indifferent to the problem

[GoodTaste]

Does "indifferent to the problem" mean "indifferent to the honest frustration over real things"?

==========================================
Sam Harris liked
Bret Weinstein
@BretWeinstein
·
16h
We're watching honest frustration over real things captured by dishonest movements pushing insane policies. If one calls out the dishonesty and insanity, they are portrayed as indifferent to the problem. This dynamic pushes us toward a civil war which both sides are sure to lose.

 

[probus]

I don't think so. They are portrayed as indifferent to the "real things" which are "the problem". A little more context would be useful to increase my certainty. What is the source?

 

[GoodTaste]

That was what BretWeinstein tweeted just now and that's all. The context has been limited to the tweet itself.

I don't think so. They are portrayed as indifferent to the "real things" which are "the problem". A little more context would be useful to increase my certainty. What is the source?

What are "they"? Do "they" refer to the dishonesty and insanity?

 

[GoesStation]

What are "they"? Do "they" refer to the dishonesty and insanity?

No. "They" is used as a singular pronoun referring to a person who "calls out the dishonesty and insanity".

 

[GoodTaste]

Okay. With "they" being clear, what is "the problem" remains a puzzle.

 

[Tarheel]

The problem is whatever problem that person is talking about. (I could speculate about what that problem is, but that would be pointless.)

 

[GoodTaste]

What do "dishonest movements" mean? The protests for Black Lives Matter?

real things captured by dishonest movements pushing insane policie

 

[Tarheel]

People protest against something, not for something.

 

[Skrej]

Weinstein is saying that although there are legitimate, honest frustrations about the status quo of certain things, there are dishonest movements capitalizing on that frustration to further their own unrelated, crazy agendas under the pretext of the original legitimate concerns.

Then when somebody attempts to point out that their alternate agendas aren't really in line with the honest, legitimate concerns, that person is then labeled as being indifferent or not concerned about the original, bona-fide concerns.

Essentially, he's accusing some movements of using the pretext of the legitimate cause that many people are in agreement on, as a defense to cover their own unrelated actions that most people wouldn't agree with, by making it look like people are criticizing the legitimate cause instead of their own twisted agenda. This further inflames tensions and may lead to civil war.

As to which Weinstein considers the legitimate concerns, and which are the dishonest ones, we don't have enough context to tell.