|
It seems like whenever something happens that could lead to big changes catches on, it gets forgotten after a few months. A few stick on, but it seems like never enough to really make a difference. Why do so few care and so few listen? Do people care more about bread and circuses?
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 01:09 |
|
|
I dunno, you tell me.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
e: double post? posting from computers sucks, always use mobile apps
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Apathy is a consequence of the near zero influence over policy ordinary people have, not a cause of it. It's true of even the first world. But every society is 3 square meals away from a revolution, so there's still hope. rudatron fucked around with this message at 02:16 on May 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
There was an enormous civil rights movement in the US, even in the southern US, in the 1920s. It was, like the more famous civil rights movement a generation later, a coalition of black reformists and black revolutionaries and white leftists. It was opposed by the same broad spectrum of white society that spawned Bull Connor and George Wallace a few decades later. These movements were organized, passionate, smart, inspired, and tackling the exact same problem as in the 50s and 60s. But it had nowhere near the success. People didn't discover a magical formula or the right slogan or some organizational mantra to overcome those challenges. It was not as successful, because material conditions weren't ready yet for that social change. Were they wasting their time? No, because their work also impacted those material conditions and laid the groundwork for the organization and the struggles that came after them.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
Absolutely not, OP.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
you're right op, things are just too good. embrace accelerationism.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
Social change doesn't happen with a giant landmark battle that people can point to in history books. It's a long and slow process that is always happening but its subtle enough most people don't notice it.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
If only we cared more. We could have legalized gay marriage and started to raise minimum wage by now.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Things have gotten incredibly better, even in the last 10 years. You can always tell the age of the average goon when they go on about how bad things are now- a hundred years ago we were in the middle of a war that was killing hundreds of thousands in a single battle. Now minority political rights have skyrocketed to the point where people are asking how the republican party can sustain itself with only white voter support. 20 years ago coming out of the closet was potentially life-threatening, now you can serve in the military and a majority of people can get married. Even the trans movement is making fairly significant gains. poo poo, interracial marriage didn't gain majority support till the mid 90's. Fojar38 posted:Social change doesn't happen with a giant landmark battle that people can point to in history books. It's a long and slow process that is always happening but its subtle enough most people don't notice it. This is usually the case but things like gay rights blow that right out of the water. Honestly it is probably impossible for broad social change to occur any quickly than that happened.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
tsa posted:This is usually the case but things like gay rights blow that right out of the water. Honestly it is probably impossible for broad social change to occur any quickly than that happened. Online activism for societal change seems to be largely self-defeating and insular. The speed at which conversations happen, combined with anonymity, mean that people trying to start a revolution will feel frustrated that society's opinions at large do not automatically conform to their tweet they just owned someone with, and feel they are absolved from having to engage people who disagree with them, compromise, or use any sort of rhetorical strategy to change other people's beliefs.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
tsa posted:This is usually the case but things like gay rights blow that right out of the water. Honestly it is probably impossible for broad social change to occur any quickly than that happened. Gay rights answers the OP's question. People can change anything they want to change. They just don't want to change most things quickly.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
tsa posted:This is usually the case but things like gay rights blow that right out of the water. Honestly it is probably impossible for broad social change to occur any quickly than that happened. Capital threw the fight against gay marriage because bourgeois white gays are as useful to capital as any other sort of white bourgeois people. The anti-gay people are losing because the big money no longer supports them.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Don't worry everything is going to be the third world soon
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Don't worry everything is going to be the third world soon Ok, crazy guy.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Social change seems to be coming along quite nicely. Now, economic change? Nothing that you or I would call progress.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Bernie Sanders 2012
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
I'd give you a real answer but tbh i just don't care.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Capital threw the fight against gay marriage because bourgeois white gays are as useful to capital as any other sort of white bourgeois people. The anti-gay people are losing because the big money no longer supports them. "Capital" is not a living entity, OP.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
It's a class with class interests, and continuing to resist gay rights (for white bourgeois gays, anyway) was against its class interests.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Claverjoe posted:Social change seems to be coming along quite nicely. Now, economic change? Nothing that you or I would call progress. agree with this, but not because of apathy, but antipathy. The different sections of the lower and middle classes are separated from each other locally and regionally and hate each other, either dismissing them as worthless and not worth compromising for class solidarity over, or actively wish ill on them because they are half-people who they would like to see kicked on the pavement. The example of this from the right is obvious (urban food stamps!!!!!!!). The example of this from the left and center can be seen when people dismiss complaints over policies aimed at mostly helping the middle class that might cause some turmoil in less liberalized areas in the short run with "it would hurt swamp people? and we're supposed to care?" or a scoff of "flyover states".
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
I dunno but I'm glad someone's asking the big questions. God bless you, OP.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
I attended a lecture by Noam Chomsky about 2008 and he spent a good chunk of time listing reasons why modern US society sucked.
I thought he made some good points, but he was of course short on answers besides "don't be an apathetic dick" which is a boilerplate solution in basically any time period. I don't know poo poo about my neighbors, it's true. gently caress those noisy assholes basically. If I had a nice single family detached dwelling maybe I'd bring over some welcome cookies and arrange a carpool with our 2.3 children.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
Replace "first world" with "United States" and I'll agree with you. Whenever I visit the US I am blown away by the sheer apathy, indifference and learned helplessness that I encounter. When it comes to talking about change, the entire country starts acting like a cowering mass of battered wives, and it's so depressing to see that I'd be almost ready to join in by the time I leave. Elsewhere not so much, it's just that social change requires overcoming a lot of inertia, so the driving force behind it needs to be strong and focused.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 11:03
|
|
|
snorch posted:Replace "first world" with "United States" and I'll agree with you. Whenever I visit the US I am blown away by the sheer apathy, indifference and learned helplessness that I encounter. When it comes to talking about change, the entire country starts acting like a cowering mass of battered wives, and it's so depressing to see that I'd be almost ready to join in by the time I leave. It really depends on where you are though. Trying to define American politics as a monolithic entity (Even if our parties seem pretty samey) is a waste of time because there's a huge division between people's actual personal political beliefs. If you goto New England or the West Coast you're more likely to find people who push harder for change and sometimes even succeed. Massachusetts had gay marriage before most of the world even put it on the table, even if America as a whole is only now catching on.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 12:36
|
|
|
"Evolution has yet to transcend that simple barrier. We can care deeply - selflessly - about those we know, but that empathy rarely extends beyond our line of sight." We're going to have to ride this misery train for a while longer because humanity as a whole isn't adept at ecumenical empathy. edit: oh you just said first world. your dumb op breadshaped fucked around with this message at 13:06 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 12:59
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:
Even lumping in New England and the West Coast is strange. Take a look at the application of medical marijuana in both regions for a clear differentiation.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
Malcolm posted:I attended a lecture by Noam Chomsky about 2008 and he spent a good chunk of time listing reasons why modern US society sucked. Man that's some serious bullshit. The last time the majority of the country "knew their neighbor's names" and "went to public meeting houses", heavy discrimination against blacks was legal, women couldn't vote in most places, absolutely no rights for anyone gay or similar, and lynching your area's hated immigrant group of choice was acceptable. It's the sort of thing you'd expect to hear out of some lovely neo-Confederate Republican, not a supposed leftist.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
He is kind of a lovely leftist, yeah. I imagine a time when you might know your neighbors, know who might be a communist, how often the wife gets beaten, etc. I've never lived it in my lifetime though.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
I cannot imagine much of a goon must you be that you think being on friendly terms with your neighbours is tantamount to McCarthyism and Jim Crow.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
The shift away from public spaces to a series of privately owned spaces is a big problem eg - you don't have public markets, you have private shopping malls, where you can't soapbox/protest. There's little interaction with common areas, to the detriment of social progress. Having said that, Chomsky is mostly pretentious. But he's right there. Like people keep spreading that myth of paris' boulevards being for social control (which wasn't really a major concern during construction), but the current topology of privately owned spaces -> carparks -> freeways is much worse. rudatron fucked around with this message at 21:38 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
More generally the point is that in a society, people need to do or experience something together or that society will become a bunch of self-centered people who happen to live in the same administrative unit.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 21:49
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Because compared to pretty much the rest of the world, we have pretty much achieved the greatest social change. It's just which parts of our own society that have not advanced as much as other parts. Eg. Comparing Utah to Mass, or conservative Wyoming to liberal SoCal. IMHO, we need to stop giving as many fucks and relax a bit more.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
blowfish posted:More generally the point is that in a society, people need to do or experience something together or that society will become a bunch of self-centered people who happen to live in the same administrative unit. Sounds like a perfect reason to institute a mandatory religion.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Sounds like a perfect reason to institute a mandatory religion. Or go to war against
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Man that's some serious bullshit. The last time the majority of the country "knew their neighbor's names" and "went to public meeting houses", heavy discrimination against blacks was legal, women couldn't vote in most places, absolutely no rights for anyone gay or similar, and lynching your area's hated immigrant group of choice was acceptable. Did you know that a medieval peasant worked fewer hours and had far more holidays than a modern American worker? It's almost like the world isn't black and white and that not absolutely everything in the past was worse than what we have today.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:Did you know that a medieval peasant worked fewer hours and had far more holidays than a modern American worker? Are you including weekends?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Wheeee posted:Did you know that a medieval peasant worked fewer hours and had far more holidays than a modern American worker? Well to be fair, a medieval peasant worked their rear end off in a way most people today could hardly imagine during the periods they need to be harvesting and sowing, while during the times of year there wasn't much work to do there was a high probability they might be starving to death.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I cannot imagine much of a goon must you be that you think being on friendly terms with your neighbours is tantamount to McCarthyism and Jim Crow. No, dude, plenty of people are on friendly terms with their neighbors. But the last time the majority of Americans knew EVERYONE who lived nearby like the old Pol Pot lover was whining about? Like 1880-1910 or so. It's something simply impractical in modern cities and most modern suburbs, but the vast majority of the populace was rural back then and there's a lot fewer People To Know then. Clearly being on friendly terms with your immediate neighbors doesn't count or he wouldn't have made the complaint.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 01:09 |
|
|
How is civic engagement measured?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 00:27
|
|
