Social Media Activism

Warbeastrior

What are peoples opinions on people on social media commenting on the #BlackLivesMatter topic on social media.

Today, I'm seeing people posting lots of posts of a black screen in solidarity most of which are white individuals who will have never had experienced any sort of racism.

One part of me thinks it's great to be highlighting the issues and keeping the message going.
Another part though can't help but feel that most of the people posting have very little interest in it and are just posting to get some extra validation and almost making it about themselves.

What do people think?

RWCNT

Warbeastrior wrote: »

One part of me thinks it's great to be highlighting the issues and keeping the message going.
Another part though can't help but feel that most of the people posting have very little interest in it and are just posting to get some extra validation and almost making it about themselves.

What do people think?

Some will be doing it for the former and some the latter. Someone who lumps all or most into one camp is showing their own biases/cynicism.

JohnnyFlash

The globalisation of American politics is really strange. It shows the pernicious nature of social media.

Danzy

Warbeastrior wrote: »

What are peoples opinions on people on social media commenting on the #BlackLivesMatter topic on social media.

Today, I'm seeing people posting lots of posts of a black screen in solidarity most of which are white individuals who will have never had experienced any sort of racism.

One part of me thinks it's great to be highlighting the issues and keeping the message going.
Another part though can't help but feel that most of the people posting have very little interest in it and are just posting to get some extra validation and almost making it about themselves.

What do people think?

It's a way for activists to make a situation about themselves.

That's a big problem for the modern left, it means they are growing increasingly out if touch with voters.

10 years after the greatest capitalist crisis in a century and across most of Western Europe the broader left has become an electoral irrelevance.

That's some achievement and dereliction of duty but their motivations have changed.

CageWager

99.9% of people on social media are full of shít.

They were banging on about the crisis in Sudan for a week or two while it was trendy, then the next thing you know its “save the Amazon” while that was in fashion for a couple of weeks. Now its black live matter while thats trendy. They’ll post black out pictures today and they’ll be shifting fake airpods or waist trainers tomorrow (ironically, those items are all produced using borderline slave labour).

So I say it again, people are almost entirely full of shít, they have no follow through, they don’t actually care about any of these causes, they just blow with the wind, follow the crowd, and try desperately to maintain some level of acceptance and popularity. Pathetic.

whisky_galore

It's not even activism, it's slacktivism.

Cause du jour, next month it'll be something else.

They’ll all be back shilling today and it’ll all be forgotten.

coinop

It's vapid, attention-seeking nonsense but it's preferable to illegal street gatherings and riots. Remember the social media hysteria over the Covington kids? The trend-followers were out for blood, spewing their outrage online but quietly back tracked when it was revealed the white, Catholic school children were the victims of harassment from adult Black Hebrew ­Israelites. NONE of which has anything to do with Ireland of course.

Peregrinus

We're having this very discussion on social media, which is a bit meta. Can't help but wonder if CageWager's opinion in post #5 applies to all of us, and indeed to himself.

The OP points to lots of posts from people about "a problem that they themselves have never experienced". But a major element of emotional maturity is empathy, the capacity to share the feelings of other who suffer. If I myself am well-fed should I be unconcerned about famine? If I have a job should I be unconcerned about those who do not? If I am well should I not care about the sick? So I don't think this objection holds much force.

A slightly stronger objection would be that if I have never experienced a particular evil but I wish to stand with those who do, the first thing I have to be prepared to do is to listen to them, and learn from them. I am, relative to them, ignorant of the evil concerned, and of its effects; I must defer to their experience and their understanding.

But this objection can be levied not only at those who express support on social media for those oppressed by racism, hunger, disease, poverty or whatever, but also - and probably with more force - against those taking the opposite stance. There will be plenty of posts that, e.g., deny that the economic disadvantages affecting black Americans are the result of racism. Those posts too are mostly made by people who have never experienced that racism, and are not really well-positioned to talk about what effects it does or does not have.

But I think the objection that can be levied with most force against social media activism is that it's "cheap" - it costs me nothing to add the right hashtags to my posts. And, on the other hand, it doesn't acheive very much either. Social media activism, in short, is a pretty watery kind of activism. If your social media activism isn't matched by other forms of activism that may be open to you, it's not worth much.

The thing is, it's easy to slam social media activism as tokenism, virtue-signalling. But the truth is that we have no way of telling whether somebody who talks the talk on social media is also walking the walk in other ways. The assumption that they are not may say more about the person who makes the assumption than it does about the person about whom it is made.

The other point worth bearing in mind is that, even if social media activism is not very much, it is something. Part of changing things is changing attitudes, and part of changing attitudes is contributing to discourse about problems and about solutions. Social media is a really good tool for enabling us to participate in, and influence, public discourse, and already we can identify significant events in history that were fuelled by, or shaped by, social media - e.g. the Arab Spring. So dont' completely discount it.

buried

Peregrinus wrote: »

We're having this very discussion on social media, which is a bit meta. Can't help but wonder if CageWager's opinion in post #5 applies to all of us, and indeed to himself.

The OP points to lots of posts from people about "a problem that they themselves have never experienced". But a major element of emotional maturity is empathy, the capacity to share the feelings of other who suffer. If I myself am well-fed should I be unconcerned about famine? If I have a job should I be unconcerned about those who do not? If I am well should I not care about the sick? So I don't think this objection holds much force.

A slightly stronger objection would be that if I have never experienced a particular evil but I wish to stand with those who do, the first thing I have to be prepared to do is to listen to them, and learn from them. I am, relative to them, ignorant of the evil concerned, and of its effects; I must defer to their experience and their understanding.

But this objection can be levied not only at those who express support on social media for those oppressed by racism, hunger, disease, poverty or whatever, but also - and probably with more force - against those taking the opposite stance. There will be plenty of posts that, e.g., deny that the economic disadvantages affecting black Americans are the result of racism. Those posts too are mostly made by people who have never experienced that racism, and are not really well-positioned to talk about what effects it does or does not have.

But I think the objection that can be levied with most force against social media activism is that it's "cheap" - it costs me nothing to add the right hashtags to my posts. And, on the other hand, it doesn't acheive very much either. Social media activism, in short, is a pretty watery kind of activism. If your social media activism isn't matched by other forms of activism that may be open to you, it's not worth much.

The thing is, it's easy to slam social media activism as tokenism, virtue-signalling. But the truth is that we have no way of telling whether somebody who talks the talk on social media is also walking the walk in other ways. The assumption that they are not may say more about the person who makes the assumption than it does about the person about whom it is made.

The other point worth bearing in mind is that, even if social media activism is not very much, it is something. Part of changing things is changing attitudes, and part of changing attitudes is contributing to discourse about problems and about solutions. Social media is a really good tool for enabling us to participate in, and influence, public discourse, and already we can identify significant events in history that were fuelled by, or shaped by, social media - e.g. the Arab Spring. So dont' completely discount it.

What did the 'Arab Spring' achieve? Apart from the total bloodbath in Syria that is. Dictatorships still run the states where this 'Arab Spring' rose up to nothing.

Peregrinus

buried wrote: »

What did the 'Arab Spring' achieve? Apart from the total bloodbath in Syria that is. Dictatorships still run the states where this 'Arab Spring' rose up to nothing.

It achieved change of government in several countries, and arguably inaugurated the Syrian civil war.

The question is not whether social media activism can achieve good things; its whether it can achieve anything. And the answer, quite clearly, is "yes, it can".

If you want to run an argument that social media activism can only contribute to bad outcomes, go ahead. I was addressing the argument that it can't contribute to any outcomes.

Canis Lupus

whisky_galore wrote: »

it's slacktivism.

Nail on head.. It means nothing.

buried

Peregrinus wrote: »

It achieved change of government in several countries, and arguably inaugurated the Syrian civil war.

The question is not whether social media activism can achieve good things; its whether it can achieve anything. And the answer, quite clearly, is "yes, it can".

If you want to run an argument that social media activism can only contribute to bad outcomes, go ahead. I was addressing the argument that it can't contribute to any outcomes.

But those "achievements" were not the ones initially envisaged by the activists who started the whole process. The Arab Spring was envisaged as bringing democracy to Arab nations. That didn't happen, in fact the complete opposite happened. Change of government in these places does not mean a change of a political culture. The army resumed control of Egypt after the Muslim Brotherhood were overthrown after the election there.

Of course there will be some outcome, but judging on examples in the recent past, online social media activism contributes to an outcome completely at odds with the goals it sets out to achieve at the start. The whole thing is so fickle and vapid the whole goal of the potential or non existing "achievement" is then forgotten about when the next online hype storm emerges.

mariaalice

Its because most people want to live in a decent society.

The ones who complain about social media activism are always the ones who can't get there heads around why anyone would care about something that does not affect themselves.

mariaalice

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

The globalisation of American politics is really strange. It shows the pernicious nature of social media.

That was always there its one of the biggest superpowers in the world.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/national-archives-1984-reagan-visit-was-a-focus-of-protests-304253.html. That is around 40 years ago

https://www.rte.ie/archives/2019/1030/1087555-vietnam-war-protest/

Anti Vietnam war protests in Dublin in the late 60s

mariaalice

They organised the Irish Campaign against Reagan’s Foreign Policy, which had the backing of 27 organisations, such as the Irish Anti-Apartheid Movement, Irish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Irish Friends of Palestine, Irish Sovereignty Movement, Pax Christi, and the Union of Students in Ireland.

The umbrella organisation included sponsors like Dr Noel Brown, Senator Michael D Higgins, Tomas Mac Giolla, Catherine McGuinness, Brendan Ryan, Robert Ballagh, Sean MacBride, and Sr Stanislaus.

Clarence Boddiker

Some issues like a man in the US being killed by cops inspire their activism, others don't.

Peregrinus

Violence perpetrated by or on behalf of the state tends to attract activism at a much greater rate than, um, private sector violence, for obvious reasons.

s1ippy

https://open.spotify.com/album/0DLkBrivkPhPGeSowPUyde?si=hfycBpKCQXGPWH53CNTG4g

Listen to this from start to finish instead of putting up that blackout image (which is literally nothing, so contrived and brainless). Then share this album with someone else. It's fairly inspirational. Really listen.

Dr. Bre

Most of it is when somebody sees someone else doing something they also have to do it. I can’t be not seen not doing something !

Blanco100

Philanthropy, activism and social justice appeals are the new form of marketing. And have been for some time with both business and this generation of individual.

Richard Hillman

One word, one name.......Kony.

2u2me

Gofundme campaign to raise funds for that poor victim in Cork has been removed.
This has my blood boiling. Utter scumbags. There seems to be pattern to the campaigns that they take down.

https://twitter.com/RealCandaceO/status/1269611223135465475

whisky_galore

mariaalice wrote: »

Its because most people want to live in a decent society.

The ones who complain about social media activism are always the ones who can't get there heads around why anyone would care about something that does not affect themselves.

Now that Greta whatshername fixed the planet and that Covid thing is getting old, it's time to get with the next news story.

maccored

Warbeastrior wrote: »

What are peoples opinions on people on social media commenting on the #BlackLivesMatter topic on social media.

Today, I'm seeing people posting lots of posts of a black screen in solidarity most of which are white individuals who will have never had experienced any sort of racism.

One part of me thinks it's great to be highlighting the issues and keeping the message going.
Another part though can't help but feel that most of the people posting have very little interest in it and are just posting to get some extra validation and almost making it about themselves.

What do people think?

its a bit like this thread - are you posting this, not because you really have any interest in it, but moreso for the validation?

Maybe people are now really looking at and forming a firm opinion about the world we live in. maybe they're just realising they should help do something about racism. Its a bit obvious really - which brings us back to the first line.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

I think it's important to remember that social media is really not much of a reflection of real life. People go into little bubbles on Twitter or Facebook and think that it reflects the wider reality. But really, most people would shrug their shoulders if you told them about a social media rabbit hole you travelled down. I'm as guilty of going down those rabbit holes as anyone else.

Warbeastrior

maccored wrote:

its a bit like this thread - are you posting this, not because you really have any interest in it, but moreso for the validation?

Genuinely just curious. I don't know anyone who gets validation from faceless posters online.

But I do feel that this question has been mentioned a lot after I posted it, in the real world. In the days following, people attacked the black square posts on social media and told people to do something meaningful like sign petitions or protest etc

2u2me

John Perry Barlow speaking at Davos in 1996, his then revolutionary idea for the internet that was pretty much the consensus for such a long time. Things have changed drastically in the last few years.

[...]
You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve. You use this claim as an excuse to invade our precincts. Many of these problems don't exist. Where there are real conflicts, where there are wrongs, we will identify them and address them by our means.[...]

We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth.

We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.

Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us. They are all based on matter, and there is no matter here.[...]

You are terrified of your own children, since they are natives in a world where you will always be immigrants. Because you fear them, you entrust your bureaucracies with the parental responsibilities you are too cowardly to confront yourselves. In our world, all the sentiments and expressions of humanity, from the debasing to the angelic, are parts of a seamless whole, the global conversation of bits. We cannot separate the air that chokes from the air upon which wings beat.

Overheal

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Some issues like a man in the US being killed by cops inspire their activism, others don't.

I think because the impression in cases you mention is “we identified the problem, the cops know about it, surely are prosecuting” we know about the situation so it’s in hand basically.

If the headline was “19,000 children groomed by pedos - and the courts let them get away with it” well now there’s your riot.

1800_Ladladlad

Social media Activism is carried out by the type of people who arent that intelligent to begin with. It's all emotionally based bullsh*T.


Img

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

The globalisation of American politics is really strange. It shows the pernicious nature of social media.

I listened to a snippet of a Joe Rogan podcast a few weeks back. He was talking about Monica Lewinski and Bill Clinton. In the snippet, he said “You’re the leader of the world, THE LEADER OF THE WORLD and you’re putting all the blame on the young intern”. I thought, steady on there, Joe. The president of the USA is the leader of one country and a few dependencies. That’s it.

But I think a lot of Americans hold that view. American exceptionalism.