4 ms·

Caveat: This is a response to a more general concept, not necessarily applicable to this particular issue > Much social change begins this way Much social cha

by BoxFour 11y ago

Caveat: This is a response to a more general concept, not necessarily applicable to this particular issue > Much social change begins this way Much social change also DOESN'T begin this way (see: OWS), and it can be frustrating for people who agree with the underlying principles behind protests but think the execution is disheartening and misguided. Especially because these kinds of movements tend to be the story that gets told: People with thoughtful dissents get eclipsed by the more vociferous and extreme (one could argue that this is because extremes tend to be better fodder for the media). > For myself, when I feel myself responding that way, I try to take it as a sign that there's something beyond my perspective that I don't understand. I think that's a somewhat simplistic view of it. It's entirely possible to understand and have a developed perspective of an idea, and to still reject it - sometimes vehemently. Sure, some disruptive ideas are very challenging and ultimately end up being a good thing. The vast majority are not, though. Sometimes those disruptive ideas are detrimental, and it's not hard to see why people get angry when those detrimental effects start surfacing in visible ways (e.g. anti-vaccination).

hackuser 11y ago
> it can be frustrating for people who agree with the underlying principles behind protests but think the execution is disheartening and misguided I agree, but I also know that Martin Luther King got the same response; he was unpopular at the time; see his Letter From a Birmingham Jail [1] for his excellent description of his point of view. [EDIT: Covered in much more detail in my other post [2]] From the perspective of the challangers, our status quo beliefs and approach aren't delivering. From the perspective of many social theorists, nothing really changes until you up end the current order. As long as the status quo can sit comfortably at their desks and on their sofas, they won't be motivated to change. I haven't studied the question, but that seems plausible to me. I don't know enough about these protests and their issues to form an opinion yet; I'm just not going to reject them because they are disruptive to my ideas. In fact, no matter what I end up thinking about them, it's a good opportunity for me to re-examine my own beliefs. [1] http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.h... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10571341 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10571341
- BoxFour 11y ago
  > I agree, but I also know that Martin Luther King got the same response; It's funny you bring up MLK Jr. Here he is on Malcolm X: > I met Malcolm X once in Washington... but I totally disagree with many of his political and philosophical views... I have often wished that he would talk less of violence, because violence is not going to solve our problem... I feel that Malcolm has done himself and our people a great disservice. Emphasis mine there. MLK Jr. clearly understood he and Malcolm X were aiming towards solving the same problem, but with very different approaches to it (and MLK Jr. disagreed heavily with Malcolm X's approach clearly). > From the perspective of the challangers, our status quo beliefs and approach aren't delivering. That's a perspective of many people. Again, many people agree that problem XYZ is our problem. We can disagree on many other things besides that. > From the perspective of many social theorists, nothing really changes until you up end the current order. I suspect that's a contentious view point. There are certainly many recent historical examples that would be evidence against that theory on both fronts: Both significant changes occurring gradually, and upheavals that ended up with results similar or worse compared to before the upheaval. > As long as the status quo can sit comfortably at their desks and on their sofas, they won't be motivated to change. I assume the "status quo" here means the general populace, and again I think there are plenty of examples of change occurring even though the general populace wasn't affected much. Same-sex marriage in the US is a perfect example: The general populace didn't do much other than agree that it was time to end the silly prohibition on same-sex marriage. Certainly a minority of the populace was very active in making sure that it became a reality (and vice-versa), but the general populace really didn't do much to effect that change other than perhaps do their civic duty in voting. (Even then, a small influential body unaffected by the populace had the largest effect) > I'm just not going to reject them because they are disruptive to my ideas. In fact, no matter what I end up thinking about them, it's a good opportunity for me to re-examine my own beliefs. Sure, and similarly it's worth evaluating whether thimerosal causes autism. Might as well be safe. But once we've evaluated it and decided that it's not a valid concern, it's perfectly appropriate to reject the idea that vaccines cause autism. I would further argue that it's appropriate to be angry at those espousing the idea that vaccines do cause autism, because there are detrimental effects involved if that idea were to take hold at large. My point being: Not all disruptive ideas are necessarily worth being evaluated over and over again, and some disruptive ideas are harmful and it's appropriate to call them out as such. It's also hard to disentangle a disruptive idea from its agents, and it can also be appropriate to call out those agents acting inappropriately even if we agree with their disruptive idea (as MLK Jr. did to Malcolm X).

by BoxFour 11y ago

hackuser 11y ago

> it can be frustrating for people who agree with the underlying principles behind protests but think the execution is disheartening and misguided I agree, but I also know that Martin Luther King got the same response; he was unpopular at the time; see his Letter From a Birmingham Jail [1] for his excellent description of his point of view. [EDIT: Covered in much more detail in my other post [2]] From the perspective of the challangers, our status quo beliefs and approach aren't delivering. From the perspective of many social theorists, nothing really changes until you up end the current order. As long as the status quo can sit comfortably at their desks and on their sofas, they won't be motivated to change. I haven't studied the question, but that seems plausible to me. I don't know enough about these protests and their issues to form an opinion yet; I'm just not going to reject them because they are disruptive to my ideas. In fact, no matter what I end up thinking about them, it's a good opportunity for me to re-examine my own beliefs. [1] http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.h... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10571341 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10571341

BoxFour 11y ago
> I agree, but I also know that Martin Luther King got the same response; It's funny you bring up MLK Jr. Here he is on Malcolm X: > I met Malcolm X once in Washington... but I totally disagree with many of his political and philosophical views... I have often wished that he would talk less of violence, because violence is not going to solve our problem... I feel that Malcolm has done himself and our people a great disservice. Emphasis mine there. MLK Jr. clearly understood he and Malcolm X were aiming towards solving the same problem, but with very different approaches to it (and MLK Jr. disagreed heavily with Malcolm X's approach clearly). > From the perspective of the challangers, our status quo beliefs and approach aren't delivering. That's a perspective of many people. Again, many people agree that problem XYZ is our problem. We can disagree on many other things besides that. > From the perspective of many social theorists, nothing really changes until you up end the current order. I suspect that's a contentious view point. There are certainly many recent historical examples that would be evidence against that theory on both fronts: Both significant changes occurring gradually, and upheavals that ended up with results similar or worse compared to before the upheaval. > As long as the status quo can sit comfortably at their desks and on their sofas, they won't be motivated to change. I assume the "status quo" here means the general populace, and again I think there are plenty of examples of change occurring even though the general populace wasn't affected much. Same-sex marriage in the US is a perfect example: The general populace didn't do much other than agree that it was time to end the silly prohibition on same-sex marriage. Certainly a minority of the populace was very active in making sure that it became a reality (and vice-versa), but the general populace really didn't do much to effect that change other than perhaps do their civic duty in voting. (Even then, a small influential body unaffected by the populace had the largest effect) > I'm just not going to reject them because they are disruptive to my ideas. In fact, no matter what I end up thinking about them, it's a good opportunity for me to re-examine my own beliefs. Sure, and similarly it's worth evaluating whether thimerosal causes autism. Might as well be safe. But once we've evaluated it and decided that it's not a valid concern, it's perfectly appropriate to reject the idea that vaccines cause autism. I would further argue that it's appropriate to be angry at those espousing the idea that vaccines do cause autism, because there are detrimental effects involved if that idea were to take hold at large. My point being: Not all disruptive ideas are necessarily worth being evaluated over and over again, and some disruptive ideas are harmful and it's appropriate to call them out as such. It's also hard to disentangle a disruptive idea from its agents, and it can also be appropriate to call out those agents acting inappropriately even if we agree with their disruptive idea (as MLK Jr. did to Malcolm X).