The Follies of Activism

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Did you see my edit asking a question in my earlier post about defending my settled EU mates if I have to?
What thoughts do you have about that hypothetical scenario?

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Did you see my edit asking a question in my earlier post about defending my settled EU mates if I have to?
What thoughts do you have about that hypothetical scenario?

I’m sorry I cannot find it. If you wouldn’t mind linking to it or repeating it, I will give it a go.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I guess you missed my last post.
Please explain this:

A simple adherence to the principle's of freedom would have sufficed to get women the vote.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Activism is, after all, one degree or another of coercion. When it comes to manifest in its collective form, whether by march or boycott for example, it is by nature a menacing threat reminiscent

Reminiscent but not the same as.

And we should remember this before we give in to the seduction of group protest. When shouting down a speaker, when shutting down a meeting, when impeding traffic to make a point, the activist is effectively in the business of trampling on the rights of others, which seems to me paradoxical. This alone proves that much of activism isn’t about human rights at all, but dominance and power.

Way to go..lump all protests in the same light. Did you honestly think we could not see the sleight of hand you did there?

For the serial rapist, such as Harvey Weinstein, it becomes a disguise, if not a feeding ground. And if all that isn’t enough to do it, the costumes, the placards, and the pounding slogans should consistently remind the innocent bystander of the spectacle of propaganda and public relations that passes before them.

Are you saying the the activists against Weinstein provide him with a cover by being a bigger spectacle?

“showing solidarity”. But the euphemistic language loses its soporific qualities as soon as we realize how mind-numbingly childish and dangerous all this behaviour is. The slogans scribbled in marker, the face-paint, the masks and costumes, the perpetual singing and chanting, gives an infantile quality to the grown-up issues activists claim to champion.

"Childish and dangerous"? You're calling for self-censorship in order to be more grown up. Appeal to emotion.

Activists carry their activist badges with honor and pride, and we let them get away with it.

When we see that they are not true activists but agent provocateurs infiltrating a cause we call them out on it.
Something has happened to the LesMis I used to know.

Taken to its conclusion you would advocate and reinterpret MLK, the Trade Union movement and womens marches for the right to vote as mere blimps in history devoid of seeking justice and towards a rebalancing of an unequal power structure.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: amazing

But lets take it back a step. Take one issue, Women's right to vote in the US Without Activism women woudn't have been able to vote.

That's why it's laughable when you say you don't like Activism at all. It has been required throughout history in many places to instigate meaningful change.

Yes, I don't like activism at all. A simple adherence to the principle's of freedom would have sufficed to get women the vote.

And what principle would that have been. Men in Power...the establishment had created laws that made it so women couldn't vote...more victorian england policies. Those in power weren't going to change unless someone made them change. That fighting for "Freedom" is "Activism" and was "necessary".

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I’m sorry I cannot find it. If you wouldn’t mind linking to it or repeating it, I will give it a go.

Sorry not needed, here you go, genuine question...

Question if you'd be kind enough to answer, imagine a situation with immigration service snatch squads post Brexit trying to deport my settled EU mates because they failed a visa application. If you were me, would you not hide them and/or fight the immigration teams? I would, passionately, and all my Brit mates would. Would you? Purely hypothetical of course but I'm making a point depending on how you answer.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Question if you'd be kind enough to answer, imagine a situation with immigration service snatch squads post Brexit trying to deport my settled EU mates because they failed a visa application. If you were me, would you not hide them and/or fight the immigration teams? I would, passionately, and all my Brit mates would. Would you? Purely hypothetical of course but I'm making a point depending on how you answer.

I oppose anything unjust. If they were my friends, however, I would probably do anything.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

annoying propaganda—but it became especially pernicious in the hands of history’s most effective activists: the Nazis. Their public displays of Nazi ideology and symbolism, culminating in their camp little marches, public displays of violence, and impromptu but unsolicited speeches, would help lead to their seizure of power.

As your words above 3NL1GHT3N3D1 is perfectly justified in using the same example to "help lead", the comparison is valid.

a reply to: amazing

And what principle would that have been. Men in Power...the establishment had created laws that made it so women couldn't vote...more victorian england policies. Those in power weren't going to change unless someone made them change. That fighting for "Freedom" is "Activism" and was "necessary".

Well, there was as much direct activism opposing women's suffrage, slavery, as there was promoting it.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Haha fair one mate, there are some things will make you an activist same as me, your loved friends...it's being human!

EDIT
First star is from me for that reply lol.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Though I would suggest that if the British had heeded Gandhi's advice, which was to lay down their arms and give up, there probably wouldn't be much activism in the world.

So since Gandhis time we have not seen any despotic rulers requiring protest.
The millions jailed and killed under various regimes in South America to name one continent, must have wizzed right over your centre of attention?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: amazing

And what principle would that have been. Men in Power...the establishment had created laws that made it so women couldn't vote...more victorian england policies. Those in power weren't going to change unless someone made them change. That fighting for "Freedom" is "Activism" and was "necessary".

Well, there was as much direct activism opposing women's suffrage, slavery, as there was promoting it.

But are you saying those women shouldn't have been activists? What should they have done to get the right to vote? That's the question really?

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

So since Gandhis time we have not seen any despotic rulers requiring protest. The millions jailed and killed under various regimes in South America to name one continent, must have wizzed right over your centre of attention?

Sure, despotism requires protest, but despots usually clamp down on protests and dissent in general. That's what I meant.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: amazing

And what principle would that have been. Men in Power...the establishment had created laws that made it so women couldn't vote...more victorian england policies. Those in power weren't going to change unless someone made them change. That fighting for "Freedom" is "Activism" and was "necessary".

Well, there was as much direct activism opposing women's suffrage, slavery, as there was promoting it.

But are you saying those women shouldn't have been activists? What should they have done to get the right to vote? That's the question really?

That's what I want to know as well. Also notice that he is ignoring my posts?

a reply to: amazing

But are you saying those women shouldn't have been activists? What should they have done to get the right to vote? That's the question really?

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that activism isn't always a one to one ratio with the romantic gesticulations we often ascribe to it.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I oppose anything unjust. If they were my friends, however, I would probably do anything.

That, my friend, is called being an activist.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

"peacefully assemble" and "vigorous campaigning" are not mutually exclusive

noun
the doctrine or practice of vigorous action orinvolvement as a means of achieving political or other goals, sometimes by demonstrations, protests, etc

a reply to: RowanBean

That, my friend, is called being an activist.

It's called being a friend.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: RowanBean

That, my friend, is called being an activist.

It's called being a friend.

I'm a friend to all my fellow humans if the cause can be justified.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: RowanBean

That, my friend, is called being an activist.

It's called being a friend.

I'm a friend to all my fellow humans if the cause can be justified.

I'm a friend to all my fellow humans if the cause can be justified.

I differ on that point. I'm no friend of rapists, racists, nor authoritarians for example.