2 ms·

But in a way it's right. The approach is a temper tantrum. There's no clear path or discussion of the issues at hand, it's just a simplistic demand that's esse

by juancn 4y ago

But in a way it's right. The approach is a temper tantrum. There's no clear path or discussion of the issues at hand, it's just a simplistic demand that's essentially impractical. Civilized people get involved in a civilized way, that's just virtue signaling. That's why we have democracies and legal systems, learn them and change the system from the inside. Start a political party, petition, argue, discuss and most of all compromise. Without compromise it's impossible to sort these things out and in the end you may end up hurting whatever ill-defined cause that you're pursuing.

denton-scratch 4y ago
> Civilized people get involved in a civilized way, that's just virtue signaling. I don't agree. Your advice to "change the system from the inside" is unhelpful, if you don't happen to be on the inside. It's not reasonable to demand that all political activity must be done by lawyers and politicians. Whether or not people trust them, they are not trustworthy. Your assertion that direct action amounts to virtue-signalling is silly; people don't risk arrest and jail to signal their virtue. You can get seriously injured performing direct action. I think you should take the actions of protesters a bit more seriously. And I think the article's author does the opposite, by painting them as tantrum-throwing toddlers.