4 ms·

There is a certain rather loud, rather fashionable kind of "activist" who are if not directly claiming that everything is awful, then strongly evoking symbolism

There is a certain rather loud, rather fashionable kind of "activist" who are if not directly claiming that everything is awful, then strongly evoking symbolism and imagery to that effect. To fix this, they want to take broad, radical action, basically to affect revolution. This approach is indefensible given the actual state of the world, and these activists are either confused about the facts, or cynically manipulating their followers for personal power. If they get their way, things will get worse, quickly. These are the people Pinker is rebutting. There is also a kind of activist that work towards fixing specific problems, including Gates, but certainly also a great many people of lesser means and public profile, and does indeed improve the world in the way you describe. I have no doubt that Pinker respects these.

jahnu 9y ago
Any examples of this kind of activist? Are they particularly common?
- pron 9y ago
  Sure. From the plebeians of ancient Rome, through the French revolutionaries and American abolitionists and feminists of the 19th century, to the feminist suffragists[1] of the early 20th century. [1]: One of the things I always find hilarious is the constant refrain among conservatives is "well, the old generation was right but this one has gone too far!" despite the constant decline in the fervor of feminist activism for over a century now. :)
  - haberman 9y ago
    It's not just conservatives saying that, it is also people who have been feminists their whole lives: https://areomagazine.com/2016/12/29/why-i-no-longer-identify-as-a-feminist/ https://areomagazine.com/2016/12/29/why-i-no-longer-identify... https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/am-i-a-bad-feminist/article37591823/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/am-i-a-bad-feminist/...
    - pron 9y ago
      Yep, for centuries (millennia, actually) the pattern is the same. A social change movement is invariably viewed as having "gone too far", but in order to be perceived as reasonable, the critics invariably say that the previous generation was right. Don't get me wrong: movements certainly can and do go "too far"[1], but in about 100% of the cases, the political activism that has brought us where we are was viewed as having gone too far (the American revolution and the abolitionist movement included). In general, conservatives (like Pinker) pretty much always get the history wrong (the facts, the interpretation, and usually both), while liberals are usually wrong about the future (and I say this as a radical leftist). That's why it's easy to poke fun at conservatives who write history (certainly those who, like Pinker, are not professional historians), while liberals are always surprised of the turn of events (for good or bad; when liberals -- including myself -- are optimistic I'm worried, and when they're pessimistic I know I can relax). [1]: Feminists not so much; there's been a constant decline in the fervor feminist activism over the past century, but certainly, say, the French revolutionaries. Feminism has always been special for many understandable reasons. It is almost always the most timid form of social activism, yet almost always perceived as the most radical.
      - haberman 9y ago
        > Don't get me wrong: movements certainly can and do go "too far"[1], but in about 100% of the cases, the political activism that has brought us where we are was viewed as having gone too far (the American revolution and the abolitionist movement included). Sure, by some. It's also true that in about 100% of cases where people have argued for legitimately bad social change (eugenics, communism, prohibition, etc.), those people (and their allies) cast their opponents as immoral and regressive. It's like Carl Sagan said: "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Today on Twitter I saw a conservative arguing that people who deny the personhood of a fetus are like slaveowners who denied the personhood of slaves. As a radical leftist, I doubt you'd agree with that. But this person is just as convinced as you that they are the progressive on this issue. So we need a better heuristic than "people arguing social change are probably right." Some are right, others are not.
enraged_camel 9y ago
Can you give some examples of prominent activists who want radical changes?
pron 9y ago
> This approach is indefensible given the actual state of the world, and these activists are either confused about the facts, or cynically manipulating their followers for personal power. Except that, as any student of history knows, the current state of the world is what it is thanks almost entirely to people just like that (although historians generally view them in a better light than you do because of what they've achieved, despite always being presented by conservative forces in the same light as you view them).
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- pas 9y ago
  My technophile bias is showing, but I'm not convinced that any, all, and every past and present student of history thinks that progress is due to violent/radical revolutionaries, and that they are/were the good guys (gals) - even if revolutions were necessary for change. However, it's seems very evident that to extract even some minuscule progress from a conservative power structure a very strong anti-conservative force is usually a must, and that is usually not a moderate progressive force, but a very blunt radical one. Again, however, that doesn't mean that the best course of action is a violent tabula rasa, even if things are currently shit. But, it can be argued that a moderate force simply bounces back without much effect, but even the recent events of the last decade make that argument very unconvincing. (As big changes are easily usurped by blind populism, leaving no room to critical evaluation of possible policy proposals.)
  - pron 9y ago
    > and that they are/were the good guys (gals) - even if revolutions were necessary for change. While my training as a professional historian was cut short, I know enough to say that historians are very much trained not to judge or categorize people into good or bad. That has nothing to do with the fact that most social change has been achieved through political struggle. > Again, however, that doesn't mean that the best course of action is a violent tabula rasa, even if things are currently shit. I try not to prescribe a course of action based on the past. I note that Pinker's assessment is judgmental, i.e., he considers the main trend to be positive, yet at the same time he's judgmental against activists. My point is that you can't hold both views at once.

jahnu 9y ago

Any examples of this kind of activist? Are they particularly common?

pron 9y ago
Sure. From the plebeians of ancient Rome, through the French revolutionaries and American abolitionists and feminists of the 19th century, to the feminist suffragists[1] of the early 20th century. [1]: One of the things I always find hilarious is the constant refrain among conservatives is "well, the old generation was right but this one has gone too far!" despite the constant decline in the fervor of feminist activism for over a century now. :)
- haberman 9y ago
  It's not just conservatives saying that, it is also people who have been feminists their whole lives: https://areomagazine.com/2016/12/29/why-i-no-longer-identify-as-a-feminist/ https://areomagazine.com/2016/12/29/why-i-no-longer-identify... https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/am-i-a-bad-feminist/article37591823/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/am-i-a-bad-feminist/...
  - pron 9y ago
    Yep, for centuries (millennia, actually) the pattern is the same. A social change movement is invariably viewed as having "gone too far", but in order to be perceived as reasonable, the critics invariably say that the previous generation was right. Don't get me wrong: movements certainly can and do go "too far"[1], but in about 100% of the cases, the political activism that has brought us where we are was viewed as having gone too far (the American revolution and the abolitionist movement included). In general, conservatives (like Pinker) pretty much always get the history wrong (the facts, the interpretation, and usually both), while liberals are usually wrong about the future (and I say this as a radical leftist). That's why it's easy to poke fun at conservatives who write history (certainly those who, like Pinker, are not professional historians), while liberals are always surprised of the turn of events (for good or bad; when liberals -- including myself -- are optimistic I'm worried, and when they're pessimistic I know I can relax). [1]: Feminists not so much; there's been a constant decline in the fervor feminist activism over the past century, but certainly, say, the French revolutionaries. Feminism has always been special for many understandable reasons. It is almost always the most timid form of social activism, yet almost always perceived as the most radical.
    - haberman 9y ago
      > Don't get me wrong: movements certainly can and do go "too far"[1], but in about 100% of the cases, the political activism that has brought us where we are was viewed as having gone too far (the American revolution and the abolitionist movement included). Sure, by some. It's also true that in about 100% of cases where people have argued for legitimately bad social change (eugenics, communism, prohibition, etc.), those people (and their allies) cast their opponents as immoral and regressive. It's like Carl Sagan said: "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Today on Twitter I saw a conservative arguing that people who deny the personhood of a fetus are like slaveowners who denied the personhood of slaves. As a radical leftist, I doubt you'd agree with that. But this person is just as convinced as you that they are the progressive on this issue. So we need a better heuristic than "people arguing social change are probably right." Some are right, others are not.

enraged_camel 9y ago

Can you give some examples of prominent activists who want radical changes?

pron 9y ago

> This approach is indefensible given the actual state of the world, and these activists are either confused about the facts, or cynically manipulating their followers for personal power. Except that, as any student of history knows, the current state of the world is what it is thanks almost entirely to people just like that (although historians generally view them in a better light than you do because of what they've achieved, despite always being presented by conservative forces in the same light as you view them).

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
pas 9y ago
My technophile bias is showing, but I'm not convinced that any, all, and every past and present student of history thinks that progress is due to violent/radical revolutionaries, and that they are/were the good guys (gals) - even if revolutions were necessary for change. However, it's seems very evident that to extract even some minuscule progress from a conservative power structure a very strong anti-conservative force is usually a must, and that is usually not a moderate progressive force, but a very blunt radical one. Again, however, that doesn't mean that the best course of action is a violent tabula rasa, even if things are currently shit. But, it can be argued that a moderate force simply bounces back without much effect, but even the recent events of the last decade make that argument very unconvincing. (As big changes are easily usurped by blind populism, leaving no room to critical evaluation of possible policy proposals.)
- pron 9y ago
  > and that they are/were the good guys (gals) - even if revolutions were necessary for change. While my training as a professional historian was cut short, I know enough to say that historians are very much trained not to judge or categorize people into good or bad. That has nothing to do with the fact that most social change has been achieved through political struggle. > Again, however, that doesn't mean that the best course of action is a violent tabula rasa, even if things are currently shit. I try not to prescribe a course of action based on the past. I note that Pinker's assessment is judgmental, i.e., he considers the main trend to be positive, yet at the same time he's judgmental against activists. My point is that you can't hold both views at once.