A few thoughts on the latest round of White Guilt discussions

[The Good Reverend Roger]

if you have a problem with the way a specific person approaches an issue, my suggestion is to take it up with them specifically rather than lumping everyone who shares some values with that person into some lazy category and dismissing them all.

I kind of did. Take a look at my first response to Garbo in this thread.

[hooplala]

no activism = no change in law

The above effectively states activism is the only way to change law.  But, if you don't actually mean that, then we agree.

Can you name a few ways of changing the law that don't involve taking action to promote change?

Actually getting into politics is a good start.  Harvey Milk was an activist, but not just an activist - he went farther.  And I don't mean to sound like I am disparaging activism, I just think its not the only way.

I think that you may be using a fairly narrow definition of activism that doesn't include working for change from within the system. What do you mean by "he went farther"? In what ways was his "going farther" outside the scope of the definition of activism?

Do you think that Martin Luther King Jr. was, or was not, an activist?

Milk went farther by running for City Supervisor office with the intent to get things changed, these actions were outside the scope of activism (as I, possibly mistakenly, see it) by his actively being within the democratic process to effect change.

So yes, possibly I am using a narrow definition of activism, I fully admit my thinking may be incorrect.  Martin Luther King Jr was certainly an activist, as was Milk.

[LMNO]

I like RWHN's distinction between advocate and activist.

[AFK]

It's an important distinction but it isn't to say one, on balance, is more important than the other.


However, there are different specific instances and situations where one is more important and MORE EFFECTIVE over another.


I mean, from personal experience, clearly the medical marijuana activists in Maine have been more effective than the substance abuse prevention advocates.


But, by that same token, the substance abuse prevention advocates in Maine have been more effective than the marijuana legalization activists.  So far anyway. 

[East Coast Hustle]

While I very much appreciate you making the important distinction between activists and advocates, perhaps you could shut the fuck up about the whole "legalizing marijuana" thing? Forever? Because it's obviously a cheap attempt to interject that shit in the hopes of railroading the current discussion into another shitfest and surely you're smart enough to use one of the MILLIONS of other examples/analogies available to you. Thanks in advance.

[AFK]

Chill dude, it was just an illustrative example. 

[Elder Iptuous]

c'mon, man.
yeah, it may be an applicable example, but seriously. you know what happens.  we know you know.  you know we know you know.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

no activism = no change in law

The above effectively states activism is the only way to change law.  But, if you don't actually mean that, then we agree.

Can you name a few ways of changing the law that don't involve taking action to promote change?

Actually getting into politics is a good start.  Harvey Milk was an activist, but not just an activist - he went farther.  And I don't mean to sound like I am disparaging activism, I just think its not the only way.

I think that you may be using a fairly narrow definition of activism that doesn't include working for change from within the system. What do you mean by "he went farther"? In what ways was his "going farther" outside the scope of the definition of activism?

Do you think that Martin Luther King Jr. was, or was not, an activist?

Milk went farther by running for City Supervisor office with the intent to get things changed, these actions were outside the scope of activism (as I, possibly mistakenly, see it) by his actively being within the democratic process to effect change.

So yes, possibly I am using a narrow definition of activism, I fully admit my thinking may be incorrect.  Martin Luther King Jr was certainly an activist, as was Milk.

Yes,I think your definition is a bit narrow. Most activism takes place within the strictures of the democratic process, like petitioning for a measure to be added to the ballot or protesting to try to have current laws enforced fairly, or even by running for office.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

if you have a problem with the way a specific person approaches an issue, my suggestion is to take it up with them specifically rather than lumping everyone who shares some values with that person into some lazy category and dismissing them all.

I kind of did. Take a look at my first response to Garbo in this thread.

OK so here:

I'm also gonna add that I think the rejection of activism is dumb. No activism = no change in society.

Or maybe no activism = no easily garnered moral authority.

Perhaps then did you mean "Or maybe no activism for you = no easily garnered moral authority for you"? Because it read as a general slam on all activists.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I like RWHN's distinction between advocate and activist.

Many activists are advocates, many advocates are activists.

And the distinction between an advocate and a lobbyist mostly comes down to who's paying you, and for what.

This link might be helpful: http://www.dosomething.org/training/activismandadvocacy/actvism-vs-advocacy

[Faust]

I'm also gonna add that I think the rejection of activism is dumb. No activism = no change in society. Yes, there's a problem with assholes and snooty bastards in the activist community, but it serves an important purpose.

I mean, unless you want to tell me that MLK, Stephen Douglas, Susan B. Anthony and Estelle Griswold, Lucy and Albert Parsons, Harvey Milk and others should have shut the fuck and only tried to change things on a local level. Changing things on the local level is important and the only way to make lasting change, but no activism = no change in law, in larger society, no attention on issues that need to be touched (which makes it harder for individuals to be aware of the issues they need to tackle in themselves). Individual change and activism have to come together because they re-enforce each other.

I don't dispute that. I don't think any of those people would have been sitting around on the internet telling people how wrong they are though.
A woman here was denied an abortion and died because of it, I didn't go telling pro lifers to change because the action doesn't yield a result. I believe that pressure should be applied where it can cause the most change, in this case contacting the legal representatives involved and reminding them hourly that people are unhappy.

Insidious issues like racism, sexism and so on are harder to attack head on but the action should be geared at achieving the desired result.
For instance I am less interested in reading about feminism here on PD  then I would have been six months ago, and perhaps that was peoples goal, to present it as dreary hostile and a mess but I am however more interested and am involved with groups here in the city because the same material was presented to me in a better, more involving fashion.

[Dildo Argentino]

He's been right twice today.

Either he's not a total lost cause, or he's a human stopped clock.

Goddammit, I might have to reset my reality tunnel.

FUCK.

No shit.
On the other hand, it's a good idea every now and again, anyway. 

(I'm always on drugs. Start with caffeine in the morning, and then take it from there.)

Maybe you can also reset yours and stop responding to everything I say as if I'm saying it in an angry, accusatory, or mocking tone.

But I already have! Stop responding to everything I say as if I'm misreading your tone and responding as if you had adopted an angry, accusatory or mocking tone! 

On the other hand: "someone must have replaced his CPU" ???

You have a way with unmocking gestures, lady. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

He's been right twice today.

Either he's not a total lost cause, or he's a human stopped clock.

Goddammit, I might have to reset my reality tunnel.

FUCK.

No shit.
On the other hand, it's a good idea every now and again, anyway. 

(I'm always on drugs. Start with caffeine in the morning, and then take it from there.)

Maybe you can also reset yours and stop responding to everything I say as if I'm saying it in an angry, accusatory, or mocking tone.

But I already have! Stop responding to everything I say as if I'm misreading your tone and responding as if you had adopted an angry, accusatory or mocking tone! 

On the other hand: "someone must have replaced his CPU" ???

You have a way with unmocking gestures, lady. 

In that other thread you told me to stop insulting you. I wasn't insulting you.

I think you may have a problem with missing the nuances of communication, because "someone must have replaced his CPU" was a reference to my earlier insistence that you are a bot. Obviously, you are not a bot, and obviously, I am in agreement with you in this thread, so I am not sure why you think the CPU comment was intended to be insulting toward you, rather than poking fun at my own earlier statements.

I think I'll go back to ignoring you now, it's more pleasant.

[Dildo Argentino]

He's been right twice today.

Either he's not a total lost cause, or he's a human stopped clock.

Goddammit, I might have to reset my reality tunnel.

FUCK.

No shit.
On the other hand, it's a good idea every now and again, anyway. 

(I'm always on drugs. Start with caffeine in the morning, and then take it from there.)

Maybe you can also reset yours and stop responding to everything I say as if I'm saying it in an angry, accusatory, or mocking tone.

But I already have! Stop responding to everything I say as if I'm misreading your tone and responding as if you had adopted an angry, accusatory or mocking tone! 

On the other hand: "someone must have replaced his CPU" ???

You have a way with unmocking gestures, lady. 

In that other thread you told me to stop insulting you. I wasn't insulting you.

I think you may have a problem with missing the nuances of communication, because "someone must have replaced his CPU" was a reference to my earlier insistence that you are a bot. Obviously, you are not a bot, and obviously, I am in agreement with you in this thread, so I am not sure why you think the CPU comment was intended to be insulting toward you, rather than poking fun at my own earlier statements.

I think I'll go back to ignoring you now, it's more pleasant.

Okay, sorry. I guess I can see how I could have been somewhat less paranoid. Onemorechance? Weeny little one? I'll try to behave! (You know I won't last!)

[AFK]

I like RWHN's distinction between advocate and activist.

Many activists are advocates, many advocates are activists.

And the distinction between an advocate and a lobbyist mostly comes down to who's paying you, and for what.

This link might be helpful: http://www.dosomething.org/training/activismandadvocacy/actvism-vs-advocacy

Actually, who pays you determines whether or not you CAN lobby.  Basically, lobbying is when all three of these elements exist together:


Contacting a covered official (member of legislative or executive branch or a government employee)
about a specific piece of legislation or a specific executive order
and telling them how they should vote/act.


So, technically, you can contact a legislator and tell them you think kicking puppies is awful and no one should ever vote for it ever.  But because you aren't telling him to vote No on a specific bill that would legalize kicking puppies, you aren't lobbying, no matter who is paying you.


In that case you are an advocate.
You'd be an activist if you rallied a Million Puppy Walker march on Washington.