I mean, yes, but the only way you don’t see the implications of the headline is if you’re willfully ignoring them.
I agree, it’s nice that her kids and grandkids have a house they can live in. What about those 85 years she went without a home? That’s a shitload of timean entire lifetime, and what about the other people who have had horrible things done to them for horrible reasons? Who will receive nothing?
I’m with you, yes this is a nice thing. It’s not at all unhealthy to draw these conclusions from the story, however.
It’s normal to note and even be upset about the bad thing that happened decades ago.
However, when it’s the primary focus of your response to a news article like this - that a bad thing happened decades ago, instead of the actual news that a good thing just happened (and that the bad thing is context and why it might be extra meaningful) - that seems unhealthy.
Then that would be a reaction to an article about those things, not this one.
Especially in this community. This one is supposed to be a tiny place where people can actually find good things that happened. Every other community apparently is for focusing on the bad stuff. So it’s nice to have one single one that isn’t, just for a break.
If you can’t find a way to avoid pathologically trying to focus everyone’s attention on other bad shit in a rare article about something good, then at the very least it might be a good idea to block the community.
I agree in sentiment, but this headline is objectively depressing.
< New home - yay! >
…
< Decades after a racist mob burned her old home down >
Well fuck.
You might need to talk to someone about potential clinical depression. That doesn’t seem like a healthy takeaway.
It’s nice to see someone who has struggled have good things happen. Potentially nicer to see than a report on someone who hasn’t struggled as much.
Although it’d be nicer if bad things didn’t happen. But they always will to some extent.
It’s nice when things get better.
I mean, yes, but the only way you don’t see the implications of the headline is if you’re willfully ignoring them.
I agree, it’s nice that her kids and grandkids have a house they can live in. What about those 85 years she went without a home? That’s
a shitload of timean entire lifetime, and what about the other people who have had horrible things done to them for horrible reasons? Who will receive nothing?I’m with you, yes this is a nice thing. It’s not at all unhealthy to draw these conclusions from the story, however.
It’s normal to note and even be upset about the bad thing that happened decades ago.
However, when it’s the primary focus of your response to a news article like this - that a bad thing happened decades ago, instead of the actual news that a good thing just happened (and that the bad thing is context and why it might be extra meaningful) - that seems unhealthy.
You seem to have missed me pointing out that countless other bad things have happened, which is the ‘orphan crushing machine’ point.
Then that would be a reaction to an article about those things, not this one.
Especially in this community. This one is supposed to be a tiny place where people can actually find good things that happened. Every other community apparently is for focusing on the bad stuff. So it’s nice to have one single one that isn’t, just for a break.
If you can’t find a way to avoid pathologically trying to focus everyone’s attention on other bad shit in a rare article about something good, then at the very least it might be a good idea to block the community.