"Systemic racism" in place of systematic or pervasive is one of the most effective meme nuggets of intellectual dishonesty of the moment. Is the entire tree bad or does it simply have a treatable disease? The first is systemic the second is systematic. Genes are systemic the flu is systematic. The evil of phrase "systemic racism" is it presumes racism is a genetic disorder of America, that the entire country should just be chopped down because we have a treatable infestation of sucking racist scales. Treat the disease do not hate the tree that has it. 100 years ago we were much much more infested with racism and sexism, but it is getting better. Only an outright fool or full on liar would deny that. The tree is good. It is not systemically racist in the least. It still has the disease of racism and we must continue to treat the disease.
Oh and Hamas? Why don't we meme them? Their own founding documents demand the death of all Jews: women and children included. Perhaps we are better people than that.
This part resonated with me since I've said as much in conversation...
"Slogans and hashtags, used as shortcuts, give people the tools to express what appear to be clear policy goals, even though they have hardly grappled with the issue in its complexity."
There's been a retrofitting of traditional slogans in support of a modern-day agenda. On the flip side, currently-trending slogans and hashtags can be used in support of a traditional agenda.
In the past, slogans had to stand for something, for the most part, because real dialog only happened through conversation or to some extent through books or articles. With the rise of Twitter, Facebook, and other social media that emphasize terseness over content, slogans have even more so become the message. Which is problematic because it seems to be what people want- like sugary soda and cheap plastic goods, once that bottle is opened you're not going to get the cork back in because there is a critical mass of people that deeply want to live that way, even at their own and society's detriment.
There is a difference between social media shaming and public shaming. I am open to (but am unaware of) the data and scholarship that would show that what happens on Twitter is or should be held as representative of the populace, or even a significant majority of the populace.
The article reads like a recapitulation of the reasons why Twitter is a shitty meaning-making platform. I suspect replacing "activism" in the article with "analysis" or "thought" would change neither its applicability to activism nor its truth value.
Yes, to this, and critical thinking: "We need to establish a political culture that values nuance. We should embrace the world’s complexity and, in doing so, reject the simplistic world of meme activism."
"Systemic racism" in place of systematic or pervasive is one of the most effective meme nuggets of intellectual dishonesty of the moment. Is the entire tree bad or does it simply have a treatable disease? The first is systemic the second is systematic. Genes are systemic the flu is systematic. The evil of phrase "systemic racism" is it presumes racism is a genetic disorder of America, that the entire country should just be chopped down because we have a treatable infestation of sucking racist scales. Treat the disease do not hate the tree that has it. 100 years ago we were much much more infested with racism and sexism, but it is getting better. Only an outright fool or full on liar would deny that. The tree is good. It is not systemically racist in the least. It still has the disease of racism and we must continue to treat the disease.
Oh and Hamas? Why don't we meme them? Their own founding documents demand the death of all Jews: women and children included. Perhaps we are better people than that.
This part resonated with me since I've said as much in conversation...
"Slogans and hashtags, used as shortcuts, give people the tools to express what appear to be clear policy goals, even though they have hardly grappled with the issue in its complexity."
There's been a retrofitting of traditional slogans in support of a modern-day agenda. On the flip side, currently-trending slogans and hashtags can be used in support of a traditional agenda.
In the past, slogans had to stand for something, for the most part, because real dialog only happened through conversation or to some extent through books or articles. With the rise of Twitter, Facebook, and other social media that emphasize terseness over content, slogans have even more so become the message. Which is problematic because it seems to be what people want- like sugary soda and cheap plastic goods, once that bottle is opened you're not going to get the cork back in because there is a critical mass of people that deeply want to live that way, even at their own and society's detriment.
There is a difference between social media shaming and public shaming. I am open to (but am unaware of) the data and scholarship that would show that what happens on Twitter is or should be held as representative of the populace, or even a significant majority of the populace.
The article reads like a recapitulation of the reasons why Twitter is a shitty meaning-making platform. I suspect replacing "activism" in the article with "analysis" or "thought" would change neither its applicability to activism nor its truth value.
Yes, to this, and critical thinking: "We need to establish a political culture that values nuance. We should embrace the world’s complexity and, in doing so, reject the simplistic world of meme activism."
Fight bad memes with good memes. That's the only practical way forward.