Effectiveness and possible negative results [about disruptive activism]

[WandersGlade]

I don't know. I feel like pedophilia has already been on everyone's minds for decades.

Child abuse has been on people's minds for decades. The normalization of a sexual orientation has not been.

Ragebaiting does not involve "we're coming to fuck your children" type messaging. Not even ironically.

I'll say one last thing, and then leave it because I expect we'll have to agree to disagree on this. When I'm angry at someone, I don't really think specifically about what makes me angry about them. Anger clouds my perception of them almost completely. If the distinction between pedophiles and child abusers isn't already there, the message you give when you talk about the normalization of MAPs reads from an outsiders perspective as the normalization of child abusers.
I feel like provoking people has the opposite effect of the desired effect, and what's needed for acceptance is to calm people down rather than to agitate them. It's easier to hold people to account when they aren't being defensive in my experience.
I believe that in their heart of hearts, these people know that how they're treating MAPs is wrong. However, in my experience people are less likely to admit they're wrong if they are trying to save face.
In my view, if you want to have moral authority you have to hold yourself to higher standards than an average person. The day a person can say "MAPs need to be accepted" without coming across as self-serving or crazy, is the point at which a lot of things would change.

[Joel]

I feel the same as you, WandersGlade.

Still, it is known that even negative advertising can have positive effects.
Yet, every movement will give rise to an anti-movement.
We're currently seeing this in real time affecting the trans community.
And we've seen it before with PIE. Haven't things gotten so much worse mainly in response to their activism?

I'm a great admirer of Tom O'Carroll, for the record.
And I don't offer any answer to this issue .

[WandersGlade]

I feel the same as you, WandersGlade.

Still, it is known that even negative advertising can have positive effects.
Yet, every movement will give rise to an anti-movement.
We're currently seeing this in real time affecting the trans community.
And we've seen it before with PIE. Haven't things gotten so much worse mainly in response to their activism?

I'm a great admirer of Tom O'Carroll, for the record.
And I don't offer any answer to this issue .

I'd say the difference is that we are inundated with negative news stories today because the internet can provide a never ending feed of things which in the past would be considered "shocking". I think the culture of intense outrage we have today is politically unsustainable; having rule of law isn't exactly compatible with your whole society becoming an angry mob.
Certainly, it's not unexpected to find opposition to anything, but the point is to persuade the hypothetical person who would be willing to judge an issue from an impartial viewpoint.
I would see the opposition to trans people as a product of populism.
With PIE, I place the blame squarely on tabloids and sensationalism in the media. If society hadn't been dumbed down by blurring the line between politics and entertainment, we would be able to address these questions seriously and without cowardice. My hope is that if Trump loses this up coming election, enthusiasm for populism will wane, and we can start to move back towards a more responsible form of politics.

[Joel]

Certainly, it's not unexpected to find opposition to anything, but the point is to persuade the hypothetical person who would be willing to judge an issue from an impartial viewpoint.
I would see the opposition to trans people as a product of populism.

Yes. But I think that when some movement push too far too quickly without very solid arguments, the counter movement will come with even stronger force. Regarding trans issues, I might be influenced a bit too much by Bailey and Cantor. The thing is, people are starting to realize the science WPATH used to push puberty blockers and transition for the youth was not very based, and more medical practitioners are less afraid to talk about it now.

The point being, whatever we do, the message in the media will be "the left is going for our kids". And I am afraid that the opposition against "trans-agenda" is growing stronger around the word, especially when it comes to youth issues. I think MAPs themselves actually are not much concern to most, but they'll use us happily to fight against "identity politics pushed by the left and LGBT+".

I don't know, it is difficult. For me personally, I'd love to make slow moderate progress using valid science and smart dialog, with the well-being of children being the priority. At the same time we can see on many examples, that it is not always the valid science and moderate positions what wins, at least temporarily, and trolling on Twitter and canceling people for different opinions can have some success. I don't like it, but have to accept it.

[WandersGlade]

I don't know, it is difficult. For me personally, I'd love to make slow moderate progress using valid science and smart dialog, with the well-being of children being the priority. At the same time we can see on many examples, that it is not always the valid science and moderate positions what wins, at least temporarily, and trolling on Twitter and canceling people for different opinions can have some success. I don't like it, but have to accept it.

If that can't change, there's no future anyway. Misinformation and populism have to be checked. Crazy/misinformed people need to be reined in and excluded from serious political discussion. There's no point trying to change the opinion of the Twitter mobs that have continuously been dragging society further towards anarchy. The minds that we have to change are those in positions of responsibility which, by definition, wouldn't let their views or actions be influenced by Twitter.
I think you might be underestimating just how out of touch with reality and worthless the majority of the opinions of people on Twitter are. Both right wingers and left wingers constantly spread disinformation and shallow/ill-informed takes. It's time for hyper partisan midwit edgelords to stop driving society off of a cliff.

[BLueRibbon]

I don't know, it is difficult. For me personally, I'd love to make slow moderate progress using valid science and smart dialog, with the well-being of children being the priority. At the same time we can see on many examples, that it is not always the valid science and moderate positions what wins, at least temporarily, and trolling on Twitter and canceling people for different opinions can have some success. I don't like it, but have to accept it.

If that can't change, there's no future anyway. Misinformation and populism have to be checked. Crazy/misinformed people need to be reined in and excluded from serious political discussion. There's no point trying to change the opinion of the Twitter mobs that have continuously been dragging society further towards anarchy. The minds that we have to change are those in positions of responsibility which, by definition, wouldn't let their views or actions be influenced by Twitter.
I think you might be underestimating just how out of touch with reality and worthless the majority of the opinions of people on Twitter are. Both right wingers and left wingers constantly spread disinformation and shallow/ill-informed takes. It's time for hyper partisan midwit edgelords to stop driving society off of a cliff.

I don't think it's just Twitter. The world is incredibly polarized. It's even spread to the MAP community, which is one of the core issues Mu seeks to address.

I'm not one of those "OMG Trump is so evil!!!!" people, but any world in which he is favorite to be re-elected president is a world that has a serious problem with extremism.

[Joel]

I think you might be underestimating just how out of touch with reality and worthless the majority of the opinions of people on Twitter are.

I don't think so. I am not on any social media, not even as a reader, and I contributed to this thread to support your position/views, actually. However, I am aware that I may be wrong, and I acknowledge that it is possible that actions that I naturally disagree with may actually have a positive impact.

[WandersGlade]

I think you might be underestimating just how out of touch with reality and worthless the majority of the opinions of people on Twitter are.

I don't think so. I am not on any social media, not even as a reader, and I contributed to this thread to support your position/views, actually. However, I am aware that I may be wrong, and I acknowledge that it is possible that actions that I naturally disagree with may actually have a positive impact.

Sorry. I don't have anything against you. It's just I've gotten into a lot arguments on social media; when I said that I didn't mean it as an attack on you, though I can see how it would have come across that way.

I don't think it's just Twitter. The world is incredibly polarized. It's even spread to the MAP community, which is one of the core issues Mu seeks to address.

I agree. Consensus building is very important, both within and outside of the MAP community, in my view.

I'm not one of those "OMG Trump is so evil!!!!" people, but any world in which he is favorite to be re-elected president is a world that has a serious problem with extremism.

I don't actually care about Trump's personality, but another Trump presidency would be disastrous, not just for America but for the whole world.

[PorcelainLark]

I just don't see intending to get people angry changing people's minds. I think it's better to take people aside behind the scenes and respectfully make your case; or else put people in a position where they bite the bullet of defending MAPs/MAP-adjacent interests for some other reason (e.g. https://fstube.net/w/v8f3bpfy2MgRT7czspWPfq). You want people to start to think of MAPs as part of the in-group, rather than reinforce the view that they are the out-group.

[PorcelainLark]

I just don't see intending to get people angry changing people's minds.

I don't think this either. Getting people angry (which can be done simply by saying "I'm a MAP and have rights") gets us on their minds. Once we're on their minds we can start to change their minds.

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bu ... /&sid=0270

This Australian politician was getting angry about MAPs in the Senate last year. Do you know what that also means? A bunch of people heard about MAPs in the Australian Senate. It also means there's a record of MAPs being talked about in the Australian Senate.

Of course we shouldn't be upsetting people ALL the time. But it has a role. Though as I said we don't even really need to try to do it.

I don't have a problem with upsetting people if it's just a side effect of people noticing we exist. In such a context it would be on them because we've always existed whether or not they were paying attention.