I sometimes try to listen to talk radio when driving with my brother, but every time I do I just get pissed and start to feel sad about what’s going on in the world.
I would say that ignorance may not be bliss, but ignorance sure seems to help for myself. I don't think there is anything wrong with caring about current events and politics like many of you guys do. Some days I wish I cared more about politics and current events, but I just can’t seem to swing that way, so for now I’ll just have to be ignorant with K-Han!
As for the local news, the only time you’ll catch me watching it is when either Sven or Perk Daddy is on…yippy yahoo!
PS Anyone know whatever happened to Ms. Bliss? I hope she's ok, wherever she is!
A quotation from Dr. King came to mind after Zot and I's conversation that applies here, especially in light of the comments from that Cutey Joey Ritchie and All Night K-Han....
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it."
By giving this quotation I am not laying a guilt trip on anyone. I am not calling anyone a careless asshole.
I do mean to produce a dialogue about what it is that we can actually do about the evil in the world. Does knowing evil exists and not doing anything to protest it make us perpetrators? How does knowing current events relate to our passive acceptance of evil?
I think we all know that evil exists in this world, and it is a global phenomenon as Zot pointed out. But is it so huge and grotesque that we should simply abandon protesting it?
I argue that if we wholly abandon fighting evil, we are perpetrators. I don't mean to say that we have to "fix the world". But I do think it is our duty as human beings to do something.
Dr. King seems to make it black and white. Either you are on the side of good, or you are on the side of evil: and passivity is simply on the side of evil. I agree with Dr. King. There is no grey area. One cannot say "I am on the side of good" but do nothing to promote good. But in simply allowing evil to manifest, one has to admit that they are simply ok with evil.
I think in many cases (especially the one's in current events), there is a powerlessness factor involved in the reason one does not boldy eradicate evil.
For instance: Let's say that Joey hears of child soldiers in Africa on the news. He is not being passive in not going to help. We cannot expect Joey to abandon his wife Monica to go freedom fight in Africa. But we can expect Joey to do something in his context for betterment of the world. (I think it needs to be a global effort) This, I argue, would put Joey on the side of good. But if he did absolutely nothing, using Dr. King's rhetoric, Joey would be on the side of evil. (thanks for being my example Joey. Yoo so coot).
Thoughts?
Excellent posts made by all. What a great topic for conversation. I really appreciate the honesty of everyone commenting. Gruber... I obviously think journalism would be a great direction for you. You have a real gift... pursue my man!
K-han. The fact that you merely skim Google news and donate to ANY charity tells me that you are probably less ignorant than the vast majority of Americans. I would consider your efforts far better than those who claim to be very aware of the problems in the world and continue to do nothing.
I too try to keep up with the world news section on CNN. However, at times I just don't because I know that the section will only make me depressed. Is it so bad that we find more pleasure reading about entertainment and sports? Isn't it more human for us to want to read about things that lift us up... rather than put us down? And to bring the "ignorance is bliss" perspective into the conversation... maybe if we choose not to hear about such evil in the world, we won't have to be on the side of evil by not acting upon it.
So... Chris' input... a reaction. What does it mean to "protest against evil"? Does this mean we must act against it, or just disagree. I mean... does the fact that I sit here on my couch disagreeing with the genocide in Darfur separate me from evil? Must I carry a sign in front of the capitol building? Should I go to Darfur? And... If I do find myself acting in Darfur, am I now on the side of evil sex-trafficing in Thailand because I'm not protesting that? How can I separate myself from ALL the evil in the world?
And what do we do about situations like Myanmar's refusal to accept aid from western powers? How can we really help the earthquake victims in the Sichuan Province in China? ...I've come to feel that we shouldn't. Hear me out... We need to do what we can, where we are, to influence the world to change. One person can't change the world. One person CAN influence the world to change itself.
Ok... Chris... Here's another thing about that MLK quote. Isn't it a huge justification for the war in Iraq? Knowing you as someone who is anti-war, that was the first thing that came to my mind. As Groobs brought to our attention in the early beginnings of this blog, there was some serious evil going on in Iraq under Sadaam. Was Bush correct in ending that evil by choosing not to sit and do nothing? Hmmmmm...
I think I had more to say but I think this is enough for now...
PS... How hilarious that you cited Mr. Furious from Mystery Men. He has the power of getting.... really... ANGRY!
Torpelshnorps-
You had questions, and I have answers. First I wanna say that I wanna be on you. Now to the answers...
1)By "protesting evil," I think Dr. King meant acting against it. Simply disagreeing with evil, Dr. King would assert, means nothing if it doesn't invoke action. He would probably accuse one who disagreed but did nothing of perpetration.
I would agree with him. But let me qualify thatinmy second point.
2)As you gave many instances where one couldn't do anything about the evil, I gave the Joey anecdote at the end of my post. I said, "We cannot expect Joey to abandon his wife Monica to go freedom fight in Africa. But we can expect Joey to do something in his context for betterment of the world."
To clear up some ambiguity, I would argue that instances of evil are simply segments to a collective Evil. Yes there are different forms (Sex-trafficking, child soldiers, genocide, stealing candy etc.) but they all add to the collective whole of evil.
Therefore, Joey cannot fight all instances evil, but he fights some, and is thus siding with the collective Good, and moreover, protesting against evil.
3) Last: You asked if the Dr. King quote was an excuse for war-mongering. It's actually the opposite. Dr. King goes down in history as the champion and martyr for the Non-violent resistance movement in the American Civil Rights 60's. He taught 'resistance', but absolutely positively never in the form of violence. He was a pacifist. He was also an integral protester against the Vietnam War.
So if someone used that quotation to justify war, they're a serious boob. (Thanks Zot for the term "boob")
Cool cool... that's what I thought you meant. I agree... just wanted to make sure it was clear.
And I know the MLK was all about the non-violence. Heck... so was Gandhi... and so was my man Jesus. They semed to be pretty influential on world betterment. I'm very much a non-violence fan myself.
It just really makes me wonder how easy it would have been to end Sadaam's tyrannical totalitarianism without using force. It's been something that has really been on my mind a lot about Op. Iraqi Freedom. I'm so wishy-washy about the whole situation... what y'all think?
Let's say you are on a sightseeing vacation in North Korea with you're wife and the puppy you just bought together. You are snapping some pictures of Kim Jung Il's palace when you notice that little Dwight (that's the name of the dog) is pinching a loaf on the lawn of the supreme leader's abode.
Kim Jung Il descends upon you from the palace steps, irate, and gives you one of two options: either you must kick your puppy, or he will unleash his nuclear arsenal upon your homeland.
Surely kicking a puppy is evil, but is nuclear war not more evil? What are you to do? Dropkick Dwight? Or passively accept the nuclear holocaust?
Obviously an absurd example, but what I'm getting at is this: are there degrees of evil? At times, aren't we left with a choice between two evils, and forced to discern which is the lesser? (this is certainly the case in most elections)
If I support the war in Iraq I’m condoning the evil of war. But by protesting the war in Iraq, am I not passively condoning the evils inflicted upon millions of innocents by the Saddam regime (and the various militias that have arisen in its wake)? If I’m downtown one night, armed with a 9 mm, and stumble upon a rapist in the act, do I shoot the rapist? I would be inflicting harm upon another human being (certainly an evil), but the alternative is certainly more evil. So to ask again: do I shoot the rapist? You’re damn right.
I would love nothing more than to call myself a pacifist, but I can’t convince myself that nonviolence is a viable option in all circumstances. Dr. King’s nonviolent resistance to the Vietnam War initiated a tremendous movement and important dialogue, but the fact remains that he died in 1968 and we were in Vietnam until 1973. Gandhi’s nonviolence unified the people of India, and was certainly a thorn in Britain’s side, but I suspect India was granted independence largely because Britain was weak after World War II and in no position to maintain a colony of India’s size.
Part of me believes that when it comes to ruthless, delusional world leaders, pacifism often times amounts to little more than passivism.
Thoughts?
Zoddler- (that's what we will call Zot's kid when he or she is a toddler!)
You bring up such a dilemma! I've heard it said that, being a pacifist means pacifying the greatest amount of evil in the world and using violence can pacify a greater instance of violence. I think you have illustrated this point with your puppy-kicking example.
I am dealing with this issue with Jesus' stance in the gospels as a primary source for my ethic. So I will deal with Christian pacifism as a theology rather than pacifism simply as an ideology.
This dilemma has been one of the themes of my Fuller career. What do we do about the fact that Jesus, in the gospels promotes non-violent resistance in the world, while it seems that if we do what Jesus did, we might enable evil, rather than pacify it. I think what it comes down to is this. (Now I'm speaking from a Christian worldview)
Either we do exactly what Jesus did, and be committed to non-violence as an exhaustive rule.
Or we say, non-violence worked in Jesus' context, but our global community with genocide and nuclear weapons is different, so our methods must be different. Honestly, I see validity in both theologies.
I will say that the overarching agenda of a Christian, regardless of the stance, must be encompassed by a will to free people of oppression, and work towards justice. This is the overarching theme and concern of the Bible.
In all this, I think we can maintain both a Humanist and Christian decency, by committing to violence as an absolutely last resort. I would accuse humanity of not enacting this general rule. And I would moreover accuse the US of this in our context.
Time to Rant:
If we can agree that violence should be a last resort regardless of religious conviction (If you promote Just War Theory you agree with this), then why does the US continue to refuse to speak with leaders (and Tyrants) of other countries before going to war? Why do we choose violence over communication? I ask this as a rhetorical question? I'm hoping for a response.
Where P-corcs at?
Post a Comment