By now most of you have probably seen or heard of the current Facebook campaign wherein people are urged to change their profile pics to cartoon characters from their childhood. This is purported to be a campaign to stop child abuse. Obviously, anyone with any common sense knows that this will have zero effect on the problem of child abuse, and as a result, many people are angered by it.
But i was pondering the fact that if there were no cause attached to it, and it was just the newest "game", i would have no problem whatsoever with changing my pic to a cartoon. In that case, it would be merely a diversion, a source of entertainment or escapism.
Then i realized that in essence, that's all the campaign is anyway. A campaign to combat child abuse by changing your profile pic? Why, that's the same as signing an online petition, or clicking your mouse to donate rice to a third-world country! In other words, it's something we can do to make ourselves feel better, without actually doing anything meaningful. At its core, is this any different than other forms of escapism?
From my own perspective, i feel that the key difference is the self-delusion. With most forms of escapism, we at least acknowledge what we are doing: escaping the cold, hard truth of our existences. But with these "feel good" causes, people think they are actually having an impact, despite having no more effect than if they'd sat around scratching their asses all day.
What do you think? Is there a difference?
tl;dr: Is there any difference between pointless feel-good causes like the current "fight child abuse by changing your Facebook profile pic" and your standard escapism such as gaming, reading, watching tv/movies?
*edit* To clarify, i'm not trying to debate whether these kinds of slactivist campaigns are worthwhile, i'm trying to debate whether they're any different from anything else that serves no purpose beyond making those involved feel good.
i.e. is "Ooooo, i am helping the children without making any actual effort" any different than "Man, i loves killing me some zombies."
also, thank you Gxas and SimuLord for reminding me of the term "slactivism".
But i was pondering the fact that if there were no cause attached to it, and it was just the newest "game", i would have no problem whatsoever with changing my pic to a cartoon. In that case, it would be merely a diversion, a source of entertainment or escapism.
Then i realized that in essence, that's all the campaign is anyway. A campaign to combat child abuse by changing your profile pic? Why, that's the same as signing an online petition, or clicking your mouse to donate rice to a third-world country! In other words, it's something we can do to make ourselves feel better, without actually doing anything meaningful. At its core, is this any different than other forms of escapism?
From my own perspective, i feel that the key difference is the self-delusion. With most forms of escapism, we at least acknowledge what we are doing: escaping the cold, hard truth of our existences. But with these "feel good" causes, people think they are actually having an impact, despite having no more effect than if they'd sat around scratching their asses all day.
What do you think? Is there a difference?
tl;dr: Is there any difference between pointless feel-good causes like the current "fight child abuse by changing your Facebook profile pic" and your standard escapism such as gaming, reading, watching tv/movies?
*edit* To clarify, i'm not trying to debate whether these kinds of slactivist campaigns are worthwhile, i'm trying to debate whether they're any different from anything else that serves no purpose beyond making those involved feel good.
i.e. is "Ooooo, i am helping the children without making any actual effort" any different than "Man, i loves killing me some zombies."
also, thank you Gxas and SimuLord for reminding me of the term "slactivism".
