3 ms·

> we reinvest our own profit into new projects that we believe are going to bring about real social change. So what? Why is there an implicit assumption that i

by 31h 9y ago

> we reinvest our own profit into new projects that we believe are going to bring about real social change. So what? Why is there an implicit assumption that if someone is trying to bring about "change", that it must be good?

everestjustleft 9y ago
I believe the "good" is implicit mate.
- 31h 9y ago
  Pardon if I don't give someone credit for asserting they support "social change" without specifying what they're changing. It could mean anything from "ban mosques in London" to "free condoms with every middle-school lunch".
  - conatus 9y ago
    What social change we want to cause is: a) decided democratically by those who have done the work. b) subject to a rigorous "theory of change" (of the kind used by charities and the third sector) to decide on potential impacts and side effects of any change caused and to measure how much change has been caused. So we don't just do change for changes sake but try and cause positive social change. We talk about this internally a lot and have robust consent based decision making processes to be "checks and balances" on these matters.
    - 31h 9y ago
      a rigorous "theory of change" (of the kind used by charities and the third sector) to decide on potential impacts and side effects I see. Sounds like "very rigorous maritime engineering standards".
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  The Southern Student Organizing Committee sought social change that they saw as good. OTOH, so did (and do!) the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Opinions rather radically different on which social change is good, so someone who merely tells you that they are seeking social change (whether or not they explicitly specify that it is “good”), but not what specific change they are seeking probably doesn't deserve much credit. Unless you are merely a seeker of chaos, such that any change, regardless of the nature of the change, is, inherently, good in your view.

by 31h 9y ago

everestjustleft 9y ago

I believe the "good" is implicit mate.

31h 9y ago
Pardon if I don't give someone credit for asserting they support "social change" without specifying what they're changing. It could mean anything from "ban mosques in London" to "free condoms with every middle-school lunch".
- conatus 9y ago
  What social change we want to cause is: a) decided democratically by those who have done the work. b) subject to a rigorous "theory of change" (of the kind used by charities and the third sector) to decide on potential impacts and side effects of any change caused and to measure how much change has been caused. So we don't just do change for changes sake but try and cause positive social change. We talk about this internally a lot and have robust consent based decision making processes to be "checks and balances" on these matters.
  - 31h 9y ago
    a rigorous "theory of change" (of the kind used by charities and the third sector) to decide on potential impacts and side effects I see. Sounds like "very rigorous maritime engineering standards".
dragonwriter 9y ago
The Southern Student Organizing Committee sought social change that they saw as good. OTOH, so did (and do!) the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Opinions rather radically different on which social change is good, so someone who merely tells you that they are seeking social change (whether or not they explicitly specify that it is “good”), but not what specific change they are seeking probably doesn't deserve much credit. Unless you are merely a seeker of chaos, such that any change, regardless of the nature of the change, is, inherently, good in your view.