Well, one thing it's definitely very effective at is perpetuating itself to the exclusion of any kind of more thoughtful or complex activism. This is probably a problem.
True, but is this the fault of memes, or perhaps more so due to the fact that an internet platform specifically designed for nuanced, accurate, high quality conversations about complex topics does not exist (and is rarely discussed)...not to mention the questionable availability of a sufficiently skilled in thinking and discussion userbase?
I think it would be cool if HN had meta-discussions now and then where people could throw out various different ideas, I don't recall there ever being such a thing here before though. I think it's an interesting idea (maybe not for HN, but in general): a social media platform whose functionality is (largely) designed/guided by the users.
Ironic that the fact that your comment is on a startup news discussion site, points out a glaring need in the public sphere, one which could be fulfilled by a startup, and it gets downvoted to the point of being grayed out.
Ironic, and utterly fascinating if you really think about it. And it is not a one off by the way, here elsewhere. In my experience, this is almost bordering on some sort of an unrealized constant in nature.
That exchange blows my mind, the irony (and other things) is off the charts. Occam's razor would suggest Hanlon's razor as a satisfactory explanation for that conversation, but I am very skeptical.
What makes you say more thoughtful activism dont exist anymore? Whede I followed activists, their activity did not went down with these. Occasionally they uses them, occasionally not, occasionally they disagreed. But I did not seen them stop original activity or complain about memes all that much.
It is way more often people who did not cared about activism who complain about lack of it due to memes. Like, not everyone has to care about activism, but it is odd to claim it dont exist anymore.
> A few weeks ago, in the midst of the latest Israel-Hamas conflict, Andrew Yang, a mayoral candidate in New York, tweeted in support of Israel. The backlash came fast, and by the next day, #YangSupportsGenocide was trending on Twitter. The aggressive public shaming worked: Yang backtracked and issued a follow-up clarification. And now, politicians with progressive constituencies will likely think twice before publicly expressing support for Israel.
Being the key. Does not imply that meme activism was effective at doing anything but making people think twice out of fear of shame, not out of reasoned principles.
When you have to fight lobbyists, effective activism looks different. You try to cut off funding and political support. One could argue that there is already widespread support for these ideas, now it’s just a matter of doing battle against the establishment in real politik to achieve results.
> Slogans and hashtags, used as shortcuts, give people the tools to express what appear to be clear policy goals, even though they have hardly grappled with the issue in its complexity.
From the article.
If there was already widespread support, it would already be an establishment position.
I wildly disagree with that statement. To suggest that money, political capital and many other things besides popular support are irrelevant, is disingenuous to say the least.
I’m not sure where you are misreading me, but the authors point still stands that your “battle with the establishment of real politik” is evidence of the complexity of the situation not being fully addressed.
That doesn’t make any sense, you can’t define other people’s goals. I’m sure 100% of the people who took issue with what Yang said are happy with the result of this effective activism.
It can be effective in real activism especially if it's capable of shutting down dissent. Whether it's effective for activism you agree with or activism you disagree with is a separate matter.
To stay away from politics and stick to the programming domain, the phrase "structured programming" was chosen because who would want to say they're for "unstructured programming". It worked, the languages and language features we use today were largely shifted away from goto-heavy code (and computed goto in Fortran and some others) because of this kind of meme activism.
it's effective in raising intense, context-free, subtlety-free, short-lived outrage with little effort or follow-up action. If that's not your goal, it's not very effective.
Points 2 and 3 are actually very powerful. Do not underestimate how effective silencing dissent can be, even in a “free and Democratic” society. In fact, maybe it’s even more effective precisely because “it isn’t the government doing it”.
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights
“Being shown the door” is completely tame compared to what actually ends up happening to people who become targets of online outrage. People can have their entire livelihoods destroyed, often for something that isn’t particularly noxious or egregious to the average person. We have no control over how sensitive the doorman is, or what they will become upset about in the future.
My biggest gripe is trying to redefine/explain a slogan after it goes viral. Far too much political energy was spent explaining why "all lives matter" misses the point, and how "defund the police" actually (to some people) means "reallocate police resources"
The reason "defund the police" meme activism had to shift gears and re-define it mid-flight was because it was such a spectacular failure, and took so much wind out of legitimate calls for police reform. I recall angry pontification to the effect that "reform" is a dirty word, we must get more radical, hence "defund". Conservative media nodded furiously in agreement and multiplied the message, since they knew full well that it's a self-defeating one.
I would like to introduce my new political slogan, "Cat Hat Mat." It might seem baffling at first, but after you find someone to explain it to you, you'll find out that it's a coherent proposal for housing reform in the Bay Area.
What is meant is “abolish the police state”. The US throws more people in jail than any other country by several orders of magnitude. To get to where we should be, we do effectively need to abolish the system as it exists today. Most cities spend far more on policing than they do on prevention; much of this driven by self-serving lobbying on behalf of police unions.
Nobody except anarchists is claiming that we don’t need police; but a lot of people are saying we don’t need these police. Let’s define the role of police in society and severely curtail their monopoly on violence.
If "abolish the police state" was meant, "abolish the police state" should have been said.
You don't need these police, wonderful. Propose changes, phase them in gradually to prove that they're better than the status quo (we can't just go ahead and assume that with no evidence now can we), work out the kinks so that we're not left with a crime wave in the interim while your bold new ideas are being perfected. I'm non-ironically all for that. The obvious one to try first is funding teams of a police officer paired with a mental health nurse, with self defence training of course. Don't defund anything and anyone to do this; it may or may not work and then you'll need to refund police and that'll be awkward.
Struggling to understand how "severely curtail their monopoly on violence" can be meant in a positive way. Who do you propose should also engage in violence lawfully? People's Self Defence Militia Units?
I live in an inner city neighborhood with a large black population. During the George Floyd protests last year, police drove through my neighborhood (which was not rioting in any form) firing tear gas from an armored vehicle at basically anyone standing on the street. They chased down and beat anyone of color they could get their hands on. I saw this with my own eyes; it’s not propaganda.
It would be one thing if more police actually stopped crime. They don’t. The murder rate in my city is driven by the fact that the clearance rate for homicide is well below 50%. Much of this is driven by distrust of the police and their “crack skulls and ask questions later” attitude. The police are largely ineffective at stopping crime because in many cities, they literally laugh at you when you ask to make a police report.
My comments were a criticism of reform methodology, not a dismissal of the need for reform. There is plenty wrong with police in North America, but defunding it and hoping for the best will make it worse, if anything.
Part of the problem is that the police are run like a gang. Corruption is rampant in most departments and officers do not hold each other accountable and are effectively above the law. Union leaders often have more sway than police chiefs in major cities.
You have to clear out the rot before you can have meaningful change. Otherwise they’ll just sabotage the reform like they have in the past.
Many cities allocate far too high a percentage of their budgets to policing. Programs that are diversionary and reduce crime (education for one) are frequently cut in order to give ever-increasing money to police departments that show zero ROI. If there was more of a focus on “doing the best you can with what you get” like every other city service, it wouldn’t be so bad but right now police dominate city budgets in every city in the US.
"Defund the police" is frustrating because that slogan got coopted by moderates who wanted to sound supportive but didn't actually believe in it - it was intended to mean literally what it says on the tin.
After January 6th, "ACAB" had to take a back seat for while or they'd be in the strange position of condemning the capitol rioters for something they generally support.
(Non-US here) It baffles me the response to January 6th, a group of people vented their anger by invading a public building, a symbol of government and power. Not at their neighbors houses or businesses, not looting, not fencing out blocks of a city for themselves. And I here not making any value judgement on the act, it is besides the point.
If unreasonable* anger should be exercised, that it's target be public buildings and institutions, the bastion of power rather than at John and Mary down the street.
The US is fairly self-contradictory about the legitimacy of taking up arms against your own government. It isn't a new problem - see the Whiskey Rebellion.
I think there's very little principled about it. About fifty years ago, the leftist Black Panthers decided to openly carry guns into the California legislature's building, and they didn't even invade, they just walked in as visitors. In response, Ronald Reagan, the Republican governor of California who would later be US president, signed a law that made it illegal to openly carry loaded guns. And the National Rifle Association supported that law. None of the right-wing people who idolize Reagan today and also support the events of January 6 seem to think these positions are inconsistent.
Part of the problem, I suspect, is that the vast majority of the populace has no intention of taking up arms against the government. That mans that those who are even thinking about it are necessarily not advocating for a representative government for all people. The concern over January 6 was that it would be a coup - putting someone into power who could not win by established democratic means - not that it would be a popular revolution - taking people out of power who gained it by established non-democratic means.
I think your frustration is best aimed at Defund activists. The phenomenon of activists exploiting ambiguity in Defund to secure public support was, I think, a far more potent force than moderates attempting to defang it with more headcount for social services.
The "all lives" vs "black lives" thing was just signaling. I don't think it really needed any redefinition, it was pretty obvious the intent of both sides.
She likely said it because she calculated that it was more important to get votes from X portion of the population rather than Y portion of the population that would vote for her anyways.
I didn't say anything about being racist in my comment, but I think it's pretty clear that the only reason #AllLivesMatter became a slogan was because people were uncomfortable with BLM. And I don't think it is a big stretch to suggest that people's documented subconscious biases against black people had something to do with the rise of that slogan.
'De-fund the police' was DOA. It sounded catchy and initially went viral, but then the inevitable confusion arose as to if they meant literal defunding or just re-allocating, and also the left painted itself into a corner of having to reconcile defudnding with not being soft on crime or condoning criminality .
This article identifies three problems with meme activism, all different:
- Sometimes, meme activism is too effective at the goal the activists want, as in the case of Andrew Yang or Black Lives Matter. (At other times it is effective, but not too effective, as in the case of abolitionism.)
- Sometimes, meme activism is too ineffective at the goals the activists want, as in the case of Joseph Kony. (At other times it is ineffective, but not too ineffective, as in the case of the Hong Kong protests.)
- Sometimes, meme activism allows its proponents to argue for shallow ideas that they claim to want probably don't actually want were they to reflect on the ideas, as in the case of Lock Her Up.
Those are... pretty much all over the place, and only the last one seems directly connected to the meme-ness (an idea optimizes for ease of spread) of the meme activism.
And, fundamentally, no one is going to listen - nor should they - to the idea that their activism is too effective, and it is somehow unfair for them to engage in such means. This isn't a board game with rules, where everyone shows up to have fun even if they're being competitive at the table. The goal of an activist is to get what they want; the goal of the opposing activists is the same. Voluntarily giving up "unfair" advantages is just a good way to ensure that your side doesn't win.
one observation: your examples all focus on the effectiveness at targeting the subject. I'm not sure the conclusions hold for the underlying cause the activism was fighting or supporting.
The unifying thread in all given examples is that Meme Activism is good at short-term and superficial victories, but poor at long-term, meaningful ones.
It's great at getting a bunch of likes while harassing someone like Yang into shutting up, but did that action actually have any meaningful impact on how Israel acts, or how US politicians act toward Israel (not what they SAY, notice, but what they DO)? Probably not.
It's great at getting fame and money for the Kony people, but had no actual impact on the situation in question.
Slogans like Build the Wall and Lock Her Up served their purpose, which was to build an electoral base for Trump, not to actually accomplish those things.
I'm actually more sympathetic to Trump here, because he's a salesman using sales tactics to make a sale. The others clothe themselves in high-minded morality while in reality being exactly the same thing.
This is an interesting article I'm, but I'm not sure any of this is particularly new in politics and political activism. Using short, simplistic slogans, using word games to try to make your opponents look bad without really engaging with their argument, faddish movements that burn brightly but briefly - these have been around for a lot longer than twitter.
I know that people will harp on the January 6th thing, but political discourse in the West is safer (as in free of violence) in the current 2 decades than it probably has been ever before.
I don't follow American politics at the more local level closely so I hadn't looked into Yang before this, but I found a Youtube video of him being an anime character, and I immediately had to think of this, A German campaign clip from the 50s for Conservative candidate Adenauer(https://youtu.be/CyH49o5uQ5Q), popularizing one of the slogans that stuck for a long time "Keine Experimente", i.e. "no experiments".
It really is not new. Slogans and clever imagery are as old as popular media I guess. I'm also not sure it necessarily indicates that a movement is faddish. Most people who congregate under the BLM meme obviously know that it comes with a genuine movement with complex politics.
This might as well as be "Against Tidal Force", because suppressing meme activism is about as tall a challenge.
First, admit that it will never happen by voluntary action. The rumor mill, at least, will keep grinding until the last free-range human is gone, who will tell it to a volleyball if there is nobody else. Then imagine the scale of intervention that would be required to significantly suppress it. It would mean continual monitoring, punishment, isolation, and we'd find ways to signal our discontent through masks and straight jackets. If instead you just opt out, go your own way, plug your ears, you've exited the arena, and the memes will happily steamroll along without you, and with you having less warning to get out of the way.
I too have a beef with meme activism, and also the gravitational constant, and the speed of light. Those are all equally winnable battles.
It's true that memes have a life of their own but they are currently fueled by social media companies that operate on advertising revenue. This is a fixable problem but it requires changing the model that generates meme worthy content. As long as publishing every thought is "free" there is no viable solution to stopping meme activism because advertisers like it when people scream and shout at each other because it keeps them on sites like Twitter and Facebook longer than they would stay there otherwise. And since they stay longer because they're angry it is easier to show them ads for some product that will cure them of their ills. Commercial interests are fundamentally the root cause of this problem.
There are many things in society - scratch that, nearly everything in society - that I both dislike for one reason or another, but also accept they will never change. Still, it is nice to hear other people express similar opinions. Imagine where we would be if there was never any pushback against bad ideas.
The bulk of pushback against bad ideas, especially sinister ones that come with societal blowback, occurs in the form of ignoring them.
It's whats happening right now with CRT. You can't speak out against it, without risking reputation or livelihood so you hope to just ignore it until it goes away.
> It's whats happening right now with CRT. You can't speak out against it, without risking reputation or livelihood so you hope to just ignore it until it goes away.
I find this absurd as someone who had an interest in critical theory (including CRT) about 7 years ago.
Nobody had even heard of CRT until like 3 years ago and what people call "CRT" isn't even an actual category. It is certainly not being taught in highschools.
It's a boogeyman produced by conservative media. I actually am not a fan of many subbranches (ie. afro-pessimism is BS, IMO) and would have no fear about stating that publicly.
All that speaking out against "CRT" as a general phenomenon demonstrates to me is that you spend a lot of time reading the conservative media bubble.
Yeah, my favorite bit is the whole freakout about teaching CRT in K-12 education.
(If anyone was proposing that, it might be worth freaking out over, but not for the reasons being cited, but more for the same reasons you’d freak out over proposing Quantum Chemistry as a high school graduation requirement. Except moreso, because QChem is at least reasonably common in undergraduate curricula.)
Hey, I've heard there are people out there who think math is racist, so I'm sure someone out there has proposed teaching advanced racist spotting to children.
When you choose to side with lunatics and don't try to stop them from being associated with you then you shouldn't be surprised when people judge you for it. This goes for both sides of course, so no need to throw it back at me as I'm not defending the right at all here I'm just attacking the left for associating with lunatics. I really hate how there can't just be a party of sensible people in USA, guess that is what you get with a two party system...
You found some people who say that math is racist, and it is now on everyone on the left side of the spectrum to disavow them?
This seems absurd. I never sided with the math is racist people.
I encourage you to think rationally about these things, and prioritize facts above feeling like X&X might be associated with Y&Y who has bad idea Z&Z. Look at what people actually support.
Well, there are many flavours of lunatics on the left, the "math is racist" people is just one flavour of it, and they are still supported by a significant subgroup of the Democrats. So in the end you support that side by voting for the Democrats.
Of course in your opinion it is more important to stop all the lunatics on the right. But to a right wing voter he will look at all the flavours of lunatics supported by the Democrats and use that as a reason why he has to vote right. I'd argue that both parties absorbing their sides lunatics in USA is the by far biggest problem with politics over there. Where I live the lunatics made their own parties so you don't have to vote for them, but in a two party system that can't happen so the lunatics will almost surely get absorbed by the big parties.
Yes, but you used the "math is racist" people for a reason.
It is absurd and it is much better to link people to stupid, absurd ideas than ideas that are actually supported by a significant subgroup of "the Democrats."
You don't see how you are part of the exact problem that you are trying to critique. This is "meme activism" in action.
I didn't bring up the "math is racist" people, another guy did. However where I live we have a person who published a paper arguing "math is sexist" at an important public position, so I believe the claim about "math is racist" people getting support instead of disdain.
> where I live we have a person who published a paper arguing "math is sexist" at an important public position
Could you link the general controversy?
If the argument is that in the community of people who practice math, there are many who have racist or sexist biases, I find that plausible and not really a "lunatic" idea.
If the argument is the general form of math (say algebra) is intrinsically sexist, then I think that is lunacy.
I think the two are intentionally conflated to make the former sound like the latter.
Was physics, not math, but the argument is the same. It is the later, that physics is intrinsically sexist since it was invented by men and therefore uses a male mode of thinking. It is talking about middle school education so there is nothing about sexism among teachers.
Example she used: The kids is given a lab to test how quickly sugar gets dissolved in coffee depending on temperature. A girl suggests they test immediately with hot water and after it got cooled for 5 minutes. A guy suggests they also tests after 10 minutes. The girl objects and says that nobody wants cold coffee so there is no reason to test at that temperature. The boy argues that they should test the how easily sugar gets dissolved depending on temperature and that the setting isn't relevant. This the paper argues is sexist behaviour and the girls perspective got trampled on when the teacher sided with the boy that they should do three tests.
Page 14 here, you can use an auto translate or so.
> Hey, I've heard there are people out there who think math is racist, so I'm sure someone out there has proposed teaching advanced racist spotting to children.
Among the many problems packed into this sentence, CRT is not “advanced racist spotting”.
Also, its a pretty big leap, like literally conspiracy-theory level, to go from “I’ve heard X” and “Given X, Y would be unsurprising” to “Y is true”.
> Nobody had even heard of CRT until like 3 years ago and what people call "CRT" isn't even an actual category. It is certainly not being taught in highschools.
This to me sounds like someone dismissing the harms caused by a Church by saying that it isn't technically part of scriptural canon, and that if we could only adopt True and correct orthodoxy, these abuses would not happen.
The problem is that kids are being taught to not be friends with each other because of what they look like.
> That's always been true, and CRT has nothing to do with it.
I have seen it happen to preteens first hand. Children that a year ago were comfortable hanging out, are no longer so.
CRT encourages kids to engage in paint-swatch racialism.
It is heartbreaking to see first hand children who used to just be able to play together, worry about whether they should include or exclude other kids because of what they look like.
Teaching children to pre-judge people because of where their pigmentation is on a paint swatch is grotesque and it is child abuse.
If your ideology leads you to hurt children, then your ideology must be wrong.
So, pre-judging people is wrong because it erases their identity by making unfounded and unfair presumptions about who they are because of arbitrary physical characteristics that they can not control. Racial pre-judgement is a dangerous bronze-age heuristic that society should try to be moving past, but CRT encourages it.
Implanting racial self hatred (and racial pride) is a pernicious and dangerous thing to do, and if you can't see that I don't have time to educate you. Reducing human beings down to being "black and brown bodies" is disgusting. The correct response to that kind of dehumanization can only be disgust. And again, people in positions of authority imposing that in CHILDREN. At least adults have more agency to push back.
I don't care if that isn't "real" CRT. It doesn't matter if what I am talking about isn't textually correct. If the CRT you are talking about only exists in the minds of obscure scholars and texts, then it is just a fantasy, and doesn't really exist. The only real CRT is what is actually being implemented in classrooms across the country.
> Children that a year ago were comfortable hanging out, are no longer so.
Yeah probably no lurking variable there...
> If the CRT you are talking about only exists in the minds of obscure scholars and texts, then it is just a fantasy, and doesn't really exist. The only real CRT is what is actually being implemented in classrooms across the country.
Imagine replacing CRT in this sentence with quantum physics or advanced macroeconomics. It doesn't make sense, and leaning heavily on "oh but the children" doesn't really win any points if you don't have a rational explanation of how this is happening.
You are teaching kids to be uncomfortable with each other based on what they look like. You are telling kids that they are fundamentally different from each other. You are telling kids that "race" is the most important element of their identity, and that they are wrong for trying to overlook how they are different.
That is child abuse.
I've heard fire and brimstone priests who turn people against each other use exactly the same defense for traumatizing kids. It is something like: It's not my fault that I'm giving 6 year olds nightmares; I'm just exposing them to reality. I'm actually helping them!
Telling children that they are terrible people and need your permission to be good is a horrible thing to do. And I think that in the future you will end up being seen as no better than abusive clergy.
> Imagine replacing CRT in this sentence with quantum physics or advanced macroeconomics. It doesn't make sense, and leaning heavily on "oh but the children" doesn't really win any points if you don't have a rational explanation of how this is happening.
It makes perfect sense. If everyone is learning a flawed or incomplete version of quantum mechanics, then that is what quantum mechanics effectively is. The fact that a "better" version of it exists somewhere is meaningless. Physics isn't right because feelings and because a majority of people say it is right. This is basic epistemology.
If you can defend any ideology by simply saying that the version being widely taught is wrong, and somewhere, there is a correct version of it.
You can try to defend CRT abuse by saying that it isn't "real" CRT, but that again means almost nothing. The problem is not about textual adherence, it is about abuse of people.
I'm equally not impressed with people dismissing stuff like The Killing Fields as "not really Communism", as if that even matters. People aren't complaining about the text of CRT, they are complaining about harm done to people.
And yes, if you are hurting children, you are prima facie wrong. It is an incredibly short chain of reasoning.
> CRT encourages kids to engage in paint-swatch racialism
No, it doesn't; paint-swatch racialism is solidly embedded in American culture, abd CRT is quite distant from it. Not, again, that anyone is actually teaching CRT to kids.
It’s true that “CRT” is the label to which the American Right has attached their longstanding slander against the anti-racist elements of the left, that by opposing institutional racism that favors whites they paint whites as racist based on their race, but the Right changing the label they attach that lie to doesn't make it either the broader lie or the new association true.
> If your ideology leads you to hurt children, then your ideology must be wrong.
Well, yes, that's among the many reasons why a reflexive defense of white supremacy that leads you to invent a whole false narrative around Critical Race Theory to justify mandated teaching of whitewashed history to children is wrong, sure.
> I don't care if that isn't "real" CRT.
You should care, because caring about being lied to about that would tell you to look behind the lie and see that CRT has been around for decades, no one has tried to teach it to kids, no has proposed teaching it to kids, and there's been no change in that or anything adjacent to it recently that could explain any of the things which have been blamed on it. The only thing that has changed connected to CRT is that in the last year, the American Right, out of the blue and with little connection to reality, adopted it as a label to which they attached the same lins which the anti-anti-racist segment of the Right has used against contemport anti-racists for generations (even before CRT existed).
And that might lead you to consider the actual causes of the tensions you see, rather than the self-serving narrative of a political faction that has had strategic leverage of disaffected White racist as a central strategy since...well, just a little earlier than CRT was first developed.
> This to me sounds like someone dismissing the harms caused by a Church
Hm. It does? My point is not saying anything is not part of "scriptural canon", merely that "CRT" as described is not actually taught in schools nor is it a clearly defined category.
But honestly, philosophical schools of thought are not very reminiscent of the Catholic church, which you seem to be making allusions to.
Sometimes analogizing can obscure the point, I think you have reached this point here. (:
> Hm. It does? My point is not saying anything is not part of "scriptural canon", merely that "CRT" as described is not actually taught in schools nor is it a clearly defined category.
I think that it is an accurate enough label. Clearly this stuff is heavily inspired and informed by CRT. From what I can tell, it contains the essential elements of CRT, just distilled down for easier consumption.
I think it is fair to call a curriculum authored by a confessed CRT advocate like Ibram Kendi Critical Race Theory.
But again, people are not complaining because it is Critical Race Theory. People are complaining that it is harmful.
I do not appreciate or even care for social media callouts, but personally I thought it was “nice to hear” a politician apologize for shamelessly defending Israeli apartheid for once.
I sympathize with Americans who are unfamiliar with foreign politics, so I am not saying this to fight or shame anybody, but this was not just a twitter event. It was more a result of the study released by Human Rights Watch days earlier than it was a result of social media shaming. This event held important historical significance far beyond Twitter.
Put another way, sloganeering, and the brain-dead adoption of slogans, has always been a thing. Someone less lazy than me could probably dig up examples going back to ancient Rome. "Meme Activism" is just the latest iteration of "I Like Ike" or "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too." What has changed to some degree is the speed and intensity with which the slogans can impact public figures.
Perhaps it was thought or believed that an increased availability of education, in general, had curbed the effectiveness of these types of persuasive methods. Although, it's probable that you are right and they never subsided; only adapting to a new environment and mostly dismissed as outdated in hindsight.
What changed is that the bulk of human communication now is happening on the Internet. And the Internet itself is concentrated in the hands of few companies. And there is an increasing sophistication of actors who play the system.
This means that political and societal activism is now manipulable at scales that were inconceivable some time ago.
So the human factor has always been there (and arguably helped us when the memes were like "kill the sabertooth tiger!"). But the problem is growing because of technology, which is another thing that cannot lightheartedly be slowed down.
So the least we can do is to be aware and minimize the damage
> What changed is that the bulk of human communication now is happening on the Internet. And the Internet itself is concentrated in the hands of few companies.
As opposed to TV, Radio, or Newspaper? Corporate control of media has always been a problem. We are just have less political will to regulate these massive media conglomerates now than we did in the past. This includes the old media companies too. Rupert Murdock has stomped all over American discourse.
Not every issue is about general-purpose computing.
Whether you have control over your own device or not, you still can't craft an Algorithm For Truth, because there isn't one. The information that you would want to know from a news site, like "Was the election stolen?", "Was Iraq actually hiding WMDs?", "Did Russia actually invade Ukraine?", "Did the moon landing really happen?", "Were these leaked documents forged?", those all exist outside of your computer. The closest you can possibly get is by establishing a chain of custody from whoever gathered the information leading to you, which your HTTPS connection already does. Figuring out whether the site you're connected to is actually telling the truth or not isn't something that having root access would help with.
So, as a serious question, what would Facebook do if it's owners woke up tomorrow and decided their only priority was providing thoughtful, substantial discussion and helping people avoid an unbalanced relationship with social media? Could they "manipulate" their user base to achieve this? Wouldn't they simply loose their users to other venues that would provide a vacuous engagement fix? Moreover, a lot of FB is based on user generated content? How do you prevent that from being trolly/provocative/etc?
Edit: my point would be the manipulation happens but it's much more a product of the generators of provocative content than the forums, which give a certain spin but can't help but provide a forum for what is viral. As an "exception that proves the rule", FB and mainstream social media successfully suppressed Guilliani's one, big hit-piece last election. They got tremendous heat for this and it was clearly something they couldn't keep doing for every bit of content. Just consider, the NY Post still gets a wide forum despite, imo, being the tissue of lies and a river of filth.
Edit2: And FB provides rebuttal like for some number of overtly fake stories. Is that enough? Is that itself manipulation?
> So, as a serious question, what would Facebook do if it's owners woke up tomorrow and decided their only priority was providing thoughtful, substantial discussion and helping people avoid an unbalanced relationship with social media?
In the case of Facebook, it's not immediately apparent to me how the platform might be changed to facilitate more thoughtful conversation. But on the other hand, Twitter is an easy case: get rid of the comment limit and let people express their thoughts using more than pithy snippets.
But those snippets (like 7-second videos) are optimized for the attention economy in a way longer-form media is not. Even if Twitter made this change the traditional short pithy tweets would beat any long-form thoughtful comment.
Giving people the opportunity can only improve the situation. On social media platforms that permit longer comments, people often leave longer comments. And if nobody wanted to leave longer comments, then the twitter limitation would serve no purpose at all.
Just because there isn't a top-down solution that eradicates the source of the issue doesn't mean it shouldn't be observed and discussed. You pointed out that you can't "beef" with the gravitational constant, but if you are aware of it you can avoid its negative affects and potentially use them to your advantage. Gravity will collapse a building, but if you are aware of it you can engineer a building so it doesn't collapse.
"Gravity, at least, will keep grinding until the universe is compressed into a single point. To eliminate gravity completely it would require constant destruction, compression, agitation, and elimination of all physical laws. Instead, just plug your ears and scream "LALALALA" a pretend gravity doesn't exist because you will stick to the surface of the planet regardless."
An individual can fight "meme activism" by creating a practice that isn't it and spreading that practice.
But I agree you can't "fight" it by shaking your fist at it and you can't expect it to go away by some choice as long as the forces that put it in place are here.
"just don't engage" is not a solution. When BLM burns down cities and Trump supporters storm government buildings, these memes become something much larger. "just don't engage" is the modern day equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns.
These "memes" have serious effects on society that can't just be ignored.
Good luck reaching the people that need to read this. The people concealing political agendas behind simplified slogans that everyone agrees with know what they are doing.
I'm bothered by the focus on "performative" social media posting that many people, such as this author, have adopted - it's a cynical personal attack that doesn't accomplish much. I understand a lot of people felt social pressure to participate in BLM posting last summer, it's hard to say if we'll see that level of fervor again in the near future. For these decentralized movements, it makes more sense to focus on the issues and the tactics than the people.
I think other comments have noted this, but I don't see where the harm of memes is supposed to be.
Yes, far more people are happy to fleetingly express support for an idea than will actually take meaningful action
Yes, political movements need short slogans which naturally obscure a lot of detail
These really just seem like facts of life and it's not clear that either thing (lots of half-invested people sharing hashtags; people misunderstanding slogans) does any harm to the actual movements, or to society
Okay, so beliefs are uncorrelated with action. In no way does that suggest that there is a tradeoff, and if anything, is evidence for my hypothesis - people are happy to talk about beliefs without any of that translating into real world action.
Talking about beliefs in one way only trades off with talking about those beliefs in another way.
1. Every movement has the vast majority people as quiet supporters, not taking concrete action in the streets or wherever. This is not unique to meme activism.
2. I don't buy that meme activism actually trades off with physical action.
I do buy that meme activism doesn't translate into physical action, but I don't think that those people would be taking physical action if they didn't have the memes.
None of the evidence you've presented is contrary to that hypothesis, and if anything, supports it.
“ However, experiments to date have only documented very short-term effects on public concern (lasting up to a week), leaving open the question of whether agenda-setting has the power to yield meaningful political consequences in the course of ordinary daily life over the longer term.”
You see it as harm, but there are people who would not mind reducing activist energy to unavoidable minimum. As such, draining people's energy and channeling it through another outlet is a very useful endeavor. Same could be said about sport ( or its close sibling - national level politics in US ).
>We also see this with terms such as “anti-racism” and “equity.” Most people have no problem saying that they are anti-racist or that they support equitable policies. But, as with Black Lives Matter, some people use these words to denote radical and far-reaching ideologies. According to Ibram Kendi, for example, “the only remedy to racist discrimination is anti-racist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” This makes it difficult for people who loath racism, but disagree with Kendi’s prescriptions for how to remedy it, to respond to a question like: “Are you an anti-racist?”
Seems like a motte and bailey fallacy
Memes work in so far as they are persuasive, so I don't them going away
>To be fair, meme activism has had its upsides. American and British abolitionists inscribed their slogan “Am I not a man and a brother?” onto medallions and domestic objects, which they distributed to build support for their cause. In 2019 and 2020, activists took to social media with hashtags like #5DemandsNot1Less to generate pressure on the Chinese government to preserve the relative political freedom of Hong Kong.
The author gives up on their point too soon, not realizing that it's possible that in line with their thesis neither of these specific actions were effective beyond rallying support.
> Here, I’m using the original definition of meme: an easily replicated unit of cultural knowledge or information that is spread by imitation.
Would "I'm standing with the people of Israel" count? Because it is a complete throwaway statement, made by US politicians so routinely that it is absent of all meaning. Israel is a democracy that upholds property rights and rule of law. Unfortunately, rule of law that successive civilian governments have put in place allow settlers to simply take, by decree, land that belongs to Palestinians. That's not 'property rights' it's Manifest Destiny.
Andrew Yang did not get cancelled. He propagated a meme statement and had to clarify that his actual opinion has more nuance, as does the situation he referred to.
I don't think Andrew Yang's meme received much propagation to come under the types of memes the article is referring to.
One more property I think is very relevant to the types of memes referred to by the article is that these memes want to spread at the exclusion of all others or any variation.
What stood out to me with respect to that event is that while many memes were thrown about, some memes had to be clarified to death without having any effect on the outrage while others continued to be thrown about without requiring any clarification despite being dog whistles for things significantly worse than their seemingly innocuous wording.
No matter which side of that argument you find yourself on, the other side will reliably invoke the specter of genocide. If you side with the Israelis, you will be accused of supporting the ongoing genocide of Palestinians. And if you side with the Palestinians, you will be accused of wanting Jewish people to be genocided again.
And if you say that both sides have a lot of valid points and you aren't sure how to weigh all those points to reach a clean and simple conclusion? Well... I've never won any friends like that.
I would be happily be friends with any person who says "it is more complicated than that", because it is a stepping stone to "let's investigate and understand a bit more". These are the people you learn from, regardless or political or religious affiliation...
I think a pretty good benchmark for "appropriate" is behavior that promotes reasonable discourse instead of reactionary backtracking which. That discourse in Lieu's case did not occur when he was accused of supporting genocide.
But to answer your more general question of who gets to decide "appropriate", that is society as a whole. We, as a society and as a civilization, decide what we find acceptable and objectionable. Right now we have drifted into a territory where a one or two sentence soundbite is considered appropriate to encapsulate complex issues that defy easy solutions despite the soundbite pundits, politicians, and activists that spout them as axiomatic truths, shutting down the ability to have a conversation with anyone who slightly disagrees.
Do you have more insight on this, on how it could be handled better? Or are you happy with the status quo where little conversation but much shouting is the norm?
Now that the Trump movement has run it's course it's kinda jarring to see how little a popular uprising can accomplish when it's entirely described and disseminated via meme.
Even Trump's most obvious, easy to execute plans failed. Memes couldn't even build a functional wall let alone fix healthcare or even repeal what exists, even with a majority in all branches of government. Memes aren't necessarily a bad way of disseminating information, the ideas they spread are necessarily intellectually reduced and ineffective in implementation.
> In place of a well-reasoned argument, political activists can lean on pithy memes to demonstrate their political allegiances. But when people use memes as a shortcut, they sacrifice the process of testing and inspecting their opinions. Insight comes from challenging ideas, and memes allow people to skirt this process. As Plato wrote in The Republic, “opinions divorced from knowledge are ugly things.”
Getting the nuance stripped out of the debate robs the debate of meaning.
The author seems to dislike the meme #BlackLivesMatter, but also praises some memes like "#5DemandsNot1Less to generate pressure on the Chinese government to preserve the relative political freedom of Hong Kong".
Both of these are memes. I am curious, what is the principle by which one decides which memes are "good" and which ones "have gone too far"? They propose 3 recommendations at the end for how to engage with memes, but couldn't this be applied to #5DemandsNot1Less as well?
My own take (not supported by the article) is that there's more room for interpretation what BlackLivesMatter actually means, and the concrete political statements aren't obvious from the meme.
In the case of 5DemandNot1Less it's clear that the meme is a vehicle for some concrete statements.
Of course, both memes can be used thoughtlessly, so maybe that's not a crucial difference.
Yep. BlackLivesMatter is semantically overloaded. There's the notion of BlackLivesMatter, of which only real racists disagree. Then there's the organization BlackLivesMatter, which has some very anti-traditional-western views that undermine the name.
It's an ideal meme for people who want to employ the motte-and-bailey tactic. The face-value meaning of the words is unassailable, an impregnable motte that only the most violent of racists would disagree with.
I’m confused by this, how are you supposed to communicate a precise agenda in a hashtag? The movement has to do with systemic racism in America. Think of BLM like a “hook” in writing. Isn’t it interesting that a statement of an obvious fact (that black lives matter) has caused so much controversy?
> Isn’t it interesting that a statement of an obvious fact (that black lives matter) has caused so much controversy?
No more interesting than the fact that statement of another obvious fact (that all lives matter) has caused just as much controversy. At the end of the day these two statements are just dog whistles for what allegiance you hold and the actual meaning of the sentence doesn't matter much.
> these two statements are just dog whistles for what allegiance you hold and the actual meaning of the sentence doesn't matter much.
The horror?
I'll be honest, I don't see what the problem with short labels that express an ideological affiliation. People who aren't "pro-life" aren't pro-murder, and people who aren't "pro-choice" do not oppose choice in all instances. We all know what they mean though.
The problem here is pigeon holing. When you are eager to classify people fast and efficiently into a small number of bins, you trample on a lot of nuance.
For instance, suppose I thought abortion should be legal for the first N weeks, but require case-by-case approval from a panel of ethicists after N weeks. Does that put me in the pro-life bin or the pro-choice bin? Probably more the latter than the former, but it's certainly not a pure 'choice' position to have on the matter.
how are you supposed to communicate a precise agenda in a hashtag
You're not. That's the problem. In the case of #5DemandsNot1Less there is really no context in the hashtag itself to determine its meaning until you learn more about the movement. It is a pointer to the beliefs of the movement, not the beliefs themselves.
With #BlackLivesMatter, that is not the case. The hashtag has its own fairly obvious semantic weight that is not an accurate pointer back to all of the specific beliefs of the political movement.
Do you also believe that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is just a group of people who are for the ethical treatment of animals? Are you unaware they have literally funded terrorism? Were you never taught not to judge a book by its cover?
I think it was because #BLM belies a much more complex political movement than the face-value meaning, while #5DemandsNot1Less directly referred to 5 specific things.
This meant that supporting #DemandsNot1Less implicitly meant you supported its specific tenets. While on the other hand, Supporting #BLM was more complex, where many people would absolutely support the literally meaning, but not necessarily all of the rest of the political goals. This makes it easy to attack critics of a particular BLM political goals as if they did not support the literal meaning.
In that context it it easy to understand why the author drew a line between the two memes. Of course that was their opinion, and opinions differ. The author wasn't advocating that everyone have the same opinion on specific memes, they were arguing that such opinions should be informed & critically examined.
They weren't saying "Here's a formula to discover which memes are bad." They were saying "Here's a method to help you come to your own well-informed opinions on the them."
> But, as with Black Lives Matter, some people use these words to denote radical and far-reaching ideologies.
Convicting Donald Trump and banning him from office is not a radical and far-reaching ideology.
Defunding the police (it's already waaaaay too funded, they don't need literal military gear, which is what they have in the US) is also not a radical and far-reaching ideology.
This article is trying to present itself as being reasonable and moderate when it's just advocating for the fascism that is continuously creeping up on the US. Which is how you have to present yourself, as reasonable and moderate, if you want to convince anyone.
I think the issue lies more with how regular people interact with the political process now, which is mostly political activism as a hobby rather than meme activism. Meme activism is just a consequence of that type of activism in contemporary society. Political hobbyists are a much larger issue because by nature the cost of participation is low (especially on social media) so many do not have much investment and are capable of being manipulated easily since they often lack the understanding necessary when engaging in difficult social issues. This leads to performative politics and eventually purity spirals. Social media exacerbates this since now you are easily capable of socially signaling to a much larger audience.
In the age of social media this can (and has) created huge social movements based on nothing more than feel good politics. While huge, these movements aren't very resilient because most people aren't actually very invested in their causes, and leadership is often nebulous and diffuse. As a result, these causes can be hijacked, subverted or can just fall apart as peoples interests move elsewhere somewhere along the grueling path of change. For most, their political activism begins and ends with the retweeting of some catchy hashtag or infographic, or attending some march with their friends for some cause without fully understanding the issues they are protesting. When push comes to shove, most will not be willing to make serious sacrifices for their cause.
Don't know if that will catch (but apparently, there's a music video from some TV show's contestant that title "treat people with kindness", so we would have an opening song for rallies.)
We would treat "being nice" as a radical way to resist the companies that are, albeit unintentionnaly, making money out of people yelling at each others )
Because when passions are inflamed, emotions tend to take charge over rationality and logic.
Dispassionate debate doesn’t mean that you don’t have strong opinions about something, it means that you set those emotional connections to your argument aside and debate solely with logic.
> I don't see why dispassionate discourse is inherently better.
Amusingly, if we were to have a "passionnate" discussion about the topic of "passionnate" discussion, this sentence would be the starting point of a chain reaction in both our amygdalas that would end up with my insulting your family, pets, favorite sport teams and core values for not agreeing 100% with me.
(Or, so would say some unreliable and pop-sciency blog writer that I should definitely not bring into a serious discussion.)
;)
That being said, I'm not sure "dispassionate" is the best word to describe what I mean. I initially went with "civil", but a discussion can be "civil" between people who hate each others - as long as there is a cop in the place to keeps the knifes out.
I mean "the kind of discussion where people agree that emotions have to be managed, if not toned down, in order to avoid tribalism". I know the task is hard, if possible at all (at least that's why pop-neuroscience indicates [1]); I value the effort.
If anything, "passionnate debate" might not be good for our hearts ;) [2]
So let's add plenty of smileys to the plenty of threads that don't need too much seriousness, shall we ?
My worry is the selection effect that can potentially occur when focusing on dispassionate discourse.
Namely, people who are close to an issue, people who are most affected, and people who do not have much stability in life (ie. a lost paycheck or whatever can mean a big deal) seem to me to be the most likely to have trouble engaging in dispassionate discourse around a subject that affects their livelihood. At least, I imagine I would. But those are exactly the sort of people it is critical to engage with when deciding things around these issues.
I want to have "civil" discourse, but I don't want it if it means weighting the discourse heavily towards people who are removed from the actual issue or have relatively low stakes.
The Yang anecdote could be used as an example of bad or good power of memes depending on if you support Israel or not. The article is filled with the author's personal biases leaking into a purportedly principled argument.
173 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 234 ms ] threadThat is the question being answered by this article. It suggests that it is effective at pseudo-activism but not real activism.
Is internet discussion as implemented on HN the pinnacle of what can be achieved by humanity? This seems like a worthwhile topic of discussion.
An even better example I think is this:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27581414
That exchange blows my mind, the irony (and other things) is off the charts. Occam's razor would suggest Hanlon's razor as a satisfactory explanation for that conversation, but I am very skeptical.
It is way more often people who did not cared about activism who complain about lack of it due to memes. Like, not everyone has to care about activism, but it is odd to claim it dont exist anymore.
Not the word “effective”.
> A few weeks ago, in the midst of the latest Israel-Hamas conflict, Andrew Yang, a mayoral candidate in New York, tweeted in support of Israel. The backlash came fast, and by the next day, #YangSupportsGenocide was trending on Twitter. The aggressive public shaming worked: Yang backtracked and issued a follow-up clarification. And now, politicians with progressive constituencies will likely think twice before publicly expressing support for Israel.
Being the key. Does not imply that meme activism was effective at doing anything but making people think twice out of fear of shame, not out of reasoned principles.
The entire point of the article is that this style of pseudo-activism debases activism, as a whole.
From the article.
If there was already widespread support, it would already be an establishment position.
To stay away from politics and stick to the programming domain, the phrase "structured programming" was chosen because who would want to say they're for "unstructured programming". It worked, the languages and language features we use today were largely shifted away from goto-heavy code (and computed goto in Fortran and some others) because of this kind of meme activism.
Memes can make everyone involved think. And then if some start talking, common basis for solidarity can be found.
If you ask me, memes are doing a lot to generate the fertile ground needed for greater class awareness and solidarity.
Lots of noise in that, but it is the signal that adds right up.
In any case, there is no stopping any of it. I would bot even try.
One can generate better ones and contribute to signal. That is also effective.
In terms of achieving actual aims - not really.
Kony 2012 is a perfect, textbook example of vacuous meme activism (as the article discusses).
If you want to actually make lasting, positive changes to the world? Absolutely worthless.
If you want to self-promote for the sake of e-fame, real fame, money, power etc, smash hit.
Guess which one most Twitter activists are actually interested in.
I think this is an incredibly premature statement to make if this is really a form of activism that's only been around for ~5-10 years or so.
Typical HN though, we love to play the role of enlightened politicos looking down at the unstrategic masses.
But it hasn't - TFA even includes an example from centuries ago.
> Typical HN though, we love to play the role of enlightened politicos looking down at the unstrategic masses.
Typical HN though, we love to assume we're the first people to really understand a topic.
> TFA even includes an example from centuries ago.
Oh, you mean the abolitionist example? Yeah, too bad those guys never achieved any lasting, positive gain.
You can't have it both ways.
> 2/ Meme activism silences dissent.
> 3/ Meme activism sanctions simplistic and naive political beliefs.
A more eloquent xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1357/
Nobody except anarchists is claiming that we don’t need police; but a lot of people are saying we don’t need these police. Let’s define the role of police in society and severely curtail their monopoly on violence.
You don't need these police, wonderful. Propose changes, phase them in gradually to prove that they're better than the status quo (we can't just go ahead and assume that with no evidence now can we), work out the kinks so that we're not left with a crime wave in the interim while your bold new ideas are being perfected. I'm non-ironically all for that. The obvious one to try first is funding teams of a police officer paired with a mental health nurse, with self defence training of course. Don't defund anything and anyone to do this; it may or may not work and then you'll need to refund police and that'll be awkward.
Struggling to understand how "severely curtail their monopoly on violence" can be meant in a positive way. Who do you propose should also engage in violence lawfully? People's Self Defence Militia Units?
It would be one thing if more police actually stopped crime. They don’t. The murder rate in my city is driven by the fact that the clearance rate for homicide is well below 50%. Much of this is driven by distrust of the police and their “crack skulls and ask questions later” attitude. The police are largely ineffective at stopping crime because in many cities, they literally laugh at you when you ask to make a police report.
You have to clear out the rot before you can have meaningful change. Otherwise they’ll just sabotage the reform like they have in the past.
Many cities allocate far too high a percentage of their budgets to policing. Programs that are diversionary and reduce crime (education for one) are frequently cut in order to give ever-increasing money to police departments that show zero ROI. If there was more of a focus on “doing the best you can with what you get” like every other city service, it wouldn’t be so bad but right now police dominate city budgets in every city in the US.
See this NYT opinion piece, "Yes, we literally mean abolish the police": https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd-abol...
(See also "All cops are bastards," which doesn't mean "Some cops are bastards.")
If unreasonable* anger should be exercised, that it's target be public buildings and institutions, the bastion of power rather than at John and Mary down the street.
* to be decided by yourself
It was not merely symbolic building. Which makes it massively different then, say, went your anger at some statue which has truly symbolic meaning.
I think there's very little principled about it. About fifty years ago, the leftist Black Panthers decided to openly carry guns into the California legislature's building, and they didn't even invade, they just walked in as visitors. In response, Ronald Reagan, the Republican governor of California who would later be US president, signed a law that made it illegal to openly carry loaded guns. And the National Rifle Association supported that law. None of the right-wing people who idolize Reagan today and also support the events of January 6 seem to think these positions are inconsistent.
Part of the problem, I suspect, is that the vast majority of the populace has no intention of taking up arms against the government. That mans that those who are even thinking about it are necessarily not advocating for a representative government for all people. The concern over January 6 was that it would be a coup - putting someone into power who could not win by established democratic means - not that it would be a popular revolution - taking people out of power who gained it by established non-democratic means.
Glad you were able to clear her intent up for the rest of us.
I didn't say anything about being racist in my comment, but I think it's pretty clear that the only reason #AllLivesMatter became a slogan was because people were uncomfortable with BLM. And I don't think it is a big stretch to suggest that people's documented subconscious biases against black people had something to do with the rise of that slogan.
- Sometimes, meme activism is too effective at the goal the activists want, as in the case of Andrew Yang or Black Lives Matter. (At other times it is effective, but not too effective, as in the case of abolitionism.)
- Sometimes, meme activism is too ineffective at the goals the activists want, as in the case of Joseph Kony. (At other times it is ineffective, but not too ineffective, as in the case of the Hong Kong protests.)
- Sometimes, meme activism allows its proponents to argue for shallow ideas that they claim to want probably don't actually want were they to reflect on the ideas, as in the case of Lock Her Up.
Those are... pretty much all over the place, and only the last one seems directly connected to the meme-ness (an idea optimizes for ease of spread) of the meme activism.
And, fundamentally, no one is going to listen - nor should they - to the idea that their activism is too effective, and it is somehow unfair for them to engage in such means. This isn't a board game with rules, where everyone shows up to have fun even if they're being competitive at the table. The goal of an activist is to get what they want; the goal of the opposing activists is the same. Voluntarily giving up "unfair" advantages is just a good way to ensure that your side doesn't win.
It's great at getting a bunch of likes while harassing someone like Yang into shutting up, but did that action actually have any meaningful impact on how Israel acts, or how US politicians act toward Israel (not what they SAY, notice, but what they DO)? Probably not.
It's great at getting fame and money for the Kony people, but had no actual impact on the situation in question.
Slogans like Build the Wall and Lock Her Up served their purpose, which was to build an electoral base for Trump, not to actually accomplish those things.
I'm actually more sympathetic to Trump here, because he's a salesman using sales tactics to make a sale. The others clothe themselves in high-minded morality while in reality being exactly the same thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Wars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine
Maybe the country is more polarized, but I think we need to be cognizant of the tendency to make everything today be totally unique.
Political violence has a long history in the US, and there are far fewer people getting killed over it today.
It really is not new. Slogans and clever imagery are as old as popular media I guess. I'm also not sure it necessarily indicates that a movement is faddish. Most people who congregate under the BLM meme obviously know that it comes with a genuine movement with complex politics.
First, admit that it will never happen by voluntary action. The rumor mill, at least, will keep grinding until the last free-range human is gone, who will tell it to a volleyball if there is nobody else. Then imagine the scale of intervention that would be required to significantly suppress it. It would mean continual monitoring, punishment, isolation, and we'd find ways to signal our discontent through masks and straight jackets. If instead you just opt out, go your own way, plug your ears, you've exited the arena, and the memes will happily steamroll along without you, and with you having less warning to get out of the way.
I too have a beef with meme activism, and also the gravitational constant, and the speed of light. Those are all equally winnable battles.
It's whats happening right now with CRT. You can't speak out against it, without risking reputation or livelihood so you hope to just ignore it until it goes away.
I find this absurd as someone who had an interest in critical theory (including CRT) about 7 years ago.
Nobody had even heard of CRT until like 3 years ago and what people call "CRT" isn't even an actual category. It is certainly not being taught in highschools.
It's a boogeyman produced by conservative media. I actually am not a fan of many subbranches (ie. afro-pessimism is BS, IMO) and would have no fear about stating that publicly.
All that speaking out against "CRT" as a general phenomenon demonstrates to me is that you spend a lot of time reading the conservative media bubble.
(If anyone was proposing that, it might be worth freaking out over, but not for the reasons being cited, but more for the same reasons you’d freak out over proposing Quantum Chemistry as a high school graduation requirement. Except moreso, because QChem is at least reasonably common in undergraduate curricula.)
Clearly this must become a major part of our political discourse at once.
This seems absurd. I never sided with the math is racist people.
I encourage you to think rationally about these things, and prioritize facts above feeling like X&X might be associated with Y&Y who has bad idea Z&Z. Look at what people actually support.
Of course in your opinion it is more important to stop all the lunatics on the right. But to a right wing voter he will look at all the flavours of lunatics supported by the Democrats and use that as a reason why he has to vote right. I'd argue that both parties absorbing their sides lunatics in USA is the by far biggest problem with politics over there. Where I live the lunatics made their own parties so you don't have to vote for them, but in a two party system that can't happen so the lunatics will almost surely get absorbed by the big parties.
It is absurd and it is much better to link people to stupid, absurd ideas than ideas that are actually supported by a significant subgroup of "the Democrats."
You don't see how you are part of the exact problem that you are trying to critique. This is "meme activism" in action.
Could you link the general controversy?
If the argument is that in the community of people who practice math, there are many who have racist or sexist biases, I find that plausible and not really a "lunatic" idea.
If the argument is the general form of math (say algebra) is intrinsically sexist, then I think that is lunacy.
I think the two are intentionally conflated to make the former sound like the latter.
Example she used: The kids is given a lab to test how quickly sugar gets dissolved in coffee depending on temperature. A girl suggests they test immediately with hot water and after it got cooled for 5 minutes. A guy suggests they also tests after 10 minutes. The girl objects and says that nobody wants cold coffee so there is no reason to test at that temperature. The boy argues that they should test the how easily sugar gets dissolved depending on temperature and that the setting isn't relevant. This the paper argues is sexist behaviour and the girls perspective got trampled on when the teacher sided with the boy that they should do three tests.
Page 14 here, you can use an auto translate or so.
https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.6bfaca41169863e6a65380...
Among the many problems packed into this sentence, CRT is not “advanced racist spotting”.
Also, its a pretty big leap, like literally conspiracy-theory level, to go from “I’ve heard X” and “Given X, Y would be unsurprising” to “Y is true”.
This to me sounds like someone dismissing the harms caused by a Church by saying that it isn't technically part of scriptural canon, and that if we could only adopt True and correct orthodoxy, these abuses would not happen.
The problem is that kids are being taught to not be friends with each other because of what they look like.
That's always been true, and CRT has nothing to do with it.
I have seen it happen to preteens first hand. Children that a year ago were comfortable hanging out, are no longer so.
CRT encourages kids to engage in paint-swatch racialism.
It is heartbreaking to see first hand children who used to just be able to play together, worry about whether they should include or exclude other kids because of what they look like.
Teaching children to pre-judge people because of where their pigmentation is on a paint swatch is grotesque and it is child abuse.
If your ideology leads you to hurt children, then your ideology must be wrong.
So, pre-judging people is wrong because it erases their identity by making unfounded and unfair presumptions about who they are because of arbitrary physical characteristics that they can not control. Racial pre-judgement is a dangerous bronze-age heuristic that society should try to be moving past, but CRT encourages it.
Implanting racial self hatred (and racial pride) is a pernicious and dangerous thing to do, and if you can't see that I don't have time to educate you. Reducing human beings down to being "black and brown bodies" is disgusting. The correct response to that kind of dehumanization can only be disgust. And again, people in positions of authority imposing that in CHILDREN. At least adults have more agency to push back.
I don't care if that isn't "real" CRT. It doesn't matter if what I am talking about isn't textually correct. If the CRT you are talking about only exists in the minds of obscure scholars and texts, then it is just a fantasy, and doesn't really exist. The only real CRT is what is actually being implemented in classrooms across the country.
Yeah probably no lurking variable there...
> If the CRT you are talking about only exists in the minds of obscure scholars and texts, then it is just a fantasy, and doesn't really exist. The only real CRT is what is actually being implemented in classrooms across the country.
Imagine replacing CRT in this sentence with quantum physics or advanced macroeconomics. It doesn't make sense, and leaning heavily on "oh but the children" doesn't really win any points if you don't have a rational explanation of how this is happening.
You are teaching kids to be uncomfortable with each other based on what they look like. You are telling kids that they are fundamentally different from each other. You are telling kids that "race" is the most important element of their identity, and that they are wrong for trying to overlook how they are different.
That is child abuse.
I've heard fire and brimstone priests who turn people against each other use exactly the same defense for traumatizing kids. It is something like: It's not my fault that I'm giving 6 year olds nightmares; I'm just exposing them to reality. I'm actually helping them!
Telling children that they are terrible people and need your permission to be good is a horrible thing to do. And I think that in the future you will end up being seen as no better than abusive clergy.
> Imagine replacing CRT in this sentence with quantum physics or advanced macroeconomics. It doesn't make sense, and leaning heavily on "oh but the children" doesn't really win any points if you don't have a rational explanation of how this is happening.
It makes perfect sense. If everyone is learning a flawed or incomplete version of quantum mechanics, then that is what quantum mechanics effectively is. The fact that a "better" version of it exists somewhere is meaningless. Physics isn't right because feelings and because a majority of people say it is right. This is basic epistemology.
If you can defend any ideology by simply saying that the version being widely taught is wrong, and somewhere, there is a correct version of it.
You can try to defend CRT abuse by saying that it isn't "real" CRT, but that again means almost nothing. The problem is not about textual adherence, it is about abuse of people.
I'm equally not impressed with people dismissing stuff like The Killing Fields as "not really Communism", as if that even matters. People aren't complaining about the text of CRT, they are complaining about harm done to people.
And yes, if you are hurting children, you are prima facie wrong. It is an incredibly short chain of reasoning.
No, it doesn't; paint-swatch racialism is solidly embedded in American culture, abd CRT is quite distant from it. Not, again, that anyone is actually teaching CRT to kids.
It’s true that “CRT” is the label to which the American Right has attached their longstanding slander against the anti-racist elements of the left, that by opposing institutional racism that favors whites they paint whites as racist based on their race, but the Right changing the label they attach that lie to doesn't make it either the broader lie or the new association true.
> If your ideology leads you to hurt children, then your ideology must be wrong.
Well, yes, that's among the many reasons why a reflexive defense of white supremacy that leads you to invent a whole false narrative around Critical Race Theory to justify mandated teaching of whitewashed history to children is wrong, sure.
> I don't care if that isn't "real" CRT.
You should care, because caring about being lied to about that would tell you to look behind the lie and see that CRT has been around for decades, no one has tried to teach it to kids, no has proposed teaching it to kids, and there's been no change in that or anything adjacent to it recently that could explain any of the things which have been blamed on it. The only thing that has changed connected to CRT is that in the last year, the American Right, out of the blue and with little connection to reality, adopted it as a label to which they attached the same lins which the anti-anti-racist segment of the Right has used against contemport anti-racists for generations (even before CRT existed).
And that might lead you to consider the actual causes of the tensions you see, rather than the self-serving narrative of a political faction that has had strategic leverage of disaffected White racist as a central strategy since...well, just a little earlier than CRT was first developed.
Hm. It does? My point is not saying anything is not part of "scriptural canon", merely that "CRT" as described is not actually taught in schools nor is it a clearly defined category.
But honestly, philosophical schools of thought are not very reminiscent of the Catholic church, which you seem to be making allusions to.
Sometimes analogizing can obscure the point, I think you have reached this point here. (:
I think that it is an accurate enough label. Clearly this stuff is heavily inspired and informed by CRT. From what I can tell, it contains the essential elements of CRT, just distilled down for easier consumption.
I think it is fair to call a curriculum authored by a confessed CRT advocate like Ibram Kendi Critical Race Theory.
But again, people are not complaining because it is Critical Race Theory. People are complaining that it is harmful.
I sympathize with Americans who are unfamiliar with foreign politics, so I am not saying this to fight or shame anybody, but this was not just a twitter event. It was more a result of the study released by Human Rights Watch days earlier than it was a result of social media shaming. This event held important historical significance far beyond Twitter.
This means that political and societal activism is now manipulable at scales that were inconceivable some time ago.
So the human factor has always been there (and arguably helped us when the memes were like "kill the sabertooth tiger!"). But the problem is growing because of technology, which is another thing that cannot lightheartedly be slowed down.
So the least we can do is to be aware and minimize the damage
As opposed to TV, Radio, or Newspaper? Corporate control of media has always been a problem. We are just have less political will to regulate these massive media conglomerates now than we did in the past. This includes the old media companies too. Rupert Murdock has stomped all over American discourse.
Whether you have control over your own device or not, you still can't craft an Algorithm For Truth, because there isn't one. The information that you would want to know from a news site, like "Was the election stolen?", "Was Iraq actually hiding WMDs?", "Did Russia actually invade Ukraine?", "Did the moon landing really happen?", "Were these leaked documents forged?", those all exist outside of your computer. The closest you can possibly get is by establishing a chain of custody from whoever gathered the information leading to you, which your HTTPS connection already does. Figuring out whether the site you're connected to is actually telling the truth or not isn't something that having root access would help with.
Edit: my point would be the manipulation happens but it's much more a product of the generators of provocative content than the forums, which give a certain spin but can't help but provide a forum for what is viral. As an "exception that proves the rule", FB and mainstream social media successfully suppressed Guilliani's one, big hit-piece last election. They got tremendous heat for this and it was clearly something they couldn't keep doing for every bit of content. Just consider, the NY Post still gets a wide forum despite, imo, being the tissue of lies and a river of filth.
Edit2: And FB provides rebuttal like for some number of overtly fake stories. Is that enough? Is that itself manipulation?
In the case of Facebook, it's not immediately apparent to me how the platform might be changed to facilitate more thoughtful conversation. But on the other hand, Twitter is an easy case: get rid of the comment limit and let people express their thoughts using more than pithy snippets.
"Gravity, at least, will keep grinding until the universe is compressed into a single point. To eliminate gravity completely it would require constant destruction, compression, agitation, and elimination of all physical laws. Instead, just plug your ears and scream "LALALALA" a pretend gravity doesn't exist because you will stick to the surface of the planet regardless."
But I agree you can't "fight" it by shaking your fist at it and you can't expect it to go away by some choice as long as the forces that put it in place are here.
These "memes" have serious effects on society that can't just be ignored.
Yes, far more people are happy to fleetingly express support for an idea than will actually take meaningful action
Yes, political movements need short slogans which naturally obscure a lot of detail
These really just seem like facts of life and it's not clear that either thing (lots of half-invested people sharing hashtags; people misunderstanding slogans) does any harm to the actual movements, or to society
It's a zero-sum tradeoffs with other online activities, maybe, but definitely not with outdoors political action.
Talking about beliefs in one way only trades off with talking about those beliefs in another way.
That’s exactly what is decried by the original article as being detrimental to activism.
The point of activism is to take action to effect meaningful change in the world.
1. Every movement has the vast majority people as quiet supporters, not taking concrete action in the streets or wherever. This is not unique to meme activism.
2. I don't buy that meme activism actually trades off with physical action.
I do buy that meme activism doesn't translate into physical action, but I don't think that those people would be taking physical action if they didn't have the memes.
None of the evidence you've presented is contrary to that hypothesis, and if anything, supports it.
http://www.com.cuhk.edu.hk/ccpos/b5/pdf/QoL10.pdf
The point of activism is to effect change, not to be an echo chamber.
“ However, experiments to date have only documented very short-term effects on public concern (lasting up to a week), leaving open the question of whether agenda-setting has the power to yield meaningful political consequences in the course of ordinary daily life over the longer term.”
https://pprg.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2009-Handbook-o...
Seems like a motte and bailey fallacy
Memes work in so far as they are persuasive, so I don't them going away
The author gives up on their point too soon, not realizing that it's possible that in line with their thesis neither of these specific actions were effective beyond rallying support.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session
I've seen to a lesser extent this behavior done (sans the physicality of in-person shaming)
Would "I'm standing with the people of Israel" count? Because it is a complete throwaway statement, made by US politicians so routinely that it is absent of all meaning. Israel is a democracy that upholds property rights and rule of law. Unfortunately, rule of law that successive civilian governments have put in place allow settlers to simply take, by decree, land that belongs to Palestinians. That's not 'property rights' it's Manifest Destiny.
Andrew Yang did not get cancelled. He propagated a meme statement and had to clarify that his actual opinion has more nuance, as does the situation he referred to.
One more property I think is very relevant to the types of memes referred to by the article is that these memes want to spread at the exclusion of all others or any variation.
What stood out to me with respect to that event is that while many memes were thrown about, some memes had to be clarified to death without having any effect on the outrage while others continued to be thrown about without requiring any clarification despite being dog whistles for things significantly worse than their seemingly innocuous wording.
Accusing someone of supporting genocide should not be considered an appropriate way of asking them to provide a more considered, nuanced opinion.
And if you say that both sides have a lot of valid points and you aren't sure how to weigh all those points to reach a clean and simple conclusion? Well... I've never won any friends like that.
But to answer your more general question of who gets to decide "appropriate", that is society as a whole. We, as a society and as a civilization, decide what we find acceptable and objectionable. Right now we have drifted into a territory where a one or two sentence soundbite is considered appropriate to encapsulate complex issues that defy easy solutions despite the soundbite pundits, politicians, and activists that spout them as axiomatic truths, shutting down the ability to have a conversation with anyone who slightly disagrees.
Do you have more insight on this, on how it could be handled better? Or are you happy with the status quo where little conversation but much shouting is the norm?
Even Trump's most obvious, easy to execute plans failed. Memes couldn't even build a functional wall let alone fix healthcare or even repeal what exists, even with a majority in all branches of government. Memes aren't necessarily a bad way of disseminating information, the ideas they spread are necessarily intellectually reduced and ineffective in implementation.
Getting the nuance stripped out of the debate robs the debate of meaning.
The author seems to dislike the meme #BlackLivesMatter, but also praises some memes like "#5DemandsNot1Less to generate pressure on the Chinese government to preserve the relative political freedom of Hong Kong".
Both of these are memes. I am curious, what is the principle by which one decides which memes are "good" and which ones "have gone too far"? They propose 3 recommendations at the end for how to engage with memes, but couldn't this be applied to #5DemandsNot1Less as well?
In the case of 5DemandNot1Less it's clear that the meme is a vehicle for some concrete statements.
Of course, both memes can be used thoughtlessly, so maybe that's not a crucial difference.
Here, you have fallen back on "the motte."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
No more interesting than the fact that statement of another obvious fact (that all lives matter) has caused just as much controversy. At the end of the day these two statements are just dog whistles for what allegiance you hold and the actual meaning of the sentence doesn't matter much.
The horror?
I'll be honest, I don't see what the problem with short labels that express an ideological affiliation. People who aren't "pro-life" aren't pro-murder, and people who aren't "pro-choice" do not oppose choice in all instances. We all know what they mean though.
For instance, suppose I thought abortion should be legal for the first N weeks, but require case-by-case approval from a panel of ethicists after N weeks. Does that put me in the pro-life bin or the pro-choice bin? Probably more the latter than the former, but it's certainly not a pure 'choice' position to have on the matter.
You're not. That's the problem. In the case of #5DemandsNot1Less there is really no context in the hashtag itself to determine its meaning until you learn more about the movement. It is a pointer to the beliefs of the movement, not the beliefs themselves.
With #BlackLivesMatter, that is not the case. The hashtag has its own fairly obvious semantic weight that is not an accurate pointer back to all of the specific beliefs of the political movement.
This meant that supporting #DemandsNot1Less implicitly meant you supported its specific tenets. While on the other hand, Supporting #BLM was more complex, where many people would absolutely support the literally meaning, but not necessarily all of the rest of the political goals. This makes it easy to attack critics of a particular BLM political goals as if they did not support the literal meaning.
In that context it it easy to understand why the author drew a line between the two memes. Of course that was their opinion, and opinions differ. The author wasn't advocating that everyone have the same opinion on specific memes, they were arguing that such opinions should be informed & critically examined.
They weren't saying "Here's a formula to discover which memes are bad." They were saying "Here's a method to help you come to your own well-informed opinions on the them."
Convicting Donald Trump and banning him from office is not a radical and far-reaching ideology.
Defunding the police (it's already waaaaay too funded, they don't need literal military gear, which is what they have in the US) is also not a radical and far-reaching ideology.
This article is trying to present itself as being reasonable and moderate when it's just advocating for the fascism that is continuously creeping up on the US. Which is how you have to present yourself, as reasonable and moderate, if you want to convince anyone.
Only through thoughtful upvotes would someone earn the community support for an individual to spread their voice geographically further and further.
Allowing trolls immediate access to the entire world was a mistake.
In the age of social media this can (and has) created huge social movements based on nothing more than feel good politics. While huge, these movements aren't very resilient because most people aren't actually very invested in their causes, and leadership is often nebulous and diffuse. As a result, these causes can be hijacked, subverted or can just fall apart as peoples interests move elsewhere somewhere along the grueling path of change. For most, their political activism begins and ends with the retweeting of some catchy hashtag or infographic, or attending some march with their friends for some cause without fully understanding the issues they are protesting. When push comes to shove, most will not be willing to make serious sacrifices for their cause.
#ValueNuanceAndPromoteDispationnateAnd EmpathicDiscourseBetweenResponsibleAdults
Don't know if that will catch (but apparently, there's a music video from some TV show's contestant that title "treat people with kindness", so we would have an opening song for rallies.)
We would treat "being nice" as a radical way to resist the companies that are, albeit unintentionnaly, making money out of people yelling at each others )
Naaaah , I'll just reshare some cat meme instead.
Dispassionate debate doesn’t mean that you don’t have strong opinions about something, it means that you set those emotional connections to your argument aside and debate solely with logic.
Amusingly, if we were to have a "passionnate" discussion about the topic of "passionnate" discussion, this sentence would be the starting point of a chain reaction in both our amygdalas that would end up with my insulting your family, pets, favorite sport teams and core values for not agreeing 100% with me.
(Or, so would say some unreliable and pop-sciency blog writer that I should definitely not bring into a serious discussion.)
;)
That being said, I'm not sure "dispassionate" is the best word to describe what I mean. I initially went with "civil", but a discussion can be "civil" between people who hate each others - as long as there is a cop in the place to keeps the knifes out.
I mean "the kind of discussion where people agree that emotions have to be managed, if not toned down, in order to avoid tribalism". I know the task is hard, if possible at all (at least that's why pop-neuroscience indicates [1]); I value the effort.
If anything, "passionnate debate" might not be good for our hearts ;) [2]
So let's add plenty of smileys to the plenty of threads that don't need too much seriousness, shall we ?
[1] https://theconversation.com/from-the-penalty-box-to-the-ball...
[2] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/09/020926070006.h...
My worry is the selection effect that can potentially occur when focusing on dispassionate discourse.
Namely, people who are close to an issue, people who are most affected, and people who do not have much stability in life (ie. a lost paycheck or whatever can mean a big deal) seem to me to be the most likely to have trouble engaging in dispassionate discourse around a subject that affects their livelihood. At least, I imagine I would. But those are exactly the sort of people it is critical to engage with when deciding things around these issues.
I want to have "civil" discourse, but I don't want it if it means weighting the discourse heavily towards people who are removed from the actual issue or have relatively low stakes.
Memes show how easy it is to manipulate or con a large group of people.