I'm really curious about what are the best ways for activists to behave then.
Let's hear the ways that trying to change the world for the better, hidden and tucked in a corner, not causing any concern, and imagine how that will turn out.
No lasting victory for humanity was won without causing disruption.
I'm really curious about what are the best ways for activists to behave then.
Let's hear the ways that trying to change the world for the better, hidden and tucked in a corner, not causing any concern, and imagine how that will turn out.
No lasting victory for humanity was won without causing disruption.
Probably - and hear me out - activists should act in a way which broadens their political base rather than narrowing it? What should one do if a) they think climate change is an urgent political priority but b) think the Israel-Palestine situation is really complicated and not helped by people using slogans which implicitly call for the destruction of the Israeli state?
Thanks for asking! I've actually written about this a few times. Here's probably the best summary of my views on the best way for activists to actually achieve the changes they want:
I appreciate that you're probably not a regular reader but that's a remarkably ungenerous response! What if (hear me out) I think climate action and peace in the Middle East is important but would rather activists did things that made those things more likely rather than less?
To give you validation, James, I think zooming in on a single phrase, loading it with one's own meaning, and consequently dismissing a much larger argument out of hand is about as 'bad faith' as it's possible to get.
I'm really curious about what are the best ways for activists to behave then.
Let's hear the ways that trying to change the world for the better, hidden and tucked in a corner, not causing any concern, and imagine how that will turn out.
No lasting victory for humanity was won without causing disruption.
Probably - and hear me out - activists should act in a way which broadens their political base rather than narrowing it? What should one do if a) they think climate change is an urgent political priority but b) think the Israel-Palestine situation is really complicated and not helped by people using slogans which implicitly call for the destruction of the Israeli state?
Answer: they tune out the climate change stuff...
Thanks for asking! I've actually written about this a few times. Here's probably the best summary of my views on the best way for activists to actually achieve the changes they want:
https://takes.jamesomalley.co.uk/p/activists-should-make-fighting-climate
Thank you for the reply. I think describing it as "the changes they want" tells me all I need to know, thank you though!
I appreciate that you're probably not a regular reader but that's a remarkably ungenerous response! What if (hear me out) I think climate action and peace in the Middle East is important but would rather activists did things that made those things more likely rather than less?
To give you validation, James, I think zooming in on a single phrase, loading it with one's own meaning, and consequently dismissing a much larger argument out of hand is about as 'bad faith' as it's possible to get.
Good post. No need to be so self deprecating (calling yourself and A***hole is a bit harsh lol).
You needed to show that stuff