This assertions along the lines of "it's a privilege to be able to be politically disengaged" is just an empty slogan weaponizing empathy to guilt whoever it's directed at towards supporting your political leaning.

It's also a privilege to be able to be politically engaged. Both ways of being are completely protected and legal (in America at least). And both privileges are available to all - even the disadvantaged groups that the slogan implies must be politically engaged for their own survival. It would probably serve their self interest to be more engaged, sure, but in reality they still have the choice. The ethical standard of mandatory political engagement that you're appealing to is not universally recognized or enforced. And if you think of places/times where that ethic of mandatory political life is or was enforced, do you really want to be like that?

I think the idea is that if you are privileged enough to have the time to be politically engaged, you are morally obligated to use that privilege to make society more just. Failing to do so is a moral failure. Note that this perspective could be equally applied regardless of other frames of reference, e.g. it could equally mean you feel obligated to advocate for UBI or lower taxes, whatever you think would make the biggest difference.

"is just an empty slogan weaponizing empathy to guilt whoever it's directed at towards supporting your political leaning."

What a wildly defensive response to something that wasn't even directed at you. Or maybe YOU think it was and believe it, which is why you got defensive.

See, If you are rich you don't need to worry about issues that impact the poor. If you are white you don't need to worry about issues that impact blacks. If you are a man you don't need to worry about issues that impact women. If you are straight, you don't need to worry about issues that affect gays.

Sensing a pattern?

I'm criticizing the assertion on it's logical merits (or lack thereof). You're ignoring the substance of my critique, and making a borderline ad-hominem attack on me, including attempting to guilt me for my presumed identity. So yea, I'm sensing a pattern...

> You're ignoring the substance of my critique

"Substance" is being mighty generous. It was more like a temper tantrum than a critique. Shall we review?

You started with:

"...an empty slogan weaponizing empathy to guilt whoever it's directed at towards supporting your political leaning."

Wow, that's quite a claim. Let's see how you back it up...

Oh wait, you didn't. You simply state "both sides are good people" in not so many words. Sure, it is an explanation, but HARDLY a logical explanation.

And then you ended with this gem:

"And if you think of places/times where that ethic of mandatory political life is or was enforced, do you really want to be like that?"

Your fallacious ethical balancing act completely ignores the substance of privilege, you simply choose to ignore the concept! Way to dodge the issue.

Whereas I gave concrete examples as to why it is a privilege to be disengaged.

So spare me your bleeding-heart puling about "weaponization" of truth. It is people like you who hide behind "logic" yet fail to actually use it that are the problem.

If something goes seriously wrong I will hear it via word of mouth. I would also notice something change in stock prices, gas prices, and many other vital signs of the hyper-connected global economy that I interact with every day. I guess if everyone I ever talk to follows me in quitting the news, I will consider checking it occasionally.

I don't watch the news. Stopped 4 years ago.

If something is important enough, someone within my circle will inform me of it.

Most things on the news is terrible for you, why? Because the majority of stuff you can't actually action and your brain processes it as a threat I.e war in the middle east.

Think globally, act locally.

What degree of practical responsibility does a person in Brazil have for something bad happening to someone in Sierra Leone?

Abstaining from frequent infotainment aka "news" does not equate to being ignorant of important things happening in the world, nor does it equate to abdicating responsibility for all the things you can practically influence.

> What degree of practical responsibility does a person in Brazil have for something bad happening to someone in Sierra Leone?

That's a great example. The hypothetical Brazilian could vote for a politician that does not promote burning the rainforest [1], which contributes to the negative effects of climate change on the people of Sierra Leone [2]

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-49450925

[2] https://www.sl.undp.org/content/sierraleone/en/home/presscen...

How does abstaining from watching the news prevent someone from being able to vote for a politician that claims to care about climate change?

How would you know about the issues if you abstained from the news?

I see these discussions play out all the time: one person says "my life is better since I stopped paying attention to mainstream news"; others indignantly respond with things like "how privileged you must be to not have to care what's going on in the world", and "how will you be able to make good decisions on who to vote for?".

This line of argument conveniently sidesteps the question of whether mainstream news is the best way to find out what is going on in the world or learn about electoral candidates.

It can be reasonably argued that allowing one's self to be influenced (or, manipulated) by mainstream news is likely more of a hindrance than a help in making good decisions or taking meaningful action to improve the world or support/elect good candidates.

By avoiding the day-to-day barrage, one is better able to focus their attention and energy on things that are important and impactful.

There are plenty of ways to learn about what is going on in the world and find out about electoral candidates, outside the corporate media circus.

Go to that candidate's website. Read books about them. Check their voting record.

It's far from complete ignorant bliss, things aren't that black and white.

Another commenter said I would have missed the nationalist party in germany starting to harass jews if I didn't watch the news. My reply below:

I'm pretty sure I would hear about kids breaking shop owners windows for being of a certain cultural origin. Even without checking the news.

Like I said, some news manages to filter through to me. And it's often completely pointless.

For example Youtube sometimes recommends news from my country to me, even if I never watch it. in 2019 I can remember them recommending news about some missing girl up north. But I had to hear from my friends about a handicapped guy who was shot 25 times by the police for playing with a toy gun. They didn't recommend that one.

I do vote btw. Since I don't consider myself capable of keeping up with politics I vote with my instincts, as most others. I either vote for the social democrats/left or the green party.

I don't fuss over details or little missteps they might have done. I believe the green party has the right direction and their voice needs to be stronger in parliament. Equally I believe the left still cares about workers rights and unions.

Complete ignorance is the conclusion of that line of thinking. The fact that this person hears "some" news is only an unfortunate consequence of existing in a world with other people. If they could they would remove that from their lives too so they could be even happier.

Complete ignorance was the premise of my remark so it doesn't really make sense to say it's far from complete ignorance.