4 ms·

> it claims more significance for this mechanism than, you know, masses of people marching on the streets, because that's the vantage point of the author and it

by zamfi 6y ago

> it claims more significance for this mechanism than, you know, masses of people marching on the streets, because that's the vantage point of the author and it's relative importance to him I mean, the masses of people marching on the streets would very likely not be there but for the widespread sharing of the video.

clairity 6y ago
no, see that's exactly the misestimation afforded by insulation. we've had protests and rebellions recently and for millenia without social media influence. it's just not a required feature of masses of people being angry at injustice.
- zamfi 6y ago
  Sure, and we’ve had race riots in the past too. But when was the last time we had this level of protest in support of a minority group? The million man march? And that required how much organization in comparison? No one is arguing that it’s a required feature for masses of people being angry at injustice. What they’re arguing is that it changes which injustices are visible.
  - clairity 6y ago
    > "But when was the last time we had this level of protest in support of a minority group?" so injustice doesn't matter when it's just minorities, only when some (presumably white) people "support" them? > "What they’re arguing is that it changes which injustices are visible." ...to him. the injustices are painfully apparent to the population affected. look, all things being equal, it's better that he's now startled out of ignorance by a tragic and now-sensationalized video of someone's death, but sorry, that's not the central mechanism of change here.
    - zamfi 6y ago
      Wait, I'm not sure why you are taking a combative tone, as I'm pretty sure we agree -- and if we don't, I'd like to see where. Perhaps I was unclear. First: injustice absolutely matters in all cases, not just when it's visible to white people. But, injustice towards minority groups has, for most of American history, been invisible to and/or ignored by majority groups (obviously not to the minority groups experiencing it, thanks, or even to others). To be clear, this is BAD. Second: pervasive cellphones (+ cameras) and social media is changing that, making injustices directed at minority groups visible to majority groups, and harder to ignore by those majority groups. Are you saying that this is not happening, or that it is bad? Or that it's not because of cellphones and social media? What is the central mechanism of change? (Whether this visibility will ultimately help change anything remains to be seen, for sure. And there are also clearly downsides to social media that make other things worse, too.)
      - clairity 6y ago
        yes, sorry if what i said seemed combative, but i wanted to be very clear and direct about the mechanism of change being the protesters and not the (particularly white) onlookers who support the protesters. that's not to disdain the support (yes to support!) or the changing of sympathies with (social) media (yes to sympathies!), but the effects of those are relatively marginal to change. my secondary point is that it shouldn't need to take a video to convince (white) people. just listen to the protesters, carefully and earnestly, as well as the investigative journalism around what they say. that should be enough, if folks care enough to not ignore the injustices.
        zamfi 6y ago
        Thanks, this was helpful. I think I worry that, short of revolution, change happens because people in power acquiesce to it. :/ (Again, obviously, this is bad, and I wish it were not this way, and I don’t condone or want to justify this. I just worry that it’s what history suggests.) If that’s true — and again, I hope it’s not, and it sucks if it is — then the effects of supporters and sympathies are not actually marginal to change, and the ability for those without power to attract the sympathies and support of those with it is both a Big Deal, and new — media has long been closely gatekept by power. But I’m not a particularly strong student of history, and I’d love to be wrong here. To your secondary point: I wholeheartedly agree, it should be enough.

by zamfi 6y ago

clairity 6y ago

no, see that's exactly the misestimation afforded by insulation. we've had protests and rebellions recently and for millenia without social media influence. it's just not a required feature of masses of people being angry at injustice.

zamfi 6y ago
Sure, and we’ve had race riots in the past too. But when was the last time we had this level of protest in support of a minority group? The million man march? And that required how much organization in comparison? No one is arguing that it’s a required feature for masses of people being angry at injustice. What they’re arguing is that it changes which injustices are visible.
- clairity 6y ago
  > "But when was the last time we had this level of protest in support of a minority group?" so injustice doesn't matter when it's just minorities, only when some (presumably white) people "support" them? > "What they’re arguing is that it changes which injustices are visible." ...to him. the injustices are painfully apparent to the population affected. look, all things being equal, it's better that he's now startled out of ignorance by a tragic and now-sensationalized video of someone's death, but sorry, that's not the central mechanism of change here.
  - zamfi 6y ago
    Wait, I'm not sure why you are taking a combative tone, as I'm pretty sure we agree -- and if we don't, I'd like to see where. Perhaps I was unclear. First: injustice absolutely matters in all cases, not just when it's visible to white people. But, injustice towards minority groups has, for most of American history, been invisible to and/or ignored by majority groups (obviously not to the minority groups experiencing it, thanks, or even to others). To be clear, this is BAD. Second: pervasive cellphones (+ cameras) and social media is changing that, making injustices directed at minority groups visible to majority groups, and harder to ignore by those majority groups. Are you saying that this is not happening, or that it is bad? Or that it's not because of cellphones and social media? What is the central mechanism of change? (Whether this visibility will ultimately help change anything remains to be seen, for sure. And there are also clearly downsides to social media that make other things worse, too.)
    - clairity 6y ago
      yes, sorry if what i said seemed combative, but i wanted to be very clear and direct about the mechanism of change being the protesters and not the (particularly white) onlookers who support the protesters. that's not to disdain the support (yes to support!) or the changing of sympathies with (social) media (yes to sympathies!), but the effects of those are relatively marginal to change. my secondary point is that it shouldn't need to take a video to convince (white) people. just listen to the protesters, carefully and earnestly, as well as the investigative journalism around what they say. that should be enough, if folks care enough to not ignore the injustices.
      - zamfi 6y ago
        Thanks, this was helpful. I think I worry that, short of revolution, change happens because people in power acquiesce to it. :/ (Again, obviously, this is bad, and I wish it were not this way, and I don’t condone or want to justify this. I just worry that it’s what history suggests.) If that’s true — and again, I hope it’s not, and it sucks if it is — then the effects of supporters and sympathies are not actually marginal to change, and the ability for those without power to attract the sympathies and support of those with it is both a Big Deal, and new — media has long been closely gatekept by power. But I’m not a particularly strong student of history, and I’d love to be wrong here. To your secondary point: I wholeheartedly agree, it should be enough.