You ask what the next steps are. Fair question. Here's the reality:
Step one: stop the emotional performance.
Posting outrage, grief, or “Holocaust 2.0” comparisons might make people feel better, but it doesn’t educate, persuade, or change anything. It’s just emotional venting dressed up as activism—like yelling into a void and pretending …
You ask what the next steps are. Fair question. Here's the reality:
Step one: stop the emotional performance.
Posting outrage, grief, or “Holocaust 2.0” comparisons might make people feel better, but it doesn’t educate, persuade, or change anything. It’s just emotional venting dressed up as activism—like yelling into a void and pretending it’s progress.
Most people already know what’s happening. The “silence” is deliberate. Information is one Google search away. What you’re dealing with isn’t ignorance—it’s apathy, shaped by everyday survival. People prioritize rent, heating, food, and their kids over far-off suffering. That doesn’t make them evil—it makes them human.
And telling them they’re bad people for not reacting the “right” way isn’t going to help. It just alienates them further.
You say “shared humanity,” but let’s be honest—most people aren’t wired that way. These abstract ideals collapse under scrutiny. They sound good, but don’t connect to lived experience. That’s why emotionally charged posts don’t scale—they create bubbles, not momentum.
So if you want more people to care, make the case. Use logic. Show how these issues matter in terms that connect with their priorities. Rage-posting and moral appeals don’t move the needle. They just echo inside like-minded circles and burn out.
This isn’t about being cold—it’s about being effective.
You asked me, and I gave the answer. But I’m no rights activist or even a humanitarian, so take it more like a cold analysis.
I would think that you are right to suggest that approach for those people who are only moved by logic, and have no emotional attachment to principles, or other humans, but come on, when was the last time you found yourself surrounded by those types of people? And, unfortunately, some like that are incapable of caring.
There are many who are moved by emotional appeals, and I do not think there is any call to prioritize one method, and group of people, over the other. We need any and all, for whatever reason, to join in trying to end this slaughter.
Now you may assess that this particular group is not the right one for those types you wish to address, and you might be right. Let us know which are the groups with those logical types that we should be talking with. And what is it, we are supposed to ask those folks to do with the information we pass on in that logical fashion? Because if we don't have any suggestions for them to do anything, then what benefit would come from talking with them in that way? Just curious where/what you want this to lead to.
I’m not trying to achieve anything for Palestine. I’ve said before—it’s not even in my top 50 concerns.
I follow what's happening out of curiosity and informational value, not emotional investment. For me, it’s just data—part of a broader pattern of global dysfunction. Gaza is one of several ongoing conflicts. Two people die every second globally, and multiple genocides and ethnic cleansings are unfolding right now.
The people I surround myself with—engineers, CTOs, high-level managers—don’t talk about it. Not because they’re heartless, but because it has zero impact on our lives or work.
There are 20+ international issues with more direct implications for the systems I care about. That’s where my attention goes.
You ask what the next steps are. Fair question. Here's the reality:
Step one: stop the emotional performance.
Posting outrage, grief, or “Holocaust 2.0” comparisons might make people feel better, but it doesn’t educate, persuade, or change anything. It’s just emotional venting dressed up as activism—like yelling into a void and pretending it’s progress.
Most people already know what’s happening. The “silence” is deliberate. Information is one Google search away. What you’re dealing with isn’t ignorance—it’s apathy, shaped by everyday survival. People prioritize rent, heating, food, and their kids over far-off suffering. That doesn’t make them evil—it makes them human.
And telling them they’re bad people for not reacting the “right” way isn’t going to help. It just alienates them further.
You say “shared humanity,” but let’s be honest—most people aren’t wired that way. These abstract ideals collapse under scrutiny. They sound good, but don’t connect to lived experience. That’s why emotionally charged posts don’t scale—they create bubbles, not momentum.
So if you want more people to care, make the case. Use logic. Show how these issues matter in terms that connect with their priorities. Rage-posting and moral appeals don’t move the needle. They just echo inside like-minded circles and burn out.
This isn’t about being cold—it’s about being effective.
You asked me, and I gave the answer. But I’m no rights activist or even a humanitarian, so take it more like a cold analysis.
I would think that you are right to suggest that approach for those people who are only moved by logic, and have no emotional attachment to principles, or other humans, but come on, when was the last time you found yourself surrounded by those types of people? And, unfortunately, some like that are incapable of caring.
There are many who are moved by emotional appeals, and I do not think there is any call to prioritize one method, and group of people, over the other. We need any and all, for whatever reason, to join in trying to end this slaughter.
Now you may assess that this particular group is not the right one for those types you wish to address, and you might be right. Let us know which are the groups with those logical types that we should be talking with. And what is it, we are supposed to ask those folks to do with the information we pass on in that logical fashion? Because if we don't have any suggestions for them to do anything, then what benefit would come from talking with them in that way? Just curious where/what you want this to lead to.
I’m not trying to achieve anything for Palestine. I’ve said before—it’s not even in my top 50 concerns.
I follow what's happening out of curiosity and informational value, not emotional investment. For me, it’s just data—part of a broader pattern of global dysfunction. Gaza is one of several ongoing conflicts. Two people die every second globally, and multiple genocides and ethnic cleansings are unfolding right now.
The people I surround myself with—engineers, CTOs, high-level managers—don’t talk about it. Not because they’re heartless, but because it has zero impact on our lives or work.
There are 20+ international issues with more direct implications for the systems I care about. That’s where my attention goes.
No moral angle. Just priorities.