I don't have outrage fatigue. Outrages are outrages and they are what they are. Are there many exaggerations and fake outrages? Sure. But things like the USA's current constitutional crisis are real.
What I struggle with isn't fatigue at outrage, it's knowing what to do about it.
I think violence is going to become more common, but I don't particularly think it will be effective.
So less so than outrage, it's the feeling that we're trapped in a real life doom loop with no clear off ramp that I struggle with.
I decided that other people are far more organized than I am and can respond more effectively, so I'm outsourcing political action in the form of donations. I've earmarked 3% of my income every month for a list of selected charities that currently includes the ACLU, the HRC, and a short list of smaller ones.
> I've earmarked 3% of my income every month for a list of selected charities that currently includes the ACLU, the HRC, and a short list of smaller ones.
I don't think that's a good investment, considering how badly those organizations failed in order to bring us to today.
Democracy Forward has brought many of the lawsuits against the president’s executive overreach IIRC. Democracy Docket has had a lot of success protecting voting rights.
By successfully pressuring Democratic politicians like Kamala Harris to publicly adopt progressive positions that are unpopular, but highly favored by the kind of people who donate to and operate organizations like the ACLU.
For example, the (unfortunately very successful) Trump ad “Harris is for they/them, Trump is for you” ultimately originates with the ACLU. In 2019 they successfully got Harris to pledge government funding for gender affirming care for people in e.g. immigration detention [1]. It is totally insane that the ACLU thought it was important and worthwhile to get a pledge on this edge case. In general this advocacy was way out of touch with the country at large, has totally backfired, and now landed us with an anti-trans administration.
I really disagree with the premise that Kamala acted "too progressive"...it sounds a little bit ridiculous to even say. The Trump campaign effectively made a mountain out of a molehill, and if it weren't for this molehill, he would have used another, or fabricated one.
Is your claim seriously that Kamala Harris's image on cultural issues like trans rights did not harm her election campaign? One of Trump's most successful campaign ads was the one that included her talking about government-funded gender affirming care for people in prison. It even has its own Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_is_for_they/them). The fact that this stuff started in 2019 that she won as VP in 2020 is irrelevant; it _clearly_ was an issue in the 2024 that hurt her.
But that's just one example of many. There's also, say, Biden's handling of the border. Even though in 2022 it was clearly deeply unpopular and playing right into Trump's reelection campaign, he didn't change course (until too late) because of pressure from groups like the ACLU.
Overall, IMO one of the biggest factors in Trump's reelection is that the left and the center-left _talked_ about Trump being a big problem, but were unwilling to actually alter their policies or behavior or messaging to broaden their appeal and ensure Trump lost.
But when Democrats did change course they were blocked because Trump explicitly said Democrats passing something on the issue would hurt his election chances:
> In February 2024 and again in May 2024, Republicans in the Senate blocked a bipartisan border security bill Biden had pushed for to reduce the number of migrants who can claim asylum at the border and provide more money for Customs and Border Protection officials, asylum officers, immigration judges and scanning technology at the border.[79] It also provided for thousands of work visas for migrant spouses of U.S. citizens awaiting immigrant visas, and 250,000 new visas over five years for people seeking to work in the U.S. or join family members.[80] It was negotiated in a bipartisan manner and initially looked like it had the votes to pass until Donald Trump opposed it, citing that it would boost Biden's reelection chances.
I agree that Trump's move was very bad, but we know that Biden didn't need a new law to "fix" the situation at the border. After Trump blocked that law, Biden made the executive order that for years he claimed he couldn't make, and then the situation at the border got "better". If Biden had instead made that executive order in, say, Fall 2022, there's a good chance that the situation at the border would not have been as salient in 2024 and Trump wouldn't have been elected. (Or, if Trump was still elected, he wouldn't have a mandate to come down so hard on immigration like he's doing now).
The reason Biden didn't make the executive order earlier is because of pressure from groups like the ACLU. The ACLU was simultaneously telling us that Trump is a threat but also pressuring the administration to keep pursuing policies that were clearly playing right into Trump's reelection campaign.
By the way, the ACLU was also against the border bill that Trump blocked.
The border situation is a red herring. I'd say that the transgender issue is too.
The main reason Trump won in 24 because he captured the Great Lakes area. Outside of major cities, there are not large Hispanic communities in the Upper Midwest. Migration has far less of an impact there than, say, inflation. And that's what Trump campaigned on.
Now, did he cause that inflation? Partly. Does the US government have to print off money en masse in order to make up for deficits that have been made larger by three decades of GOP refusal to have an adult conversation about revenue policy? Yes.
Does that matter to the average person in the Upper Midwest? No.
Trump won by a slight majority. Given how close the race was, I don't think it was any one issue. Inflation was the problem. So was anti-DEI sentiment. So was bending over for donors and journalists who didn't reflect majority sentiment. Any one of those things would have probably helped Harris close the gap.
> How did these organisations make people vote for Donald Trump?
It's not so much that they made people vote for Trump, but that they utterly failed to rise to the occasion, despite screaming how the stakes were so high.
I really think a lot of the so-called opposition saw Trump as a wedge to selfishly drive support towards their little ideological or personal priorities.
I think the way forward is probably to ditch finger-wagging liberal technocracy and go for a more competent, law-abiding populism, which seeks to strike a compromise that can comfortably get super-majority support (i.e. 60%+ rather than 50%+1) and speak effectively to many of the anxieties Trump harnesses. You're not going to get that by giving to special interest activist organizations.
Not OP, but to me, these are organizations that are meant for a world where laws matter.
They spent the four years of the Biden administration acting like a hall monitor telling other students they can't smoke in the boys' room. Like, not only can they smoke in the boys' room, they have done so repeatedly. They have upgraded from clove cigarettes to tobacco to weed to crack.
The current oligarchs of the US got there by having no shame and by not caring about the rules, because ultimately, they're just words on paper unless someone uses force (through the state's monopoly on it) to make them a reality.
One of the very best things you could do for your cause is to tone down your rhetoric. You're driving far more people away than you're convincing of anything.
There's no shortage of things to criticize Trump for that are clear and hard to argue against. What you're saying is only fuel for the extreme to become more extreme.
I'm personally ok with such rhetoric when the stakes are high (I am losing hope that "talking nicely/sweetly" to people is _actually_ beneficial, on net), though I think yeh the parent comment could do with more material insight.
I think you're missing the GP's point. It's when the stakes are high that the rhetoric being reasonable is even more important, thus you should care more during those times. If you disagree with them that's ok, but your comment just reads like you're trying to explain why it's ok instead of engaging on the GP comment.
I think yostrovs was talking about Musk, not Trump. And calling someone who did two Nazi salutes in front of a crowd “Hitler” is maybe not as unfair as you are making it out to be. My guess is that Musk did it for outrage purposes rather than because he is an actual Nazi, but it’s hard to know really.
Why would the video you shared take out the words "from my heart" that were said just before the gesture? Would that maybe change the meaning of the gesture?
This is the problem with MSM that makes you actually think you're dealing with Hitler.
So he did Hitler Gruß from his heart? How am I to interpret that, except even more negatively?
Fact is, one does not simply do a Hitler Gruß without being either extremely dumb or intentionally doing it. Maybe he is both. Nevertheless the influence he has and normalizing this kind of action are scary.
I know this is kinda banal, but I think even getting to know your neighbors (if you don't already know them) could be a good first step. Also look what exists locally, and maybe even start something. And with so many vulnerable groups under attack, you can probably get in touch or help out with many of them and find adjacent ways to get involved in the core political issues.
I genuinely think as long as you trust your gut (and are a sensible person), that literally doing "something", and then iterating on that, should not be discounted. Ignore outcome for a second, whatever the "chances" may be -- whatever you can contribute, I'm 100% sure that less dread will be helpful, both for yourself and the outcome. And the more active and together with other people who are active you become, the better you'll feel, and the better ideas you'll get.
But I'm pretty sure violence will not be helpful. It's the arena tyrants bait protesters into because that's when they win. That is, if the people are in such a majority that violence could achieve anything, then negotiation or surrender can be achieved, and violence would just be cruelty and barbarism IMO. Remember how mad people got at that sermon about having empathy? I found that incredibly telling, and I think we should tend to and build on our empathy, it's a super power. Fighting for yourself takes courage, but fighting for those who can't fight for themselves gives courage.
> So less so than outrage, it's the feeling that we're trapped in a real life doom loop with no clear off ramp that I struggle with.
> I would like to do something... But what?
That sounds exactly like outrage fatigue. And the solution is in this article: Read less social media, get more sunlight, instead of despairing at the global state[0] of the world, get involved in local issues where you can actually have a measurable effect.
> Make sure you are talking to people and doing something. The logic of “move fast and break things,” like the logic of all coups, is to gain quick dramatic successes that deter and demoralize and create the impression of inevitability. Nothing is inevitable. Do not be alone and do not be dismayed. Find someone who is doing something you admire and join them.
I think one of the best things you can do now is to be available in your local communities. You don’t have to be a leader there, but showing up, lending a bit of your time, or just making yourself known as an ally, especially to groups that are being targeted by this administration is helpful.
If things do get bad (job loss, no money, food scarcity) you’ll be able to fall back on the community you’re a part of.
Check out your local library for a jumping off point. Local pride centers would be happy to have you around.
I was feeling similar things (do I need go buy a gun?! No, I don’t.) and I decided that investing time in local communities is better.
Last week I realized that this is bringing up the same feelings of anxiety as early 2020 where I'm living through something that I have little ability to change and don't know how bad it actually is going to get.
Work on government reform. Work on bringing power back to the people, implement direct, decentralized democracy.
It might sound like a silly pipe dream. But it works extremely well in Switzerland and I promise it won't just work well where you live, your country will flourish.
The current situation is designed to disregulate all people in the United States and create disengagement and defeatism.
The best advice I've heard so far is to prioritize self-regulation BEFORE engaging in reaction/action to the news. Inform yourself to your capacity and lock in when you can, but lock in you must, or the crisis will continue growing.
>I think violence is going to become more common, but I don't particularly think it will be effective.
depends on where the violence is directed. Riots on the street and attacking fellow citizens will not change anything. Some old president suddenly falling ill would change a lot (not necessarily "everything". But a lot).
>I would like to do something... But what?
how much do you want to scale it?
Short term
keep pressure on congress, and call your representatives. Your 2 senates (both their local and DC Office each), and your Rep's office. Everyday is ideal but unlikely. Don't flood them with every issue; pick one or 2 and talk about that. They barely take email/letters/online forms into account, and Republicans call much more often than Democrats (yes, that is an issue to look into as well).
If you want to protest and there's something local, that's your choice. But I understand wanting to protect yourself. Stay as low tech as possible if you want to mitigate identification. Smart phone and other tech at home, use a burner phone if you need it.
Midterm (no, literally. Miderms)
- form or donate to coalitions. It may feel like an eternity, but 2026 will come in a blink and you want to make sure to try and turn as much of congress as possible. Those efforts start now, not next year. Keep who's in and helping in, and shift those who's condoning it out. Keep awareness up
- attend your local meetings with mayors/govenors/reps. Change starts from the locals, and surprise: most of the people who attend these tend to be older folk with no traditional workweek. Because they are doing meetings during the rep's workweek. Again, voice your concerns to people who have a chance to change it.
- if you're the type to post: don't let this gish gallop be ignored. Post every medium-large update in communities. You won't change many minds per post, but some will start to realize what's going on and shift. I've seen a few already. A few a day adds up to thousands over 2 years. And these are still slim margin congress.
From there there's a laundry list of long-term actions, but those really depend on Midterms. The theme is that there are people to talk to and not enough people get their voices heard. Don't underestimate the power you hold over who is elected in office.
That said, I think the why is more complicated. At least in the US I think there's a general sense that the world is backsliding, and that people feel like any bump on the road of life risks turning into a complete derailment. But this doesn't lead to any one particular ideology or course of action, so much as externalization of angst, whether against individuals, systems, or the "nobody pays attention to our angst let's burn it all down" attitude that's somewhat widespread.
The US has what from the outside looks like a very odd combination of:
- violent anti-government rhetoric (not a new phenomenon at all)
- huge availability of guns
- explicit links between the two by second-amendment advocates of violence against the government
- very little of what would normally be called political violence (Jan 6 is an exception, but a significant one)
- a huge amount of "radicalized" gun violence against schoolchildren (Columbine to Uvalde, etc)
This doesn't feel very stable. It relies on people's actions never matching their words. As soon as someone turns a gun on an elected representative there's a risk of the situation escalating. Or someone could independently reinvent the carbomb, a common factor in situations from the IRA to Iraq.
>> But things like the USA's current constitutional crisis are real.
While I have no doubt this is true, is it _actually_ having any impact on your day to day life? If you didn't have social media, didn't read the news, and somehow didn't even know there was an election (I know this one isn't possible) would your day to day life have changed at all? Look at the past week as an example. Threats of tariffs, headline news, retaliation, and then backing down before anything happened bringing us largely back to where we started.
Don't get me wrong, there are people directly affected by these things and I'm not going to get into whether the approach above is ethical or not. But for most people, I believe you could genuinely switch off and not notice any difference at all.
And even if you know and are well read on the issues (as it sounds like you may be) - what can you do about it? In fact - have you done anything about it? If the answer is no then what's the point in being informed?
I see the argument made in the context of government snooping. What if I said that the government made it illegal to use any form of encryption that it did not have a backdoor to. In other words, they have the right to read every single message you ever send or receive. There are people who tell me "don't be concerned, if you've got nothing to hide this won't have any impact on your day to day life".
I don't think that argument is going to persuade you or most others on HN. But you're saying exactly that.
That's just because the community on HN selects for the type of person who constantly talks about things where they don't have authorial control, any idea on how to change, nor a holistic strategic population understanding of the issue. I've always thought that's one of the weakest parts of the community here and something the community here has become much worse about over time selecting for noise over substance, though so has the rest of the web.
Many of us live in democracies but the kind of coverage you get on these sites doesn't help any individual voter or participant take any action. At that point, what use is this coverage? I bring this up because I'm involved in local politics and find the rhetoric on places like this would not survive a single community meeting or outreach event.
This is wrong, Trump and his policies does affect everyone’s day to day life. It may not be immediately visible effect but that is why he lost the 2nd time he tried to run. This fallacy didn’t cause people to vote for Trump in this current election, it caused them to not vote. Not voting is a direct negative effect on your life because you’ve chosen to give up on understanding the consequences. We are basically on track to repeat the last time he was in office because people have chosen to believe the fallacy out of fatigue. The exact fatigue we are talking about right now.
The common thread with Trump is to blame other people for your unhappiness whether an issue affects you daily or not. Then tie that unrelated unhappiness to these issues. That causes fatigue and effects your daily life trying to work through an unsolvable problem (from the individual perspective). For example my father is farmer in a 2 man farming operation. He never spends any time around or near immigrants, not even remotely close, but he has been blaming the immigrants for his unhappiness. If you ask him why it’s because there is this “crisis” with ominous consequences that no one can define.
>> Trump and his policies does affect everyone’s day to day life
Of course, to an extent. But for the vast majority of people they aren't going to have a direct and horrible impact. Take some of the most objectionable things so far - the kind that might upset you if you read about them (treatment of immigrants, plans to 'take over' Greenland/Panama/Palastine, pardoning the Jan 6 criminals, DOGE, etc). These are all very upsetting for many people and understandably so. But they probably don't actually affect you. If they upset you there's very little you can actually do until the next round of elections. Better to switch off and save your own mental health in the meantime and vote when the time comes.
Take your father for example. Would it not be much better for him (and you) if he didn't follow the news/social media, checked out both parties policies at election time, voted and then switched off again?
My father? No he’s not. My father’s family however, his parents (my grand parents) were the children of immigrant homesteaders though who walked across the Canadian border. That’s about how close he’s been.
This was not the case when I worked in the Federal government. There were different levels and kinds of clearances and while it was true that you could work with less sensitive stuff while the background check process worked its way through, you couldn't go into and view anything elevated w/o the right clearance, or even be in the room pretty much.
This has always been the case, though you generally need to be a US citizen as a practical matter. Whether or not you are exposed to it likely depends on which part of the government and who you are. The common case is when they need the help of outside subject matter experts.
For the sake of timeliness and being able to move quickly, some people in government are authorized to make a judgment about the risk/benefit tradeoff when someone doesn't have an active clearance. It isn't a case of waiting for a background check process, you don't even need to apply. Some organizations will do an informal check of their own in the background if they don't already know who you are. Sure, they would prefer if you already had formal clearance, but it isn't strictly necessary.
While they are absolutely committing crimes, the complicit Trump administration justice department and Republican congress are happy to let it go, at least thus far.
I've read in multiple articles that people were placed on leave for trying to require proper clearances from him and his team as obligated to by law, and this article also references how clearances impact the fact that nobody knows what they're actually doing.
Without a law that says USAID can be shut down or reorganized (or not funded) it seems that this is pretty much by definition entirely illegal regardless of one's opinions about USAID.
Pretty much everything they've been doing is illegal. The million-dollar question is whether they'll be held to account. Trump has a pretty good track record of facing little to no consequences for his crimes. The pessimist in me says this time will be no different. We'll see.
Be less obvious that they're out to destroy America. A hostile foreign agent would be too concerned with having their cover blown if they were that obvious.
I'm surprised you don't just ask the model if the given prompt and the given output have a relationship to a list of topics. And if the model is like "yes," you go to the censored response.
I don't think Vanguard offers a gold ETF. (Gold ETFs do exist, Vanguard just doesn't do it.)
I'm pretty sure there's a lot of evidence that gold is a great inflation hedge but otherwise doesn't offer much in the way of returns on a long run basis. Which is a reason in various cases to hold or diversify into it over a money market fund (essentially over cash). That said, currently crypto has not proven itself to be either much like cash or much like gold.
In all fairness a money market cash position is basically accepting central bank interest while you decide what actual investment you want to put your money in.
People use it as part of an allocation, sure, but nobody plans to retire with interest from a checking account, which is pretty much what you'd be doing if you invest in a money market fund.
You may have a point that since fiat currency has no inherent value compared to physical commodities there's no reason that the right crypto couldn't function as a fiat currency, which seem true. But if crypto were fit for use as a fiat currency, you wouldn't expect it to be an investment at all - at least no compared to stocks, bonds, etc.
What I struggle with isn't fatigue at outrage, it's knowing what to do about it.
I think violence is going to become more common, but I don't particularly think it will be effective.
So less so than outrage, it's the feeling that we're trapped in a real life doom loop with no clear off ramp that I struggle with.
I would like to do something... But what?
reply