That’s great! Just do things you want to do, and invite others to do them to. Don’t ask others why they don’t do the same things you do, or why they put a higher priority on other things. Do stuff, help people, ask others to help you to help people.
I agree with this, but do you really think that that’s what everyone else is doing? I think that, when asking for explanations of why, for example, someone who advocates pulling down statues thinks that cause is important, the questioner is not getting “I help pull down statues because I think it helps people for these reasons. You want to help that cause?”
They’re getting answers more like, say, “If you think people worrying about statues is a waste of time, then that’s what you think. Pick something that you think is better and do it, and ask for others to help you.”
But if you start with “I think pulling down statues is a waste of time, why are you doing it?” you are poisoning the well already.
But if you are not concerned with pulling down statues, then let the people who ARE concerned about do it. You do the things that YOU are concerned with.
That was how I came at the last thread, and exactly the mistake I copped to here. That’s why this second one exists and explicity denounces that behavior of mine.
My interest in statue-pullers, or anyone else doing or trying to do anything (I meant that thing about millions of good causes), is in finding out why they’re doing what they’re doing not to castigate them but so I can know whether I ought to be helping them. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask. And again, the whole point-three thing is that asking the question doesn’t automatically mean I think anything in particular about what they’re doing, besides that I’d like to know what’s up with it. I did the opposite of making that clear in my Pit thread, but I’m stating it explicitly here, many times and in many ways, with both direct statements like this AND by analogy.
Sharing ideas is good; please do it. Explaining your ideas is good; I and others would appreciate knowing why you think what you think, because those interested in helping people might be interested in helping you if they knew more. You owe me neither of these things, but I think they’re good ideas and that’s what I’m advocating for, in addition to please not assuming that anyone who asks must be against you.
Edit: MrDibble was the poster I mentioned in the OP who gave a genuine response to the statue thing, and I was happy because I respect the hell out of his opinion on this subject and hoped he would tell me more about why he thought it was important. He thought, because I’d poisoned the well, that my question wasn’t genuine and declined. I’d love it if he or anyone else would grant me the grace to explain, because I’m listening. But again, I’m not focused on the statues; even in the other thread it was only one example of four, and in reality it’s one example of millions. I want to read about as many of them as I can.
I’ve found that many people think “Asking why you are doing something” is a personal attack. So I’ve learned that is not a good question to ask.
This.
OK; but that certainly isn’t where you started off.
And, considering the above, I’m not at all sure that’s where you are now, either. You still seem to be insisting that everybody needs to get together and decide that Some Things Aren’t Worth Doing – not that some particular techniques for doing them (such as violence) are in most circumstances likely to backfire, but that the things themselves shouldn’t be done.
People (not only MrDibble) have posted, in this thread and in the other thread, reasons why we think pulling down statues is important. You seem to ignore those posts, or those parts of those posts.
Not that some things aren’t worth doing; that some things ought to be done now and the others ought to be done later.
And I’m promising you that I’m not ignoring anything. As I’ve already said, I already think (chiefly thanks to MrDibble, but also to the others you mention), that pulling down statues is a lot more important than I originally thought it was. If you think it needs to be cause number one, and that I and others ought to devote what we have to give of ourselves to it, then yes, I’m going to ask why. And, point-three again, please don’t think I’m doing so because I’m lying about disagreeing with it. I just don’t know what I don’t know, so I’m asking.
In doing a lot of reading about the current protests on a number of sites I’ve run into a commonality: Black people complaining that they’ve run out of patience with white people asking them to explain what they mean.
The black people say that they’ve been explaining what they mean, loudly, and for decades. They have been saying that the police treats them far differently from whites. They have been saying that they are targeted, followed, and suspected every minute they are out in public. They have been saying that employers refuse to hire them, and if they do then refuse to give them equal pay, and if they do then fail to promote them equally. They have been saying that they cannot buy the houses they want in the areas they choose. They have been saying that their schools are not funded to the same extent and that conditions in them are substandard. They have been saying that politicians have been deliberately making it harder for them to register and vote. They have been saying that doctors do not give the same level of care that white people get. They have been saying that the continual celebration of “southern heritage” is really a long-term crushing of the victory black people should have won with the defeat of the Confederacy. They have been talking about aggression and microaggressions seemingly forever.
And now white people want them to explain why they want to tear down monuments to the perpetrators and defenders of slavery put up to remind black people of their place during the Jim Crow era, the foremost in-your-face expression of single-meaning oppressive hatred?
Figure it out, Sherlock is a very mild response.
When someone is in debt and making a plan to get out of debt, there are various strategies. One is “Pay down the highest interest loan/card first” which is a good strategy because you save the most money. If you stick to the plan it will get you out of debt quickest. Another strategy is “Pick a small load/card and pay it off completely” which is a good strategy for someone who needs to see improvement and progress towards a goal. It’s a concrete achievement that makes further sacrifices more palatable.
Both strategies are valid. Both work. Which one you choose depends on your outlook, history, and motivation. Two logical, rational, and well informed people may choose either strategy and have it be the correct one for them.
Working on legal reforms and tearing down statues are both valid first steps. Neither is inherently better or worse than the other. They both achieve steps towards success, but they are different steps and take the movement in different paths. And they can operate in parallel.
You’re setting up a choice between competing strategies but you’re only viewing the results through a single lens. Both paths have value; both paths can be the correct choice. Everyone doesn’t need to be on the same path.
What I was answering in that bit was this from you:
which I quoted. And that reads to me that you’re saying that people in the threads in question haven’t given reasons why pulling down statues matters. If you meant something else by that, it’s not clear to me what you did mean.
But people in the threads, again not only Mr. Dibble whose post you discuss as if it were the only such post, have indeed given such reasons. So if you’re not ignoring those posts, why are you saying you’re not getting such explanations?
I think, as I’ve said two or three times now, that what you’re seeing as separate “causes” are not separable. For that reason (among other important reasons) my position is that insisting that they must be ranked in order of importance is a bad way of coming at the issues.
Nobody’s saying it needs to be “cause number one”, even if I thought there’s a clear hierarchy of causes, which I don’t.
People are saying get out of the way, not help pull. Standing in front of the people pulling on the ropes, self-righteously pointing to the Post Office, is getting in the way.
And in more ways than one. Because even if you do think think pulling on the ropes is a good idea, just not now, not keeping your unasked for opinion to yourself right now is just making the actual racists think you’re on their side, and that emboldens them.
And just to summarize my own beliefs again
- I personally don’t care enough about statues (even ones of former Apartheid figures) to be particularly invested in tearing them down. But I stand by those who feel strongly enough to do so.
- I recognize that psychological harm of racism, including racist symbology, is a very real thing, and really kills people. A lot of them. I posted links to that in the other thread, including to an institute that investigates this precise phenomenon.
- Also, I recognize that the cathartic act of doing so energizes the movement. It is my own belief that it does so way more than it puts off fence-sitters. Because I don’t really believe there are many genuine fence-sitters at this point.
Okay, the replies here have helped me – I think; I hope – figure out where I’m going wrong.
First of all, let me be clear that I have no intention of getting in the way, physically or otherwise, of anyone trying to do any good at all. Good things are good, and all good things anyone wants to do can and should happen.
The word “hierarchy” made me twig to what I think I’m miscommunicating. I do not believe that there is an objective set of 1) Super Good Ideas and 2) Pretty Good Ideas and 3) Kinda Good Ideas and 4) Bad Ideas. And even if I did believe that, I sure as hell wouldn’t put statue-pulling, or any of the other causes that have been discussed, into Group 4.
When I talk about priorities, I don’t mean that everyone should focus on the same thing because it is the Best Thing. When I talk about discussing our own individual thoughts on priorities, I don’t mean that we should try and determine that Best Thing by way of something akin to a mathematical proof. It doesn’t exist and the idea is stupid.
I do think, though, that getting immigrants out of concentration camps is more important than feeding a hungry homeless person is more important than playing frisbee with the family dog. Not everyone, of course, has the ability to do anything besides vote and maybe write to Congress about the ICE camps. They should in no way be judged for that, and if they go feed the homeless guy (or whatever) instead, then they are equally good. And for God’s sake I’m not saying you should never play frisbee with the poor fucking dog.
The point about priorities is that, among things that you CAN do, people’s ideas about why X is more immediately needed than Y could help you (and me, and everyone) to decide what they think on the matter. No one is wrong. But, to give an example from my personal life, I’m lucky enough to have a certain amount of money to give to charity each month. I could just try to donate to as many causes as possible, but at some point the donations would become so small that they wouldn’t be worth the manpower to process them.
So, what I did was contact a bunch of them, and talk to the people you see on the street advocating for various causes. I asked each of them to tell me why they believe people should donate to them. Not a single one had a problem with the question. They all gave excellent answers, and none of them were wrong, but again, because reality is real, I did have to pick. I ended up picking Planned Parenthood as my largest contribution, and I did that because the advocate’s arguments and facts convinced me that women’s rights were under attack in a way that was harming a shitload of people, but also that we were close to being able to make real headway if the cause got enough support.
If you had done the same, but concluded that donating to the Red Cross was the right way to go, I would never in a million years dream of calling you wrong. If everyone ONLY donated to Planned Parenthood, the world would suck. Arguing that would be like the “pastor” I once argued with who said that being gay was bad because if everyone was gay, there wouldn’t be any children. That is both not the point and severely stupid.
If you chose a (hypothetical) organization that was trying to improve the quality of pepperoni on pizzas, though, I would try to convince you that perhaps that was not the best use of your resources. You could try to convince me I was wrong; maybe I don’t know that bad pepperoni contains something that’s hurting a lot of people, and then maybe I’d join you. Either way, it’s not like better pepperoni would be bad.
Hopefully this helps clarify. Getting in the way is the opposite of the point. But “pick a cause at random” is not a good thing to say, when making informed choices is clearly better. You can’t make informed choices without information, which comes from people who are either or both of affected by causes, or armed with facts and evidence they’re willing to share.
Apples. Oranges. Your analogies don’t work.
If you don’t already have enough information on this topic, you are part of the problem. If you need information, it’s all around you in a thousand places. Just open up your browser and start reading. No need to waste anybody’s time to get them to justify anything.
Right. We needed another facile analogy because the problem here is still that none of us grasp that there are SOME things in life that are zero sum. We don’t grasp that we can’t simultaneously go to two different restaurants for dinner. We don’t grasp that if you can only afford to give $100 to charity each month, giving it all to one charity means another charity doesn’t get it.
Please stop giving these facile analogies because we all understand that. Pay attention to what people are saying in response. Your analogies DO NOT APPLY to social change. Your zero-sum energy-budgeting model where you have fixed resources to expend in choosing from a menu of possible things is THE WRONG MODEL for how social change works. One group of people pursuing one avenue of activism does not detract from other avenues. It energizes people and creates momentum. It increases the likelihood that people will be motivated to support other aspects of the movement for social change.
Nope. Your problem isn’t how you’re articulating your position. We all understand what you’re trying to say. We just think you’re wrong.
So, to be clear, here, you think that sharing ideas and reasoning are bad (or at least worthless), and that instead of, fr’ex, doing that to pick a charity, it’d have been just as good to pick one out of a hat.
I mean…okay. (Can we have back the :dubious: smiley?)
Huh. I thought I and others had made clear that your charity analogy was totally inappropriate and shouldn’t have been brought anywhere near this discussion. And now you’re doubling-down on it.
Maybe I should read that pit thread. It would probably express a lot of what I’m thinking about now.
…donations to charities fighting for social-justice causes are not an analogy. They’re a direct and immediately relevant example of actions that can be taken to help social justice. Also, duh.
There’s been a point that’s been made multiple times in this thread that I’ve been ignoring, not because I haven’t noticed it but because it’s frankly just stupid. I’ve been trying to avoid even the appearance of outright combativeness to express a sincere desire to find a common ground, and the only way to argue against this particular idea is to point out that it’s stupid, and that necessarily comes across as combative. But, people apparently want to die on this hill, so here we go.
“Social Justice” is not some ethereal force or unified cause that is greater than the actions of the individuals who support its many, many aspects. Saying that “the social justice movement” accomplished Goal A today is fine shorthand, because a reasonable person understands (or so I thought) that that’s just shorthand for “the combined effect of a million actions taken by thousands of individual people, over a long period of time, finally accomplished Goal A today.” You could, if given the time, identify every single person and the actions they took that, together, achieved the goal. If enough of those people had not taken those actions, then Social Justice Goal A would not have been accomplished today.
You can also find people who, though well-intentioned, took actions were either irrelevant or accidentally made Goal A take longer to accomplish. Had they understood that that was happening, they could have NOT done so, and helped out instead. If more people were willing to proactively explain why one action helps and another does not (in their opinion), then the person could use their judgement to possibly help instead of harm.
This idea that “what you’re seeing as separate “causes” are not separable” is ridiculous, because of course they’re separable because they’re different causes. This is how reality works. The reason for the charity “analogy”, which was not an analogy but a direct statement of the entire point that people doing things is how things get done, was exactly what people here have been stating. But whatever this bizarre idea is that there’s some sort of entity that’s greater than the sum of its parts, is just dream-world logic. If you agree that one individual can only do so much, AND you agree that things are accomplished based upon which things individuals try to accomplish, then you cannot rationally disagree with the point I’m making.
I wish that Social Justice did not depend on devoting limited resources to limited things. It does, though, because so does literally everything else that humankind has ever done or ever will do.
To be more concise: if you’re willing to argue with me about these points, which you think are bullshit, why would you not be willing to discuss with me why you support what you support instead? Hell, even if you think I’m a moron, you could still possibly manipulate me into helping you, and then you’d still have more help than you did.