Do I Still Care
In an earlier piece I wrote about the Honor incident. At the time I approached the whole affair through anger, and in doing so I overlooked some important facts. When I checked again later, I found that the person's father had in fact called 120. The harassment issues were real, but I had linked the two matters directly and drawn a conclusion that was not accurate.
Another case: after a doctoral student died by suicide, stories spread quickly online about an advisor exploiting them, parents seriously injured, and leave being denied. I was angry at first too. But later information showed that the advisor had approved leave, had transferred money to help the student on more than one occasion, and that several key details in the early accounts were not accurate.
Facing information like this, why am I so quick to believe?
When bad news arrives about a company, advisor, or institution we already distrust, we often do not ask "is this true?" first—we feel "they really would do that."
When we take in information, we may already carry a set of assumptions about the world.
When we keep seeing exploitation, deception, and injustice, we gradually come to believe the world is bad by nature. Then when a story fits that experience, even before the evidence is sufficient, emotion has already made the judgment for us.
Platforms and media keep amplifying this tendency. The truth is usually tangled and full of uncertainty; anger is much simpler. A clear villain and victim spread more easily than "the facts are still being verified."
And then? I become a perpetrator of falsehood—anger, disappointment, and the cycle repeats.
Where is the truth? In corners no one notices, where the boomerang will land, and in my own wishful thinking.