This piece grew out of a group chat conversation I had today.
A friend shared an invitation to a large public demonstration about ********. The intentions were good. Nobody in that chat supports the killing of civilians. Nobody thinks oppression is acceptable. That part was never the problem.
What followed was a disagreement about something else: why certain causes are constantly amplified, while others (closer, daily, and unresolved) are ignored.
I want to be clear from the beginning:
This is not an argument against solidarity, protest, or caring about people beyond our borders. It is an argument about how public attention is directed, and what that direction costs us.
Attention Is a Finite Resource
A society, like a person, can only focus on so much at once.
When attention is pulled aggressively in one direction, it does not expand, it shifts. Something else necessarily disappears from view. This is not a conspiracy theory; it's BASIC cognitive reality.
What we should ask is not "Is this cause important?" But "Why is this cause being elevated right now, by whom, and at what scale?" Because scale matters.
When large resources such as; logistics, transportation, institutional encouragement, media repetition are poured into one issue repeatedly, that issue becomes emotionally dominant. Not because it is the only injustice, but because it is the loudest one.
Symbolic Action vs. Material Impact
Public demonstrations feel powerful. They offer unity. They give people the sense that they are doing something meaningful.
That feeling is real.
But the outcome often isn't.
Most large scale symbolic actions do not change policy, stop violence, or alter power structures. What they do change is how people feel about themselves and their society: often temporarily relieving moral pressure.
This is important, because emotional relief can replace urgency.
When people feel morally "activated," they are less likely to ask hard questions about what is not happening elsewhere.
The Problem of Selective Moral Energy
In my country, women are killed regularly (almost 2 women everyday). Children go to school hungry (if they aren't working and dying in unsafe work environments to support the family) because of the poverty. Violent offenders are released by the way, without any legal consequence. Ordinary people live with constant insecurity, with feeling unsafe and in danger that has slowly became "normal."
These are not abstract issues. They affect daily life. They shape how safe people feel when they leave their homes.
And yet, the level of sustained public energy dedicated to these problems is nowhere near proportional.
This raises a legitimate question:
Why are some injustices treated as urgent national causes, while others are treated as unfortunate background noise?
Intentions Don't Cancel Effects
I said this clearly in the conversation, and I'll say it again here:
Most participants in these demonstrations are acting in good faith because they are UNAWARE.
They are not the problem(?).
The issue is not who attends, but what function the event serves in the larger system.
Good intentions do not negate systemic effects. A population can be sincere and still be strategically redirected. Unity can be real and still be used to blur priorities.
Feeling united is not the same as being protected.
Feeling heard is not the same as being served.
Distraction Doesn't Look Like Silence
One of the most effective misunderstandings about distraction is the idea that it means nothing is happening.
That's false.
Distraction often looks like constant activity.
Marches. Statements. Hashtags. Flags. Speeches.
Noise is not the absence of distraction, it is often the mechanism of it.
When public emotional energy is repeatedly concentrated outward, the inward questions weaken:
- Why are local problems unresolved?
- Why is violence normalized?
- Why is accountability absent?
If those questions fade, the system benefits, regardless of the moral framing of the visible cause.
You Don't Fix the World While Letting Home Collapse
There is a simple, uncomfortable truth that gets dismissed too easily:
A society that cannot protect its own people cannot meaningfully claim moral leadership elsewhere.
This doesn't mean ignoring global suffering.
It means refusing to let global suffering be used to anesthetize local reality.
If we cannot secure justice, safety, and dignity where we live, then large moral performances elsewhere become hollow, no matter how emotionally compelling they appear.
Final Thought
What disturbed me in that conversation wasn't disagreement.
It was how normal this pattern has become.
We are constantly asked to feel deeply, loudly, and together, while quietly accepting conditions that should never have been normalized.
I don't believe this happens by accident.
And I don't believe awareness begins with softer language or subtler hints.
Sometimes, clarity requires being direct.
Her gün büyük liderimiz Atatürk'ün başarısının büyüklüğünü daha iyi anlıyor, daha çok takdir ediyor ve daha fazla hayranlık duyuyorum.