Hacker News Reader

Comment by hardwaregeek | Hacker News Reader

That's a little ungenerous. Social activists may go over the line and be rude or abrasive, but unfortunately it's impossible to be a polite social activist. Activism fundamentally requires telling people that their actions should be modified, that their beliefs may be flawed, that their systems have problems. It's really hard to do that and be a likeable person.

Of course social activists may at times cross the line and be unnecessarily rude or abrasive. But I'd have more sympathy because their fundamental job is to be subversive and critical of people.

View on HN

May I direct you to watch Daryl Davis's ted talk or really anything he speaks about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORp3q1Oaezw

For context he is a black man that has gotten over a hundred leaders of the KKK, including former convicts to leave the Klan. Not by arguing with them, not be reasoning, not by showing them the effects of their behaviour, but instead by sitting down, talking with them and becoming their friend.

In a nutshell this one man has probably done more to combat racism, than all the angry tweets on twitter combined.

Daryl Davis is certainly a wonderful inspiration in his patience, compassion and effectiveness in reaching racists. However I'm not sure about using him as a model for how activists should behave. What that's essentially requiring is that activists should patiently reach out until the people oppressing them learn enough to stop oppressing them.

In some cases this is possible. The Klu Klux Klan is comprised of broken men who dance in costumes at night. What about the racists who do not do that? Who enact their racism as government policy? Or as housing discrimination? Or through their art?

How long will it take to reach them? To quote James Baldwin^[1]:

> You always told me it takes time. It's taken my father's time, my mother's time, my uncle's time, my brothers' and my sisters' time, my nieces' and my nephews' time. How much time do you want. For your progress.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCUlE5ldPvM

If one uses twitter and mobbing to do it, one will never reach them.

"I am a musician, not a psychologist or sociologist. If I can do that, anyone can do that. Take the time to talk with your adversaries, you will both learn something."

Thanks for the link, that was an incredible talk, and that guy is cool as hell.

What a talk. Thanks.

he is amazing, I lack the self control

Ilhan Omar said something similar on Twitter in response to Obama's criticisms of the "defund the police" slogan. I think you're being overly generous to social activists. Their fundamental job is to bring social change. You can't change anything by simply alienating those who disagree with you. That creates political entrenchment.

The fact is that Obama has got way more done for America than Omar, so I'm inclined to think he's right.

I think we need to distinguish between social activist and politician. Social activists can certainly be politicians, such as Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders etc. But many are not. Obama is not a social activist. He's an effective politician, one who has certainly brought about change. But he's not a social activist.

Many social activists were famously unpopular. Martin Luther King died with a 66% disapproval rating^[1]. Susan B. Anthony was ridiculed and accused of trying to destroy the institution of marriage (sound familiar?).

Of course some activists veer too far. Jane Fonda is an example. I don't fault her opposition to the Vietnam War, but her infamous photo practically advocated for violence against American troops.

In a sense the aim of social activists is to be ahead of their time. MLK was reviled in his time and practically infallible today. We need both politicians and activists for progress. Politicians push forward the policy, but the activists push forward the politicians. Without activists, politicians can end up in holding patterns, afraid to lose popularity. Without politicians, activists are just screaming into a void.

[1]: https://www.newsweek.com/martin-luther-king-jr-was-not-alway...

Obama got his start as an actual activist, under the title of "community organizer", in Chicago. Even in his early years, he clearly understood that to get real results, you have to make compromises and avoid demonizing people on the other side of issues. To my eye, Obama's emotional intelligence, communication ability, and strategic aptitude are genius-level-off-the-charts-stupendous, whereas these firebrand activists you mention are operating at an elementary level.

If I may put it differently, you know how most on the left see trump as infantile, poor of character, and so on

>Many social activists were famously unpopular. Martin Luther King died with a 66% disapproval rating^[1].

Being unpopular is hardly the same as being abrasive and rude.

> The fact is that Obama has got way more done for America than Omar, so I'm inclined to think he's right.

Its funny how the people endorsing Obama's experience on the "defund the police" slogan losing people seem to ignore the other "error" he mentioned as losing people in the same interview: giving too small of a platform within the Democratic Party to voices like AOC's (who, obviously, has the opposite view as Obama on "defund the police") who have proven quite effective with connecting with large constituencies with which the party establishment (implicitly, including Obama himself) has been ineffective.

I would be cautious in selectively referencing that Obama interview to suggest he knows better than "The Squad".

> it's impossible to be a polite social activist.

Fred Rogers and Carl Sagan are standing at the front of a very long line of people who are waiting to gently disagree with you.

As much as I respect Fred Rogers and Carl Sagan, they were white men working for goals that weren't exactly controversial. If we're calling them social activists—I'm not opposed to that, I just didn't consider them as activists in my original comment—then yeah there's plenty of polite social activists. The social activists I was considering were along the lines of MLK, Susan B. Anthony, James Baldwin. People who were advocating for something fundamentally opposite to current societal values. With that definition I believe there's no way to be polite.

I guess if I had to refine my original claim: it's impossible to politely disagree with fundamental societal values.

>unfortunately it's impossible to be a polite social activist

Tell that to Gandhi, tell that to the many people in the Civil Rights Movement and Martin Luther King, tell that to the people who were in the Monday demonstrations in East Germany, the list goes on.

The Freedom Riders did something fundamentally abhorrent to southerners. They went into white establishments as black people (or accompanying black people). It's only because of changing norms that we don't see their actions as horrifically rude or even violent in nature.

Martin Luther King was assassinated.

His demeanor was polite, but his impact was rude and abrasive to many (racist) people.

>Social activists may go over the line and be rude or abrasive, but unfortunately it's impossible to be a polite social activist.

Exhibit A: Gandhi

Ever heard of Noam Chomsky? Not sure if he’d agree with you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com