Let’s pretend, for a moment, that you are a 22-year-old college student in Kampala, Uganda. You’re sitting in class and discreetly scrolling through Facebook on your phone. You see that there has been another mass shooting in America, this time in a place called San Bernardino. You’ve never heard of it. You’ve never been to America. But you’ve certainly heard a lot about gun violence in the U.S. It seems like a new mass shooting happens every week.
You wonder if you could go there and get stricter gun legislation passed. You’d be a hero to the American people, a problem-solver, a lifesaver. How hard could it be? Maybe there’s a fellowship for high-minded people like you to go to America after college and train as social entrepreneurs. You could start the nonprofit organization that ends mass shootings, maybe even win a humanitarian award by the time you are 30.
Sound hopelessly naïve? Maybe even a little deluded? It is. And yet, it’s not much different from how too many Americans think about social change in the “Global South.”
If you asked a 22-year-old American about gun control in this country, she would probably tell you that it’s a lot more complicated than taking some workshops on social entrepreneurship and starting a non-profit. She might tell her counterpart from Kampala about the intractable nature of our legislative branch, the long history of gun culture in this country and its passionate defenders, the complexity of mental illness and its treatment. She would perhaps mention the added complication of agitating for change as an outsider.
But if you ask that same 22-year-old American about some of the most pressing problems in a place like Uganda — rural hunger or girl’s secondary education or homophobia — she might see them as solvable. Maybe even easily solvable.
I’ve begun to think about this trend as the reductive seduction of other people’s problems. It’s not malicious. In many ways, it’s psychologically defensible; we don’t know what we don’t know.
If you’re young, privileged, and interested in creating a life of meaning, of course you’d be attracted to solving problems that seem urgent and readily solvable. Of course you’d want to apply for prestigious fellowships that mark you as an ambitious altruist among your peers. Of course you’d want to fly on planes to exotic locations with, importantly, exotic problems.
There is a whole “industry” set up to nurture these desires and delusions — most notably, the 1.5 million nonprofit organizations registered in the U.S., many of them focused on helping people abroad. In other words, the young American ego doesn’t appear in a vacuum. Its hubris is encouraged through job and internship opportunities, conferences galore, and cultural propaganda — encompassed so fully in the patronizing, dangerously simple phrase “save the world.”

“The Reductive Seduction of Other People’s Problems” by Courtney Martin

 

(via dietcokebisexual)

Capitalism can’t save the world, but it can simulate the experience and sell it to you.

(via newwavenova)

this is making me go “have you heard the good news about effective altruism?”

(via ozymandias271)

I have a terrible feeling about this.

*waits, with sense of impending doom, for the parts of my dash reblogging this quote to agree with it and the parts reblogging it to oppose it to find each other*


Tags:

#…and I may have just sped up the process or even made it more likely by posting this #at least there’s the possibility it will be a productive argument? #*sighs* #*curls into ball* #effective altruism

People who oppose the use of screens aren’t trying to silence disabled people. The problem is that they aren’t thinking about us at all. When confronted with what smartphones can do for disabled people, anti-screen folks will claim that they are not talking about us. The thing is, when they look at a café and see people using their phones, there is no way to distinguish between the people who use phones as disability aids and people who just happen to find speaking through social media a perfectly adequate or even preferable mode of communication. A false hierarchy is formed, and of course, the ways some disabled people speak is at the bottom of it.

By idealizing inflexible, narrow definitions of communication, we are dehumanizing the people who don’t make eye contact, the people who don’t speak. Social media just gives us more socially acceptable and normalized options for communication. A world where people are “glued to their screens” is a world where I and others can more easily exist, succeed and be happy. Stop telling strangers you pass on the street to “look up.”

Screen Backlash is a Disability Issue
(via digoldenepave)

It also is so hugely helpful for those of us who are too ill to go out and have an active public social life. 

(via hermionxjean)


Tags:

#(oh right I never actually reblogged this) #(fixing that now) #yes this #that excuse for communication called speech

sinesalvatorem:

If I wrestled a black bear to protect a moose sanctuary while drinking maple syrup from a bottle made of recycled plastic, maybe then Canada would think I was patriotic enough that they’d let me stay.

Me talkin aboot patriotism, eh.

*Also there should be a Zamboni involved.

(A person I once knew said to me after we watched a Zamboni doing its rounds “You’ve watched a Zamboni clean a rink! Now you’re a real Canadian!”)


Tags:

#anything that makes me laugh this much deserves a reblog #reply via reblog #our home and cherished land

sinesalvatorem:

Oh, crud. I just had an idea where this is going. You’re going to start a holy war, take one of the boats and go to Europe, and apply for asylum on the basis of there being a holy war in [your country].

Ilzolende, when I suggested I might be charismatic enough to start a holy war. For the record, neither of us endorse holy wars.

Tags:

#anything that makes me laugh this much deserves a reblog