chaonaut

Perhaps you should consider people as more than what they post on social media, especially given how many of those platforms have a financial interest in showing you things that make you mad. I don't see much political relevancy in the sentiment that the problem with the current political climate is that people aren't voting hard enough, but if you're committed to complaining online that people spend too much time online complaining and not enough time voting harder, then I wish you luck.

From the sorts of things I've seen, it's anyone with "blue hair and pronouns", particularly if they have had a particularly viral moment that can be easily inserted into "Woke SJWs OWNED" clip compilations. Typing on a keyboard doesn't make for very good visual content, but I suppose posts clipped to show how cringe SJWs are is probably what you're referring to.

Somehow, I doubt you have a full picture of their political activities based only off what someone else was able to turn into ragebait.

I don't know how you got "only focused on the presidential election for four years" fromy previous post.

That would be the context of the thread you were responding to. As in:

Maybe if the SJWs would fucking pay attention in between elections and not pout and withhold their votes on Election Day…

And, yeah, limiting the focus to visibility campaigns on social media does mean that the focus is limited to visibility campaigns. So, you know, don't do that. There are plenty of orgs doing lots of work, and complaining about this poster's visibility campaign or that poster's lack of practical activity on social media is an exercise in second-ordrr futility. Expect activity other than visibility campaigns in places where activity other than visibility campaigns can actually happen, and not on social media where they mostly can't.

I bow to your clearly highly nuanced take of checks notes "people who care about social justice are a bunch of whiners who are bad at politics".

If they are "SJWs", the claim isn't really that they aren't politically active, is it? In fact, the claim is that they aren't spending the four years between presidential elections focused on the next presidential election. As it happens, if you are building political power, spending all that time and energy focused on a single national race is almost certainly a waste of resources. So, what's the claim here? That "SJWs" spend far too much time concerned about the actual lives of people to engage in "enough" political advocacy to convince a preexisting party to handle those issues instead?

I think it makes far more sense to do the work and advocacy that is required to make people's lives better directly, and thus have built a popular movement that the major parties want to jump on the bandwagon of, rather than spend years trying to convince these lumbering facets of the establishment that they should do the work instead.

What an absolutely deranged claim. What is it that "SJWs" are advocating for that you think is invalid? Because if it's something along the lines of "they should stop advocating for an oppressed group of people" you should really consider what it means to try to build political power. Unless you're going for "if we give the billionaires more stuff, maybe they'll let us have medical care, as a treat."

This seems to be conflating 0.333...3 with 0.333... One is infinitesimally close to 1/3, the other is a decimal representation of 1/3. Indeed, if 1-0.999... resulted in anything other than 0, that would necessarily be a number with more significant digits than 0.999... which would mean that the ... failed to be an infinite repetition.

Hoping that it is given to us, and doing nothing to build the political powerbase to make it happen doesn't help. These changes we want to see need us to build and maintain coalitions, not just wait for other people to do the work for us or approach it like one person can fix the issue. If there are changes you want to see in the world, start working with you friends and family to get the word out about the issue and start doing things in your shared spaces to get that to happen.

Oh, good! Is it also owned by large corporations who have interests that cause them to favor certain stories because it impacts their bottom line and the editorial desk does not have strong independence from the business side of things because of a monoculture of publishers? Surely, this will bring us a wide variety of political candidates and not an endless parade of arch-capitalists and fascists who give kickbacks to corporations!

Yeah, the focus on winning the presidency ignores the down ballot, small market and "off-cycle" races, and, to get to fillibuster-proof majorities, those races are the ones that need to be won. Berating progressives in urban areas to vote for moderate liberal candidates for president is not exactly harm reduction.

I swear I hear this regardless of how close we are to the next presidential election. Can we maybe focus on some of the other races on the ballot? I would love if we could get a Congress that was actually able to make good things happen, instead of trying very hard to do nothing so bad things don't happen.