Flatline wrote on Mar 12, 2018, 18:10:

Prez wrote on Mar 12, 2018, 15:31:

Cutter wrote on Mar 12, 2018, 15:18:
It depends on the activism, Prez. All the PC clicktivism and outrage today is not only stupid, it's dangerous. The far left is only fostering the far right. They're their own worst enemy. Just look at the recent German and Italian elections. And that's unfolding all over the globe. But there's plenty of good and necessary activism too.

You're example is spot on. I also admit their are causes worth fighting for. I just see no value in activism of any kind. Unless there is a figure head, a true leader. One who is respected and charismatic enough for his or her followers to actually heed what they say. And at that point, said person becomes a general in a revolution. Your run-of-the-mill activist is now a soldier, marching to the orders of the leader. There's actual direction. The body acts as one. That's how things get done. Any movement that lacks a defined and strong leader or leaders is going nowhere at best, or making things worse at worst, exactly as you illustrate in your example.. Today's movements, every single one of them, bare that out completely in my view.

So specific case in point that doesn't fit what you're saying. I'd point to gay marriage rights in the US circa 2010-2011. There was no one single charismatic leader leading that fight but in the span of about 18 months the entire political landscape shifted significantly and then was followed up with Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 (it seems like a lot longer ago).

If I had to point to any one thing kicking off that 18 month timespan I'd probably put it on Biden going off the reservation in an interview and stating on the record he was in favor of anyone being able to marry anyone, and the Obama administration deciding not to hang him out to dry. It didn't influence Obergefell v. Hodges but that seemed to be a cultural cracking point.

The #metoo thing seems to have legs too. That doesn't have a leader per se, but more of a poster boy for everything the concept is against. Time will tell if it impacts the industry.

I do absolutely agree that coordination and an agreement of goals by different groups that might not otherwise come together are necessary to invoke change, and that with a charismatic leader or a handful of them that it's easier to bridge those gaps and get past the narcissism of small differences, but I don't think it's necessarily mandatory.