I was a voracious reader as a kid, and I noticed a funny phenomenon: whatever writer I had most recently read, my next paper for English class would sound like…
So, it’s been a few years now, has articulating concern in this fashion actually effected any tangible change, what is the goal here aside from performative outrage?
And a position does not automatically become valid simply because a large number of people believe it.
Finally, nobody is ignoring or not considering anything here. The context is that this has, in fact, been considered and discussed to death at this point. But if you’re claiming that some new point that hasn’t been considered already is being made, by all means enlighten me as to what it might be.
Nah, I have a problem with people wasting energy on Quixotian endeavours even when I agree with the concerns because that energy could’ve been directed towards doing something constructive instead. Performative outrage isn’t noble, it’s a lazy way for people make themselves feel relevant without actually doing anything of value.
socialism and anarchism are different. you gave an example of someone fighting for a cause you dislike! A fair example would be a youtuber covering socialist politics (that you agree with) but who fails to say anything truly novel and who isn’t having any (noticable) real world effect.
Would you really call that “performative outrage” “wasting energy” or basically accuse them of grifting?
Perhaps you should define what you think socialism is exactly.
Anarchism is clearly a form of socialism because it shares the core socialist goal of abolishing capitalism and replacing private ownership with collective ownership.
But if you think socialism is synonymous with Marxism, then I disagree with Maoism and Trotskyism as well.
And yes, I plenty of socialist youtubers covering socialist politics I agree with are grifters. Hasan Piker and Jackson Hinkle are a prime examples.
So, it’s been a few years now, has articulating concern in this fashion actually effected any tangible change, what is the goal here aside from performative outrage?
And a position does not automatically become valid simply because a large number of people believe it.
Finally, nobody is ignoring or not considering anything here. The context is that this has, in fact, been considered and discussed to death at this point. But if you’re claiming that some new point that hasn’t been considered already is being made, by all means enlighten me as to what it might be.
score 0 · canonical
So, your stance is, “people should simply give up and shut up, and anyone who doesn’t is just being performative”. Got it.
score 2 · canonical
My stance is that perseveration is not effective at achieving anything tangible, unless of course spectacle itself is the goal.
score 1 · canonical
Is there something wrong with earnestly expressing what you think is true without believing it will achieve anything concrete?
I doubt you’d have a problem with a noble-but-hopeless resistance if you believed their concerns were correct.
score 1 · canonical
Nah, I have a problem with people wasting energy on Quixotian endeavours even when I agree with the concerns because that energy could’ve been directed towards doing something constructive instead. Performative outrage isn’t noble, it’s a lazy way for people make themselves feel relevant without actually doing anything of value.
score 1 · canonical
Really? You have a problem with it? Could you give an example of someone fighting for a cause you like that you would disavow on these grounds?
score 1 · canonical
Absolutely, I’m a big supporter of socialism and I completely disagree with the anarchist approach to flat organization and rejection of authority.
score 1 · canonical
socialism and anarchism are different. you gave an example of someone fighting for a cause you dislike! A fair example would be a youtuber covering socialist politics (that you agree with) but who fails to say anything truly novel and who isn’t having any (noticable) real world effect.
Would you really call that “performative outrage” “wasting energy” or basically accuse them of grifting?
score 1 · canonical
Perhaps you should define what you think socialism is exactly.
Anarchism is clearly a form of socialism because it shares the core socialist goal of abolishing capitalism and replacing private ownership with collective ownership.
But if you think socialism is synonymous with Marxism, then I disagree with Maoism and Trotskyism as well.
And yes, I plenty of socialist youtubers covering socialist politics I agree with are grifters. Hasan Piker and Jackson Hinkle are a prime examples.
score 1 · canonical