I agree, and had any of their media, literature, etc. communicated what you said I wouldn’t have felt the need to make a comment.
The line between victim blaming and legitimate advice is often very thin especially when it comes to “things impacting others that are the direct cause of specific fuckwits”.
You mostly did a great job of acknowledging that reality, kept expectations reasonable and acknowledged that the proposed action is not a solution by itself. You didn’t misdirect from actual solutions. You didn’t obfuscate cause and effect. You didn’t minimize the problem, etc.
This site does the opposite, along with a little sprinkle of tribalism, for fun. With that said, the key part of my comment was:
While still ignoring the systemic issues and collaborating with those responsible?
They’re essentially doing the effective altruism thing of “get emails to show to investors to get money to do an activism” while ignoring the inherent biases and harms that come with that tactic/approach. Their messaging and perspective is nearly identical to that of the “carbon footprint” astroturf with the biggest difference i can see being that theirs appears to be born of ignorance not malice.
Admittedly I hadn’t actually read stuff on the link before commenting, and I assumed it was going to suggest the sorts of things I did.
Having gone through the little questionnaire, it suggested that I do all of the milktoast things like write to my congress members, vote, and join political campaigning and lobbying groups, which have all proven mostly ineffective (not that I advocate not voting, it’s still useful as harm reduction). for the second part, the ‘rolemodel’ suggestions, it has a few of the things I suggested, along with joining local protests and activist groups, which I do see as helpful to establish connections with others.
I didn’t get the investor, consumer, or professional paths, but I can imagine the investor path would indeed suggest something like you mentioned.
So yeah, I get why you’d be down on it, and share your sentiment.
I agree, and had any of their media, literature, etc. communicated what you said I wouldn’t have felt the need to make a comment.
The line between victim blaming and legitimate advice is often very thin especially when it comes to “things impacting others that are the direct cause of specific fuckwits”.
You mostly did a great job of acknowledging that reality, kept expectations reasonable and acknowledged that the proposed action is not a solution by itself. You didn’t misdirect from actual solutions. You didn’t obfuscate cause and effect. You didn’t minimize the problem, etc.
This site does the opposite, along with a little sprinkle of tribalism, for fun. With that said, the key part of my comment was:
They’re essentially doing the effective altruism thing of “get emails to show to investors to get money to do an activism” while ignoring the inherent biases and harms that come with that tactic/approach. Their messaging and perspective is nearly identical to that of the “carbon footprint” astroturf with the biggest difference i can see being that theirs appears to be born of ignorance not malice.
Admittedly I hadn’t actually read stuff on the link before commenting, and I assumed it was going to suggest the sorts of things I did.
Having gone through the little questionnaire, it suggested that I do all of the milktoast things like write to my congress members, vote, and join political campaigning and lobbying groups, which have all proven mostly ineffective (not that I advocate not voting, it’s still useful as harm reduction). for the second part, the ‘rolemodel’ suggestions, it has a few of the things I suggested, along with joining local protests and activist groups, which I do see as helpful to establish connections with others.
I didn’t get the investor, consumer, or professional paths, but I can imagine the investor path would indeed suggest something like you mentioned.
So yeah, I get why you’d be down on it, and share your sentiment.
Sorry to accidentally talk you into doing a questionnaire, lol. My assessment was based mostly on the front page and a little digging into the:
Based on that feedback though it sounds like I might have been being a bit too charitable if anything.