I feel this is somehow reducing all expression of opinion as performative, i.e. serving to heighten the social standing of the expressor. I have a handful of other motivations:
- to persuade
- to develop my worldview (speaking, typing, thinking all use different neural pathways)
- to collect feedback and be challenged
While others might be like that, the type I'm talking about explicitly does not want to be challenged or alter their worldview. I find a comparison with religion an another poster made to be pretty fair, as the people I know who practice such behavior tend to be either insincere (they don't actually care about politics, but just want to control others) or sincere, but unprepared (they didn't care before, so their ability to form political opinions is still developing).
Note that I'm not claiming that this is the only way people interact with media nowadays. Change can happen if people become mobilized; but the phenomenon I'm describing is the pressure to take any action (token or real) on every single issue the group is supposed to be concerned about.
Yes but I’d just want to point out that the rub lies in who is deciding which activism is performative and which is authentic. I.e. all of my friends are authentic, all my enemies are performative.
It is mentally exhausting to stay abreast of all issues that humanity faces, no doubt. I’ll agree with you there. But it doesn’t take much energy for me to say, “man what’s happening in Sudan is messed up.”