He redefined "activism" to be things he doesn't like... and if he does like a particular form of activism then it isn't "activism". I understand his other points but they don't support, "activism is pointless / without value".

After a couple of days of ruminating on this, I think I kind of get what Prez is saying: sometimes the backlash to activism can make a situation worse than if the activism hadn't occurred at all, which can be true. However, I still think in general activists are following the very advice Prez is espousing though: "be the change you want to see in the world."

And no, I'm not talking about keyboard activism. That might be cathartic, but doesn't really change anything.

Well respect to you for reading my stance. Suffice it to say that while there is still a pretty wide chasm between my actual stance and your understanding of it, I chalk that up to a lack of ability to convey in words properly on my part rather than a lack of comprehension on yours. This whole discussion arose out of (what I considered to be at the time anyway) an innocuous comment as to why I never align myself with causes and movements. And indeed I never will. Ever. I instead choose to be the change I wish to see in the world. I find that I can make much more of a difference. I will leave the (pointless ) activism to others.

Okay so your problem is with certain kinds of activism not activism in general.
Also you have a very simplistic view of activism throughout history. Rosa Parks and MLK are two among hundreds of activist leaders and millions of activists who participated. To give them even 50% of the credit would be wildly exaggerating, the real bulk work was done by people you've never heard of and those people were activists engaging in activism and it wasn't pointless.

A quote from one of the leaders of the Woman's Suffrage movement:

"To get the word male in effect out of the Constitution cost the women of the country fifty-two years of pauseless campaign...During that time they were forced to conduct fifty-six campaigns of referenda to male voters; 480 campaigns to get Legislatures to submit suffrage amendments to voters; 47 campaigns to get State constitutional conventions to write woman suffrage into State constitutions; 277 campaigns to get State party conventions to include woman suffrage planks; 30 campaigns to get presidential party conventions to adopt woman suffrage planks in party platforms, and 19 campaigns with 19 successive Congresses. Millions of dollars were raised, mainly in small sums, and expended with economic care. Hundreds of women gave the accumulated possibilities of an entire lifetime, thousands gave years of their lives, hundreds of thousands gave constant interest and such aid as they could."

Those campaigns are activism. That activism convinced Woodrow Wilson and others to push for the 19th amendment.
But you, "see no value in activism of any kind."
Which is mind boggling and I think disingenuous without some kind of mental gymnastics to qualify that statement.

Sepharo wrote on Mar 14, 2018, 22:03:

frequent examples that people tend to use to refute the assertion when analyzed more closely do nothing to disprove it when one realizes that what accomplishes historical change happens alongside activism but certainly not because of it.

Okay do your magic trick then, explain to me how the activism of the (50s and 60s) Civil Rights movement did not help to bring about the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1968.

Okay. Rosa Parks. Made a stand against 50's American society's repression of black people by actively refusing to give up her seat on a bus to a white man. One simple heroic act. She didn't stand on a street corner with a sign no one would read as they drove by and rolled their eyes. She eschewed the safe and put herself at risk. History refers to an activist but what she did beyond that is what ignited the civil rights movement almost single-handedly. This did more than a thousand, ten thousand people standing on a corner or gathering in a park. Martin Luther King used his great leadership and powerful voice to unite and motivate an entire race. He didn't do this in his spare time - he dedicated himself fully to making things happen. He DID something. Were he just an activist he would have had no more effect in advancing civil rights in America than useless, cynical, opportunistic race baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have. They are the picture of pure activism. Not only have they accomplished nothing in the way of civil rights advancement, they have actively hurt the cause and furthered the divide between races. People say they "raise awareness" and "fight for justice". I say they insinuate themselves into situations where they see an opportunity whether or not race is at the heart of the issue, throw themselves at the cameras, and increase racial tension while trying to build their legacy. Activism at its finest. Jackson and Sharpton did to the civil rights movement what happens to every single movement that lacks a powerful, moral leader of decisive action (or in the case of the civil rights movement, loses said leader) - they co-opted it for their own ends, twisted it into something it was never intended to be, and derailed the ongoing efforts set into motion by true leaders and heroes.

And civil rights is just one example. Remember the Tea Party movement? Co-opted by Islamophobes and right wing extremists. Occupy Wall Street? Co-opted by Communism-seekers and anarchists. Activism from left wing extremist groups gave us Trump in the White House. Activism from frustrated conservative simpletons gave us clowns like Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan in powerful legislative positions. Activism by the extreme fringe lefties is why the NRA is as powerful a lobby as it is. Activism by man-haters and feminist snowflakes is currently killing the #metoo movement in its cradle. Anecdotally speaking every single guy I know rolls his eyes at the very mention of it. Or was that the kind of "awareness" they were going for? I applaud the women who shed light on the abhorrent behavior of that pig Harvey Weinstein. That took some real guts. The rest of those opportunistic bandwagoners (activists) can piss off.

frequent examples that people tend to use to refute the assertion when analyzed more closely do nothing to disprove it when one realizes that what accomplishes historical change happens alongside activism but certainly not because of it.

Okay do your magic trick then, explain to me how the activism of the (50s and 60s) Civil Rights movement did not help to bring about the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, 1964, and 1968.

Again, you claiming something is absurd does not make it so and certainly doesn't phase me in the least. I like and respect you but I recognize you are one of those people who only sees thing through their own prism. I don't claim anything as solely opinion without supporting it with examples and extensive explanation. Whether or not any of it penetrates your aforementioned prism is irrelevant to me. And while this isn't the most liberal site on the internet by far, it is clearly liberal-dominant and has been since I've been a member (2003 if I remember correctly). That doesn't bother me as I share much of the ideology of many here; it is in the methodology used (for example activism that accomplishes nothing) where I sharply diverge. We could keep going but what is the point? You've done nothing to convince me that my assertion of the pointlessness of activism is wrong and clearly don't intend to. Blanket statements that my assertion runs counter to history doesn't cut it - frequent examples that people tend to use to refute the assertion when analyzed more closely do nothing to disprove it when one realizes that what accomplishes historical change happens alongside activism but certainly not because of it. I've got a laundry list of historical examples but clearly I'd be wasting my time. And yes that's my opinion. It's absurd to you. Okay. Now move along.

This comment was edited on Mar 14, 2018, 20:06.

You're being ahistorical. And a rant about liberals is so misplaced since they hardly have a monopoly on activism.

But taking offense because someone points out the pointlessness of your efforts

Oh it's definitely not offense, just flabbergasted... like I said it's an absurd statement. Easily shown to be incorrect regardless if you want to claim it's an opinion. Activism has had an effect and is not pointless, therefore it has value.

And I don't think this site has been "liberal-heavy" for nearly a decade. I see far more MRA types than anything else, also a shit ton of islamophobics.

Excuse me Mr. Prez but Donald Trump's popularity has been steadily decreasing ever since I changed my signature. Don't tell me activism doesn't work.



Serious, activism matters (and seriously, my sig was never an attempt at activism). Awareness matters, people need to talk about the problem for what you would call meaningful action to be noticed, to be understood, to be supported. Some people will get annoyed at the activism because if it wasn't a contentious issue then there wouldn't be a problem. Some activists will be loopy and counter-productive (which the critics will try to solely focus on) but if a movement has merit it can generally overcome these setbacks.

I "credit" the Westboro cult with helping get marriage equality sooner, that was counter-productive. Their activism made being against gay marriage toxic, which accelerated the rate at which the rest of the movement's lack of merit was exposed.

This comment was edited on Mar 14, 2018, 14:13.

Sepharo wrote on Mar 13, 2018, 15:55:
Sorry I have to agree to some degree...
You made an absurd claim, that while couched as merely your opinion, doesn't change that it's so absurd that anyone engaging with you should seriously consider whether it's worth it.

Edit: Maybe some clarification is incoming... but to clear up from my end:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activism
You think none of that has/had value?

Call it what you like - but I stand by my "claim" that activism is utterly pointless, self-serving, and in some cases, destructive and counter-productive. Cite all the examples you like; there are reasons why each of those endeavors succeeded that go beyond basic activism. That mine is not a popular opinion on a very liberal-heavy site is hardly a surprise. But I don't consider that a bad thing - liberals are all too often ruled predominantly by their emotions and see value solely in "doing something" and "raising awareness" without stopping to consider the value of what it is they are doing and whether the result they desire is obtainable through their given methods. Worse, without considering results they remain painfully oblivious to the fact that their misdirected "actions" are often making their opposition stronger and hurting their own cause. They'd rather just "do something" (with the cozy little side bonus of feeling better about themselves for "doing something"). Feel free - I am not one to tell you how to live your life. You do you. But taking offense because someone points out the pointlessness of your efforts (not even in a pointed condemnation but simply in a stated incidental opinion) is about as productive as putting your little hashtag in front of whatever word is triggering you this week or lying down in a public place in front of a local news station camera. That I endeavor to accomplish things that are important to me through actual meaningful and considered action is a source of pride regardless how many over-emotional adult males tell me that my viewpoint is absurd.

EDITED for spelling because while I am perfectly fine being viewed as a loon by my friends here on Blues, I'd hate to be viewed as an uneducated loon.

This comment was edited on Mar 14, 2018, 10:36.

RedEye9 wrote on Mar 13, 2018, 19:45:

Sepharo wrote on Mar 13, 2018, 15:55:
Sorry I have to agree to some degree...
You made an absurd claim, that while couched as merely your opinion, doesn't change that it's so absurd that anyone engaging with you should seriously consider whether it's worth it.

Edit: Maybe some clarification is incoming... but to clear up from my end:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activism
You think none of that has/had value?

You are just asking for someone to make a note of who's worth responding to.

I'm not exactly positive of your meaning... but if I assume you're commenting on the fact that I didn't take my own advice ( ) ... I'd say that I'm engaging Prez because he's normally a smart, relatively sane, nice guy and I hate to see people I like say stupid things.

Sepharo wrote on Mar 13, 2018, 15:55:
Sorry I have to agree to some degree...
You made an absurd claim, that while couched as merely your opinion, doesn't change that it's so absurd that anyone engaging with you should seriously consider whether it's worth it.

Edit: Maybe some clarification is incoming... but to clear up from my end:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activism
You think none of that has/had value?

You are just asking for someone to make a note of who's worth responding to.

Sorry I have to agree to some degree...
You made an absurd claim, that while couched as merely your opinion, doesn't change that it's so absurd that anyone engaging with you should seriously consider whether it's worth it.

Edit: Maybe some clarification is incoming... but to clear up from my end:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activism
You think none of that has/had value?

Okay so disagreeing with a point of view (one for which clearly no time was taken I'm attempting to even read much less comprehend) is grounds for shunning and mockery in Yonder's world. I'll make a note of that as it will save me time later when determining who is worth responding to. But I would ask that you save your pity as it is unnecessary and unwarranted. As for my "loved ones"... well, there's my dogs and cats I guess...

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 th

eir 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.

The dude literally said "I just see no value in activism of any kind."

Time to start slowly backing away and just let him enjoy his life that where nothing needs fixing anywhere by anyone.

You literally could not find a better example of a wasted effort than to try to convince him off the value of trying to make things better.

Just pity his loved ones and go on with your day.

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.

I'd argue that the shift on gay marriage was brought about more due to an overall shift in societal norms that coincided with the overall weakening of the power of the religious right. I won't deny that this was helped along by gay people coming out en masse over the last 20 or 30 years but I don't look at people no longer being ashamed of who or what they are as they had felt forced to in the past as "activism". I think it's also worth pointing out that it was a distinct lack of activism - a conservative Supreme Court judge ruling based on what the Constitution provides for all citizens rather than based on personal value systems as so many activist judges on both sides normally do - that effectively put the gay marriage issue to bed once and for all.

Activism is often about awareness. Back in 2012 or whenever it was, I thought Occupy Wall Street was a horrendous joke.

But honestly, in the years after, I think a lot of people started thinking about much of what they were discussing. With Trump, much of those concerns have disappeared, but the core tenets of OWS definitely became more common thinking.

In other words, the general execution was lacking, but it did leave a cultural impact. Therefore: mission accomplished.

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.

Pigeon wrote on Mar 12, 2018, 16:53:

eRe4s3r wrote on Mar 12, 2018, 16:16:

Vulkan wrote on Mar 12, 2018, 14:09:

Pigeon wrote on Mar 12, 2018, 14:04:
I mean Plants vs. Zombies = border control!? WTF?

Gotta admit, had to check I wasn't reading The Onion. Politics aside, this article deserves some kind of prize for its unintentional comedic value.

Or worse, intentional satire disguised as a serious OP ED. If you read the entire text satirical it also makes a lot more sense.

Maybe it's more insidious than that. Maybe it's a Russian troll out to stir up the right by passing this ridiculousness off as part of 'The Liberal Agenda'

This isn't unusual for The Guardian. I consider their news reporting to be among the best in the world, but their opinion section can be incredibly hand-wringy. They could have had a point about GamerGate and 4chan, although as others have said that's not a cause but a symptom.

Pretty sure Tropico is completely communist anyway. Even if you take the most capitalist options, you're still the government running every business and controlling every citizen.

HorrorScope wrote on Mar 12, 2018, 17:13:
I'm waiting here for Far Right 5 to shoot the Far-Right pixels, explain that?

Most games you start on the far left and shoot things coming at you from the far right. If you meet in the middle, you die.

Deep.