3 considerations for any political action:
1. If your action couldn't possibly have negative consequences for you, it is of no consequence
2. If your action requires media attention to have any impact, it has no impact.
3. Working in the realm of ideas and symbols is not worthless, but working exclusively at that level is.
1. If your action couldn't possibly have negative consequences for you, it is of no consequence
2. If your action requires media attention to have any impact, it has no impact.
3. Working in the realm of ideas and symbols is not worthless, but working exclusively at that level is.
❦ CRIME LICH ❦ likes this.
So-Shel-ist 2 weeks ago
So-Shel-ist 2 weeks ago
So-Shel-ist 2 weeks ago
1. They absolutely risked negative consequences
2. This would have worked regardless of if the media paid attention
3. They materially shut down the facility. It was not exclusively about attention, ideas, or symbols; though they did employ it
So-Shel-ist 2 weeks ago
1. They did risk negative consequences
2. When the media distorted and ignored their demands, it broke any effectiveness they could have
3. All they really did was symbolically live in parks. They didn't actually shut down the wall street firms by occupying their buildings. It was a symbolic gesture exclusively as besides Being Kinda Noisy they didn't impede anything.
So-Shel-ist 2 weeks ago
1. It was a legally ordained and risk-free action. People standing at a park and listening to speakers
2. It required media attention to have an impact
3. It was a Symbol of people being pro-gay rights; it did nothing to force hands
So-Shel-ist 2 weeks ago
So-Shel-ist 2 weeks ago
For any action you must consider what it does if nobody knows you did it. Employing symbols and ideas in your action can make it more effective, but ultimately it must have a material component. and if you face no possible risk, then your action probably isn't threatening enough to the status quo.
So-Shel-ist 2 weeks ago
D Dino 2 weeks ago
it certainly helps that the mayor told the cops not to get involved 😅
So-Shel-ist 2 weeks ago
If the media doesn't cover your community garden project, it still has impact so long as it is feeding people and fostering food autonomy; and the risk to yourself is being punished for zoning violations or whatever not allowing urban agriculture.
Qwyrdo 2 weeks ago
There are times and places where media coverage *does* raise awareness of an issue; that, IMO, is impact.
Yes, mainstream media is very prone to distortion. But take the Mni Wiconi actions: distorted or not, the media coverage of those brave folk shone a nearly unprecedented spotlight on American Indian rights.
People can't take action on things they've never heard of ∑;3
So-Shel-ist 2 weeks ago
If your action *depends* on media attention *to have any impact*
having media attention is good but you *must* consider what impact you would have *without* the media present.
So-Shel-ist 2 weeks ago
1. If you give enough money that it srsly affects your budget, that does carry risk tru
2. Regardless of if anyone knows you gave the money, that org now has money
3. While giving money does symbolically show support; money also translates to resources.
That Said:
Money is valuable
Volunteers and accomplices are invaluable.
Staving off burnout by spreading the work or providing things like water and shelter are so so so important. accomplices keep work alive
So-Shel-ist 2 weeks ago
emsenn 2 weeks ago
emsenn 2 weeks ago
So-Shel-ist 2 weeks ago
❦ CRIME LICH ❦ 2 weeks ago
emsenn 2 weeks ago
Content warning: occupy, violence
Further, if you want to have a productive conversation, don't refer to me in third person as a fucker and say the things that got me beaten were "pageantry." Even if you believe that, I don't consider that an appropriate way to address another human.
❦ CRIME LICH ❦ 2 weeks ago
emsenn 2 weeks ago
Content warning: occupy, violence
❦ CRIME LICH ❦ 2 weeks ago
KevinCarson1 2 weeks ago
❦ CRIME LICH ❦ 2 weeks ago