Activism is one of the most crucial common powers in the world; not only does it demand the attention of the world, but it also demands for something to be done about what is being advocated for.
Yes, advocacy is great, but what happens when advocating for someone turns into selective empathy? One of the many concerns in today’s society, which is so heavily overlooked, is how activism will never truly be activism.
Activism is defined as “the policy or action of using vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change.” Activism can be seen in many different forms, whether it’s protesting, boycotts, strikes, or simply reposting a post someone made. The idea that you can make a helpless call into a powerful message.
What tends to happen is forgetfulness and mindlessness in activism. Some groups are being advocated for the pain, suffering, rights, and indignity they face, while, on the other end, other groups are simply being ignored or minimized by other groups.
This generally happens when the pain being faced by these groups doesn’t fall under the ideals of activists. Ideals like political alignment, cultural identity, or social identity. Many activists today are more likely to be persuaded to prioritize what they believe in the most, what they resonate with culturally, politically, and in social circle situations. Meanwhile, the struggles that you can’t necessarily feel or relate to are more likely to be overlooked. Which in any case, is hypocritical and undermines the principle of advocacy.
For instance, in Gaza, more than 60,000 people have been killed in Israeli operations since 2023, with nearly a third being children. A joint investigation estimated that 83% of those killed were civilians rather than combatants.
At the same time, the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks in Israel killed around 1,200 people; most of them civilians, showing how both sides carry deep civilian losses.
Similarly, the United Nations has verified that in the Russia-Ukraine war, over 12,654 civilians have been killed in Ukraine since the invasion. Civilians in Russian regions like Belgorod have also died from Ukrainian shelling, though these deaths are rarely highlighted in activist spaces.
“Nearly 80 civilians [have been] killed in Russia since the invasion of Ukraine” began, most in the Belgorod region, yet these deaths receive little attention compared to the thousands reported in Ukraine.
These numbers reveal how selective advocacy can spotlight one tragedy while pushing another into the shadows, despite both being part of the same human cost.
This question must be asked: Why is this pick-and-choose happening? Some of the reasons could be because some activist groups relate or identify with the groups they’re advocating most for, while another reason could be described as narrative farming.
Narrative farming is when activists adopt the idea of good vs evil off of a one sided picture. The lack of full picture media coverage and political allegiance are major contributing factors, as it must be acknowledged that news coverage is subjective, and the full picture isn’t always allowed. This could be for a multitude of reasons, such as government censorship to block out contradicting propaganda, political agendas, funding interests, or inconvenient truths. The list can go on.
Inherently, two-sided activism isn’t necessarily bad. Even if that’s what social media is feeding people, the repercussions of believing all things online must be acknowledged.
The term “dignity loss” refers to the deprivation or violation of an individual’s inherent worth and respect. In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, dignity is understood as “a kind of basic worth or status that purportedly belongs to all persons equally, and which grounds fundamental moral or political duties or rights.” Therefore, dignity loss occurs when this fundamental respect is undermined or denied, often through actions that dehumanize or marginalize individuals.
Excluding one side’s dignity loss is a dignity loss for all. Not only that, but there are people coming out of all the crevices in the world, advocating for one side’s rights and not acknowledging the others. This issue creates polarization and more indifference/inequality.
The suffering of people is never to be excluded, but rather acknowledged, even if the suffering of a group is a group with which one doesn’t align with. Advocating for the inherent rights of all, despite personal opinions, is the right thing to do.
A loss for one is a loss for all.
Mason J Hall • Oct 17, 2025 at 8:29 am
I don’t remember who said it (I think it was Churchill), but there is a well known quote that goes, “one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.”
I feel like this quote accurately represents the literal millions of lives lost in the last 20 years, that people seem to be desensitized to. I disagree with your standpoint that people “pick and choose” what deaths to care about, rather recency bias and other factors make it seem like they only choose one group. The desensitization to death in the modern consciousness is something I wish you would have talked more about, especially when it concerns those in places that don’t get as much media attention. Such as the Uyghurs in China, the tens of thousands killed by cartels across the Americas, and the 600,000 deaths yearly that happen in the united states from completely preventable causes. Every single death is a tragedy, and I agree with you on the idea that “A loss for one is a loss for all.”
All in All, amazing article. It’s a good read and I am excited to see what comes next.