Indeed, nothing says condescending and self absorbed like a disclosure that is code for "you may be too mentally challenged/fragile to participate in an open exhange of ideas, particularly these, child"
It seems you might be the one who is over sensitive?
I didn’t mean it to be condescending at all, I genuinely found that story super disturbing and I didn’t want to put others through it unless they wanted to be put through it.
The scene the guy is describing real sounds like an apocalyptic hellscape, if you’re not somewhat disturbed by it, then I’m not sure what to say.
I am not the one who finds what you wrote condescending but I would like to ask you a question - you seem to believe that being disturbed by an article is something bad - where does this come from? Is this common where you live?
It is just that this view seems to be gaining popularity and I don't get it. Being disturbed by something is an emotion and emotions serve to orient us. They are useful - both pleasant and unpleasant. Filtering out unpleasant emotions is like wearing glasses that only let you see things you like - why would anyone want that? Do you believe this is a good thing?
And BTW, if you find that article disturbing, I would really like to know what would you think about things like reading The Kindly Ones by Jonathan Littell... or visiting Auschwitz?
I think climate change and the current climate emergency will cause more unimaginable suffering, as bad as imaginable, if you read the article you’d might realise the fires are a result of severe drought predicted by climate scientists and caused by climate change.
Therefore I feel some will find this article disturbing because humans and many living beings have suffered horrible deaths in what I’d call unnatural ways (fire isn’t new to these animals, the intensity of the fires is). It’s also a glimpse of more very tragic times ahead.
I put a link to the article and a warning, what do you find so concerning about it ? Maybe people don’t read hacker news to feel like shit? Maybe some people are reading who have been directly affected too. So I gave people the option to skip that article and the details if they weren’t in the mood for it right now Who cares? I just wanted to give people the choice.
I agree with your point about good and bad emotions. I mean, I read the article in the first place.
If you have trouble seeing why some would find a forest full of crying animals who has been partially burned to death sad or troubling with more to come, maybe you’re someone who has trouble feeling empathy? Which is ok, but you would have trouble understanding people that might.
By the way, I am from Earth, just like you. I don’t see how that question was relevant.
>>> If you have trouble seeing why some would find a forest full of crying animals who has been partially burned to death sad or troubling with more to come, maybe you’re someone who has trouble feeling empathy?
I have no trouble seeing why some would find it troubling - what I do not get is why you would think this is a reason to put there the warning. You say it yourself - we are going to have a lot of problems. Shouldn't you encourage people to face them? Is it not a good thing to be disturbed by disturbing things? What is better - that people face the hard truths or that they cover their eyes in front of them? This is what bugs me on those warnings - that I perceive them as making our society more fragile and less able to handle the problems. There is such a thing as too much sensitivity. Coddling is not good for us.
