They don't see that things like fighting for strong unions here in America is work helping to fight the kind of exploitation that starves people on the other side of the world.
They don't see how fighting for queer issues helps people learn to push back against hierarchy, and teaches them how to obstruct injustice.
They don't look at these problems as part of a network, they see them as self-contained issues that exist only on a personal level, and that fucking sucks
They read "people suffering" as people far away that they have no access to. Charity to them is kind of a black box to throw away money into, and it's frustrating to try to articulate why that's a shitty way of thinking without tossing out 999 anarchist dog whistles to a bunch of people that probably don't understand the language in the context I'm using it in anyway
But people in the class read this as "this person thinks its fine to let people die" and see the whole idea of improving the world as "this person thinks that the only way to help suffering people is the immediate reversal of capitalism globally and will then die fighting for a futile cause and help no one"
Which is really spooky to me
People don't think a better world is at all accessible
There is no small work they can do to dismantle this shit
We're talking about the moral obligation of charity and I've got an issue where charity is rendered useless because of the massive engines of exploitation that guaruntee that there will always be a suffering population, and any work we do as a stopgap between it and the people it hurts misses the terrible reality of the problem it tries to solve, even if chariry is still good and helpful
You should still give what you can, but we need to talk about how to make the world better too
Florida GOP finally admits that maybe they shouldn't have banned the phrase "climate change" after all https://boingboing.net/2019/10/18/florida-gop-finally-admits-tha.html