Why politics is a waste of time

#1 Posted by A. Amos Love on June 22nd, 2009 10:35 am | link

Pace & Kyeli

“Politics is a big fat waste of time.”
“We’re changing the world into a world that doesn’t need politics.”

Well, politicians play polyticks don’t they?

Poly meaning many and
ticks are blood sucking insects.

tick – a parasitic arachnid that attaches itself to the skin of a terrestrial vertebrate from which it sucks blood, leaving the host when sated.

Freak -
1 – a very unusual and unexpected event or situation.

2 – archaic – a sudden arbitrary change of mind; a whim.

Revolution –
1 – a dramatic and wide-reaching change in the way something works or is organized or in people’s ideas about it.

2 – an instance of revolving, motion around an axis or center, in orbit or a circular course.

Enjoyed your insights. Yes, community and caring for one another is so important.

Good luck – as you cause people to become freaks, to have a sudden arbitrary change of mind and Join “the Revolution” to move around a new center and cancel the “Life Game.”

#2 Posted by Marissa on June 22nd, 2009 10:42 am | link

Excellent explanation of a perspective that doesn’t get a lot of attention, especially the “activism is expected” notion. I agree very much with that idea, but I couldn’t put my finger on it until I read this and thought, YES! That’s it!

There’s a Calvin & Hobbes cartoon where Calvin starts listening to elevator muzak, and when Hobbes asks him why, Calvin says that it’s the only way to really rebel against his parents, since heavy metal (i.e., usual rebellious music) is expected.

This post brought that comic to mind because, in a way, the connection paradigm is kind of the most radical and noticeable goal out there. The angry protests, the rallies… they’re expected. They’re background. Finding a way to eschew the need for those altogether? Whoa. That’s radical.

Marissa’s last blog post..Expanding your reach through inclusion: A plea to my local library

#3 Posted by nw on June 22nd, 2009 12:08 pm | link

You seem to be conflating activism with protest, and with a very particular form of protest. Although this form of protest is indeed a very visible form of activism, it is far from the only form. In fact, I suspect that its disproportionately great visibility may give people a distorted view of activism as a whole.

nw’s last blog post..

#4 Posted by Bre on June 22nd, 2009 2:26 pm | link

I’ve been consuming a lot of information regarding the election in Iran. I’m not doing anything with it. I haven’t turned my facebook avatar green, or donated money, or flown off to march or anything like that.

But I am understanding a people and a situation outside of myself. I’m learning about the assumptions and the tactics of the current paradigm here and abroad. I’m learning more about a culture I didn’t understand, and their recent history–the unrest in the 90s and the overthrow of the shah in the 70s. I’m learning that key players then are in play now, what that means, and how it affects actual people who are actually dying. I’m learning that my western privilege and entitlement has an affect on them. I’m learning the complicated nature of how our paradigm affects theirs and how it’s a very delicate balance regarding how the things people do and say here affects the outcome there, which in turn literally affects the lives (as in living or dying) of people I thought I understood but really didn’t. I’m telling other people.

I’m learning about the complicated relationship between my country, that country, and the country that my future in-laws are part of. I’m learning how the politics of today affects how and where the rockets land tomorrow–literally, not figuratively. The way this election turns out will directly impact the funding of hamas and hezbollah, who attack israel, who in turn attack gaza. While there are philosophies and ideas that I work towards that are intended to erase such conflict, people are not just ideas. The things happening in politics right now are life and death for some people. Reaching our goals a week from now will not bring back the people who died today. I’m learning that these things affect people in real time, while I comfortably wish that they could just all see things my way, and see how silly they’re being. If they just understood how much better a connection paradigm would be, if they could just see things my way and do things my way. I’m learning that this not only disrespects thousands of years of culture that has nothing to do with me, but it also exacerbates the feelings of mistrust and animosity.

This is the one thing you and I are likely to disagree on. I do not think that my learning all of that is a waste of my time. I might be misunderstanding what you mean, but it feels like when you talk about connection paradigm outside of the context of your particular culture and experience (American, for example) you dismiss the history and culture of people who exist elsewhere. In order for them to enter your monkeysphere, they should recognize that your way is better and shed their thousand years of collective history and experience. I know you, so I can’t imagine that’s what you mean. It just feels like it, and it feels confusing and counter intuitive.

I’m sure I’m just misunderstanding.

#5 Posted by Bre on June 22nd, 2009 2:35 pm | link

I should clarify. Part of my reaction is that I feel very defensive. I’ve been told–a lot–that caring so much is a waste of my time and worthless and bothersome. And, since I can’t fix everything, it’s stupid to care about anything.

That’s what I’m hearing and feeling when I read this entry. I can’t believe that’s what you mean, I just can’t seem to parse it any other way. Does that make sense?

#6 Posted by Pace on June 22nd, 2009 4:13 pm | link

Oh, of course! I’m not saying that learning about other human beings and how they experience life is a waste of time. That’s a central mechanism of a paradigm shift, in fact.

I’m also not denying that winning at the Politics Game saves lives and improves quality of life. My life has been improved a hundredfold by others playing the Politics Game on my behalf. I’m grateful for that.

What I am saying is that we can aim higher and achieve even more by creating a world that doesn’t NEED politics.

#7 Posted by nw on June 22nd, 2009 5:24 pm | link

Pace, it’s kind of difficult to reconcile these two statements:

“Politics is a waste of time. Activism doesn’t work. Activism is a big fat waste of time.”

“I’m also not denying that winning at the Politics Game saves lives and improves quality of life. My life has been improved a hundredfold by others playing the Politics Game on my behalf. I’m grateful for that.”

I think I see what you’re trying to say here, but it’s kind of hard to see through the hyperbole. Frankly, the dismissiveness is kind of insulting.

#8 Posted by Rohan on June 22nd, 2009 5:50 pm | link

@nw Maybe it could be more clearly explained as “a waste of time *when compared to the impact of a paradigm shift*”?. Activism can make a difference for the better within the current “game”, but a paradigm shift would completely change the game that’s being played.

Rohan

Rohan’s last blog post..How to install new beliefs

#9 Posted by nw on June 22nd, 2009 7:43 pm | link

I think it’s less an issue of clarity than it is of tone. Or rather, of tones.

The first several paragraphs (as well as the title) are spent flatly dismissing politics and activism as pointless, worthless, a waste. Hence, anything more moderate that’s tacked on after that is basically invalidated. The problem is that she’s saying BOTH:

- “Activism is worthless, political engagement is worthless, go put away your paper mache puppets and stop wasting your life.”

AND:

- “Activism can make a difference for the better within the current game, but a paradigm shift would completely change the game that’s being played.”

Maybe the first half is there to get the reader’s attention? Well, it definitely works at that, but the problem is if that reader considers themselves even moderately politically engaged, they’re going to feel mocked and belittled — repeatedly — before they get to the meat. At best, the position that “activism is a big fat waste of time” will seem lazy or naive.

If you want to appeal to those who consider themselves politically engaged, guess what? They *don’t* believe that they’re wasting their time. Quite the opposite, they believe they’re spending their time in a worthwhile fashion. Almost by *definition.*

Not only that, they’ve probably already heard a lot of people make the case that political engagement is a waste of time. They’ve probably heard it from slackers, from cynics, from conspiracy mongers, and they’ve probably heard it dozens of times over. Good luck making that case again.

Want to make the case that someone who is politically engaged should put down what they’re doing and join your cause? Argue that what you’re doing is *more* effective. Argue that what you’re doing is fundamentally different from politics, and not just a new guise for more of the same. And — here’s the key — back it up with specifics. Give me examples of your paradigm in action. Give me examples of what it’s accomplished. If you can’t point to things that’ve been accomplished, at least give me examples of specific things that *could* be accomplished. Give me examples of ways in which someone can operate through your system to accomplish things. I can guarantee you I have plenty of examples for how *my* system works. Don’t just tell me that I’ve been wasting my time, that politics is passe, and then expect me to bite. Don’t diss my system, just to try to sell me what could very well be vaporware.

#10 Posted by Johnny B. Truant on June 22nd, 2009 7:52 pm | link

I want to chime in on this, but you guys are getting all detailed and verbose and it kind of conflicts with my whole “don’t watch the news” philosophy. Not that this is news, but…

Oh, fuck, I’m just tired. I don’t make sense.

I think the challenge here is that politics has a few definitions. There’s the traditional one, which is what you’re talking about… but then there’s the informal definition. Office politics. High school politics. Any group seems to naturally sift into a hierarchy and forms groups. Tricky to fight that. But that’s what this place is for, right?

Pace, they say that if nobody is disagreeing with you, you’re not saying anything worth listening to. Score!

Johnny B. Truant’s last blog post..Happy Fathers’ Day, gentlemen

#11 Posted by Pace on June 22nd, 2009 7:58 pm | link

Anyone who believes strongly in politics is, of course, going to disagree with what I’m saying here. The people I’m trying to reach with this post are the people who already agree that politics is a waste of time and the people who are on the fence. From the strongly committed, I never expected any reaction other than anger and defensiveness.

In fact, that’s true in general, not just about this particular issue. We’re not trying to argue with anyone who strongly disagrees. That’s a waste of time. I’ve never seen anyone change their mind from a strongly held opinion based on an argument, especially on the Internet. What I have seen, occasionally, is open-minded people listening to each other and gaining a deeper understanding.

#12 Posted by nw on June 22nd, 2009 8:12 pm | link

Let me see if I’ve got this straight: since I’m not already inclined to agree with you, it’s perfectly reasonable (and sensible) to disregard and insult me?

#13 Posted by Pace on June 22nd, 2009 8:14 pm | link

@nw: Kyeli just pointed out to me that the last sentence could be taken as a passive-aggressive swipe at you. That wasn’t my intent at all. My intent in the first paragraph is to talk about this particular post and this particular situation, and in the second paragraph I’m making a general point not about anyone in particular or any situation in particular.

#14 Posted by Pace on June 22nd, 2009 8:14 pm | link

Whoops, looks like I was a little too slow there.

#15 Posted by judyofthewoods on June 22nd, 2009 8:38 pm | link

There is flaying arms activism, like protest marches, and there is considered activism. Take, for example, the Iraq war protests. Many believed the cause to be oil, and big company greed, yet they played right into the hands of those oil giants and their political lackeys when traveling to those rallies. For every mile they travelled the cash register of BigOil went “BLING”. If all those protesters had instead refused to buy fuel for a week, a month or whatever, they would have made a much bigger impact. Adopt that into a way of life and be an example for others to follow, and it could make a huge difference.

Personally, I am done with ballot politics, as I don’t see it making any difference. The way I live, however, will make far more of a difference than the tick against a party I only see as the lesser evil, at best. I vote with my purse, what I buy, and, more importantly, what I don’t buy, and with all my other personal decisions. And you never know, you may inspire someone else to live differently, and they in tern will inspire someone, and hopefully we will reach critical mass and flip the system, simply by virtue of outnumbering the old system advocates.

#16 Posted by Clare K. R. Miller on June 22nd, 2009 9:00 pm | link

I don’t think I disagree with this post, but I’m having trouble understanding it. Basically, what’s the definition of “politics”? Where do you draw the line and say this is politics, this is not? The first few sections make me think that what you’re talking about is people watching and discussing what politicians do. But as I understand it, that’s not politics at all; politics is what the politicians do, what most people only watch and discuss. How do I stop doing that if I’m not doing it in the first place?

On the other hand, you could be using a broader definition of politics, in which any kind of activism counts (and I must say I disagree with your apparent definition of activism as “sign-waving and marching”). But then how do I opt out? I can’t opt out of caring for the environment. I can’t stop helping animals or supporting education. But those are all things that politicians use, and a lot of people consider them politics, too.

#17 Posted by Tiara on June 22nd, 2009 9:08 pm | link

Pace, what nw and Bre – and myself now – are trying to tell you is that:

a) Your definition of politics and activism is extremely, EXTREMELY limited, and in fact dismisses a lot of work in those areas that does not always get attention
b) Going on to say that those of us who feel this way are going to disagree anyway so why bother is rather counter-productive; paradigm shifts don’t happen if only a subset of the people are going to do anything about it.

Activism isn’t just about signs and marching – though as we see in Iran, and as I’ve seen in Malaysia, it’s an important tool when the rest of your resources are limited. It was due to a lot of online activism, people getting out there to spread the word and work with people, that people from the Opposition side of Malaysian politics got into parliament and knocked down the prevailing 2/3rds majority that allowed the ruling government to change the constitution willy-nilly. The people now have a voice that is closer to representing them than they have ever had before.

Money boycotts don’t always work; big companies are SO POWERFUL that unless a MASSIVE chunk of people participate, *and* there are widespread activist campaigns to raise awareness and find alternatives and promote these alternatives are viable, it’s not going to work. Oil companies are multinationals; you deciding not to fill up your car with petrol isn’t going to make much of an impact unless there’s enough of a drive internationally. Hell, the campaign to bring Original Coca Cola back was more successful precisely because people made enough of a noise about it and got others involved – tada, activism – that Coca Cola noticed.

Amnesty International does one main form of activism: letter writing to Governments. Thanks to the masses – MASSES – of letters, political prisoners have been freed. Would you call that a “waste”?

If it weren’t for activism – not just taking to the streets, but also working within communities, representing the minorities, letter-writing, a myriad of other things – you wouldn’t have access to birth control, you wouldn’t have women and minorities voting, you wouldn’t have gay marriages. If it weren’t for activism and protest, Bangladeshi prostitutes wouldn’t have received legalisation that allowed them to be protected against abuse and get respect from the police. If it weren’t for activism orgs like Doctors without Borders wouldn’t exist. If it weren’t for activism I wouldn’t be able to write this post to you – I’d be in jail because I wrote something vaguely seditious (and hey, I’m Bangladeshi, I’m seditious by definition).

If you want a paradigm shift, you need to engage people – *especially* those who already work in a different paradigm from you. (For one thing, the connection-centered paradigm sounds very similar to what Asian cultures do: you’re not an individual, you’re part of a community and what you do affects that.) The people you’re dismissing, the people with skills in politics and activism, are *exactly* the sort of allies you need to engage as they know how to create that shift from within and without. Dismissing them and disrespecting their work (“hasn’t worked since the 60s”? Where have you been?) is just adding to the “anti-” paradigm you’re trying to work against.

p.s. I’d suggest checking your privilege – being able to “vote with your wallet” and ignoring ballot-based politics is something only the very privileged can do. In some places you don’t have a choice on where you buy from. If you are given the right to vote – which so many people are still denied of – for goodness sake TAKE IT.
p.p.s. My sister has a Ph.D. in biochemistry. She’s now doing illustration; she isn’t “sciencing” anything. Is she a waste, then?

Tiara’s last blog post..Doing things for fun [2]

#18 Posted by Marissa on June 22nd, 2009 9:40 pm | link

I’ve been following the conversation here, fascinated. It intrigues me to hear how the same post was read in different ways by different people. The power of words, even if they’re powerful in ways we didn’t mean, yeah?

So here are my (admittedly unsolicited) thoughts.

I don’t think everyone who engages in activities that get classified as “politics” or “activism” is wasting their efforts. There have been a lot of examples given in this conversation of people who dig in and make a difference. Who by their efforts change the course of history–no exaggeration required.

But I also don’t put those people in the same box as I would the folks that come to mind when I read the first paragraph (about people who talk about it, lose sleep about it, but don’t do anything about it). They *are* the ones who are out there producing change.

And I think that a lot of what passes for activism or political involvement is noise. And there’s a lot of noise out there, which does dilute the overall impact of “activism” when we talk about it as one big, blanket term. And that diluted, watered down way of looking at activism (all the late night conversations, the constant consumption of whatever CNN is feeding, all of which culminates in *not doing anything* except for adding to the noise)–that, I think, is a waste of time.

But when the conversations and the lost sleep (or the attendance at a rally, too)–when that results in real action that action isn’t a waste of time. But there is a lot of hullaballoo out there that never goes anywhere beyond highbrow conversation and people feeling good about themselves because they talk a good game. And they call that activism, which dilutes the term, dilutes the whole idea.

And maybe it’d be better to have another term for what happens when people move beyond the noise and into real action and commitment to an idea. (Or continue referring to *that* as activism/politics and instead refer to the noise as… noise, pseudo-activism.)

When I read this post, I didn’t see it as an indictment of those who are producing positive change, or who are acting in ways that support the ideas they’re committed to, or who are opting to do with their lives some activity that falls under the umbrella of “politics.” I read it as an indictment of the pantheon of substitutes-for-real-action that occur all over the place, and as a call to awareness of the alternate ways that people could relate to one another that would render the debate over politics vs. non-politics moot.

But that’s just me. And I’m intrigued by the responses, interested to know more, curious to see where the conversation will go… which leaves me wondering whether I’m consuming the noise or nurturing my own call to action. ;-) Maybe both.

Marissa’s last blog post..Expanding your reach through inclusion: A plea to my local library

#19 Posted by Julia on June 22nd, 2009 10:46 pm | link

Defining “politics” as “that stuff that politicians do, making laws and stuff”, I can kind of see your point. Kind of.

Defining it as something bigger, more nebulous, where you can look at most human interactions in somewhat political terms, you’re way off.

I just figured out the concept of “political capital” at a gut level sometime in the past year. And I understand small ways in which I can wield the “political capital” I have, not with politicians, but with people I know, in ways that can help other people. I’ve figured out a little bit about whom I have “pull” with, and how I can use that, and I can tap the resources of one group to help someone in another. That’s politics in a very, very broad sense, and *that* is in no way a waste of time.

#20 Posted by nw on June 23rd, 2009 12:23 am | link

Tiara writes:

“If you want a paradigm shift, you need to engage people – *especially* those who already work in a different paradigm from you.”

… I think this is very well said.

nw’s last blog post..

#21 Posted by Bre on June 23rd, 2009 12:31 am | link

Ok. I kind of see what you’re getting at, but I’m still confused. Say you disagree with the current paradigm of marriage in America. You think it’s outmoded and misogynistic and archaic and stifles relaionships by giving others the power to define them and legislate them. I can respect that. It would be pretty shitty of someone who has that attitude and look at you and Kyeli and say that the fact that you’re married is a big fat waste of time because you should rise above that paradigm. We currently ha e gay marriage in 5 states–something I thought wouldn’t happen in my lifetime at all–in great part due to political activism. I can’t see that as a waste of time, even if I don’t agree with he current marriage paradigm and would like to see it eventually abandoned for something better that means we don’t even need marriage. That’s what I’m hearing. That since there’s a better way I should just stop doing what Ive been doing and it’s all been stupid and a waste.

What’s wrong with trying to have the capacity to do both?

I wish I had the luxury to ignore the legislation regarding access to birth control and conscience laws. I’d like a better medical system. If I ignore the current system thouh and suddenly no pharmacies I can get to won’t carry or provide birth control my cysts will likely turn into cancer.

Politics directly affects us, often in real time.

And how can time ever really be wasted, anyway?

#22 Posted by Bre on June 23rd, 2009 12:34 am | link

Wow. That was full of iPhone typo fail

#23 Posted by Elly on June 23rd, 2009 7:21 am | link

“I’ve never seen anyone change their mind from a strongly held opinion based on an argument, especially on the Internet. ” – I’ve actually done this numerous times. It usually takes time, but dissenting opinions, expressed clearly, respectfully, and with a willingness to discuss, have reshaped probably at least half of my worldview. And yes, I’m talking online specifically.

—

As to the post itself: While I’m a huge fan of the Zen Anarchist philosophy, and simply involving myself in Anarchy, I really don’t see how one can reasonably put forward anarchy as a sensible system of governance, given the current state of the world.

Basically, without authority, who enforces the rules? How do you handle murder and theft without authority? How do you solve third-world poverty or topple tyranny without large-scale organization? How do you protect human dignity world wide, if each community is allowed to make it’s own definitions? We’ve had anarchy before, and it devolves in to tyranny, again and again. “Given the absence of power, there is nothing to stop another from taking power” and all that.

That said, come the Singularity, when we’re all immortal, have our brains rebuilt from the ground up, and live in a post-scarcity world? I will be really disappointed if we need much more than anarchy at that point.e

And, again, I think willful acts of Anarchy are incredible, on a personal level. I think a world where more people embraced Anarchy philosophy would be a powerful world. I just draw a very sharp line between the personal philosophy and the style of societal governance.

—

I did find the point about protests and signs interesting. I agree that it probably doesn’t change a lot of minds – but then, does a blog post? The people with strongly held views don’t change, but the fence-sitters maybe lean a little, and it helps people realize they aren’t alone…

I find myself viewing things like “gay pride” as being less of a protest and more of an advertisement that “hey, there’s actually a lot of gay people in this city – are you really comfortable marginalizing every single one of us? Does your business really want to ignore us? Do you really want to degrade us in TV and movies?” No one acts surprised by these, but it still highlights how MANY people are part of the movement, and it does it in a way that is almost impossible for the media to suppress (and, really? I think most people get a lot of their worldview from various media outlets)

#24 Posted by Elly on June 23rd, 2009 7:51 am | link

@Pace:

If you want to truly connect with and respect a person, it requires an understanding that sometimes you will disagree with that person — a willingness to meet somewhere in the middle, even if it’s just a nod of respect and an understanding that they have their own priorities.

I feel this bit needs to be blunt: how then can you possibly consider it a respectful and connecting act to dismiss thousands of people’s work as a “big fat waste of time”?

Are activists really such enemies, that you have to stand fierce in your opposition to them? Or is there room for compassion and dialogue, here?

#25 Posted by Pace on June 23rd, 2009 12:44 pm | link

Imagine that we’re all in a huge prison.

Some of the inmates, the Lazers, sit around, eat their bread, and drink their water. They’re wasting their time.

Some of the inmates, the Armchairs, bitch about the behavior of the prison guards and overanalyze it to death. That’s understandable, since the prison guards are the ones who rule every detail of their lives, but it’s still a waste of time if they never do anything useful with that information.

Some of the inmates, the Activists, make deals with the guards. They get the guards to stop beating us so often. They convince the guards to give us better food, better medical care, and more exercise time. Are they wasting their time? It depends. They’re certainly doing good by improving the quality of life in the prison. But they may also be doing harm by convincing people to be Activists instead of…

Some of the inmates, the Revolutionaries, are working on an escape plan. A plan to bust everyone out of the prison. They wouldn’t be free to work on their plan if it weren’t for the tireless work of the Activists, so thank you, Activists, for what you have done. But it’s now time to stop making small improvements in quality of life inside the prison, and bust us all out of the fucking prison.

#26 Posted by Pace on June 23rd, 2009 12:45 pm | link

@Rohan: Yes. You took the words right out of my mouth.

@Tiara: I made the usual error there. I apologize. Some prisons other than the one I am in (America) have much worse conditions, and I don’t blame anyone in those conditions for choosing to be an activist instead of (or in addition to) a revolutionary.

@judyofthewoods, Tiara, Clare, Marissa: Yes, I was imprecise in my use of the word “activism”. Time for me to re-read my own book. (: The kind of activism that fosters connection between different people or different groups of people, and the kind of activism that can change people’s hearts and minds… of course I think that’s a good thing to do; it’s one of the founding principles of the Freak Revolution. I just never labeled it as “activism” before today. Please tell me what activism means to you.

@Clare, Julia: Yes, what I mean by politics is “things related to politicians”. Discussing the acts of politicians, voting for politicians, convincing other people to vote for politicians or propositions, that sort of thing. I wasn’t talking about human interactions and influence.

@Tiara, nw, Bre, Elly: We are not in the business of trying to convince people who disagree with us. If you disagree with us, that’s fine. I respect your choice. There is no one right way; you follow your way and we’ll follow our way. As for the paradigm shift, we don’t intend to do it all ourselves. We don’t intend for us, Pace and Kyeli, to individually connect with six billion people. We intend for us, Pace and Kyeli, to connect with the thousands or tens of thousands of people who resonate with what we have to say and what we stand for, and create a movement that will spread outward from there. If you don’t resonate with what we have to say and what we stand for, that’s fine. We can still be friends, we can still help each other out with the things we do agree on, and we can each change the world in our own ways, which, even though they are in opposition on some points, are for the most part aligned.

#27 Posted by Bre on June 23rd, 2009 1:32 pm | link

I don’t really feel like I ever asked you to agree with me, Pace. I’ve had conversations with you about this subject before, and while I’ve never agreed, it’s never bothered me. I’ve always thought it was a very interesting perspective, and I’ve respected–and even defended–your choice not to be involved in the system.

What I was asking for was clarification that you weren’t just dismissing me, my experience, and things that are valuable to me. I feel like instead you repeatedly said “If you don’t like it, you don’t have to play in my sandbox. *shrug*”

When I hear that, I just feel unwelcome.

In the prison post, you simplify the experiences of several billion people into four groups, and then say all but the one you’re part of is hurting people. What is the goal of that tactic, for you?

#28 Posted by nw on June 23rd, 2009 2:40 pm | link

Pace, I wrote you an email last night in which I explained exactly what issue I took with this post and your comments in it. At no point did I say that it was a problem that you disagreed with me. Your prison analogy and your follow-up comment addressed to me (among others) completely fail to address any of the points I made.

nw’s last blog post..

#29 Posted by Elly on June 23rd, 2009 11:17 pm | link

@Pace:

There’s a difference between “being in the business of convincing” and “being open to dialogue.” I’m thrown because you don’t seem interested in talking about this or helping to clarify ideas. We used to have some rather neat and involved discussions about the cool ideas you threw out there, and I often learned a lot :)

I’d also sort of agree with @nw here, that your prison analogy, while it helps to clarify your initial point a bit and does a nice job of acknowledging activism, didn’t really seem to address many of the points made…

#30 Posted by Duff on June 24th, 2009 12:40 am | link

I am all in favor of a paradigm shift. I help clients to shift from inner conflict to inner peace. I think that this inner work does indeed have some influence on the outer relating we necessarily need to do to get 6 billion–and soon 9 billion–people all working together.

Working things out collectively is still very important, even when we are all enlightened and peaceful beings. Having worked for several organizations of world-changing enlightened and kind people, I’ve found that wonderful individuals in a flawed system end up in conflict that they try to resolve with good communication when what they really need is clear roles and rules–collective agreements about how to get stuff done.

I don’t think there is any escaping the political as long as there are 6 billion people on the planet. We must come up with collective agreements that work, and this is the business of politics.

Duff’s last blog post..Emotional Bodybuilding and the Cultivation of Inflation

#31 Posted by Tiara on June 24th, 2009 6:40 am | link

Bre, Elly, nw, and Marissa have said what I wanted to say (especially with regards to feeling dismissed/”don’t play in my sandbox”). I will also add that with the followup comments – especially the prison metaphors – there seems to be an implicit value judgement placed against anyone who isn’t a “revolutionary”.

Not everyone can, will, or want to play an active role in “changing the world”, yet since they are part of the world, their view is also important. trying to change the world your way yet not include the people that live in it with you is a recipe for chaos.

For a blog that’s about communication, about reaching out to the ‘freaks’ of the world, this to me feels like something that goes against it and also discounts my role in the “freak revolution”.

Tiara’s last blog post..Doing things for fun [2]

#32 Posted by Pace on June 24th, 2009 7:43 pm | link

@Bre, Tiara, nw: I’m confused. I’m hearing that you’re feeling dismissed, unwelcome, devalued, and insulted. That wasn’t my intent. I didn’t intend to insult you or dismiss you out of hand. In fact, I’ve learned a couple of things from you in this conversation.

I’ve learned that my definition of “activism” is out of sync with many others’ definitions of it. Other people’s definitions of “activism” include things that I’d definitely agree are world-changing and revolutionary, like the kind of activism that fosters connection between different people or different groups of people, and the kind of activism that can change people’s hearts and minds.

I’ve also learned that I made the usual error when it comes to the usefulness of activism in situations that are not mine. To use the prison analogy, some prisons other than the one I am in (America) have much worse conditions, and I don’t blame anyone in those conditions for choosing to be an activist instead of (or in addition to) a revolutionary.

I can see, however, why you would feel dismissed and unwelcome. Despite the fact that I’m listening to you and learning a couple of things, I am not open to debate on this point. Yes, I am closed-minded about this. No, I don’t feel that this makes me a hypocrite or undermines the point of the Freak Revolution or the connection paradigm. (to be continued in an upcoming blog post, to be titled “In Defense of Closed-Mindedness”)

Also, I can see why you would feel devalued and insulted. I can see why you would feel mocked and belittled. I’m sorry. That wasn’t my intent. My intent was to inspire and call to action those people who resonated with what I had to say. If I knew of a way to boldly inspire those people without insulting other people whom I care about, I would do it. However, when writing to a potential audience of thousands or tens of thousands, I can’t follow the calling of my heart (“Be bold! Inspire!”) without pissing some people off. I could water down the power of my message by being more respectful, but I choose boldness over respect. I understand that this choice means that I will sometimes offend those I care about. I sincerely regret that, and I accept the consequences of my choice. (to be continued in an upcoming blog post, to be titled “Boldness has genius, power and magic in it”)

I care about you. Despite the fact that I’m not open to debating the point about politics, I am open to figuring out ways for us to all feel resolved, and maybe even on the same team.

#33 Posted by nw on June 25th, 2009 11:10 am | link

I also choose boldness over respect: Fuck you, too!

nw’s last blog post..

#34 Posted by nw on June 25th, 2009 11:18 am | link

Sorry I told you to fuck yourself, it’s just that it was really rhetorically convenient. ;)

Seriously, though, I think you’ve put yourself in an untenable position. It’s one thing to disagree substantively. Everyone here, as far as I can tell, agrees that it’s fine to disagree over the value of politics and activism. It’s another thing to speak of others and their position disrespectfully.

You have just said here that treating others respectfully is *optional.* It’s a *tactic.* That seems pretty unambiguously the point you’re trying to make. And while there seems to be a part of you that doesn’t like the reality that it’s hurtful, the larger choice you’re explicitly making is, eh, fuck it.

“Optional respect” is a fundamentally disrespectful position.

nw’s last blog post..

#35 Posted by nw on June 25th, 2009 11:44 am | link

Y’know, this is a good time for me to bow out of this conversation. I can feel it beginning to stir my Self-Righteous Inner Asshole, and I don’t want to become that guy.

I don’t mean that passive-aggressively or anything like that. That doesn’t say anything about anyone except for me. I just (try to) know myself, and the emotional rhythms that I go through, and I know that no good will come from my further participation in this context.

If you want to talk about this offline, you know where to find me.

nw’s last blog post..

#36 Posted by Pace on June 25th, 2009 12:48 pm | link

Here’s a post I think is relevant: http://www.copyblogger.com/preaching-to-the-choir/

#37 Posted by Megan M. on July 2nd, 2009 3:39 pm | link

There’s one part of this I’m not sure how to clarify: Without the larger political structure, how do the large-scale changes get organized? Do they stop being organized? I can see how the smaller-scale changes get organized — local and regional organization functions pretty well in terms of “We know this guy — we want him to represent us” (theoretically, anyway). But how do the local and regional organizational structures get connected together, get traveled safely, exchange information easily, without something bigger?

And if that something bigger isn’t some form of politics, what is it?

I’m not really interested in resurrecting the rest of this discussion, because I think it’s really played itself out (and might be better continued privately in some cases, anyway) — but this part I haven’t been able to figure out.

Megan M.’s last blog post..Wherein I Pimp the Living Shit Out of CrossFit Central

#38 Posted by Pace on July 2nd, 2009 3:48 pm | link

I know this isn’t a very satisfying answer, but I don’t think we as a culture can know the answer to that in the current paradigm. Maybe we won’t have any large-scale organizations, because we won’t need them. Maybe there will be loose affiliations of regional-scale organizations. Maybe it’ll be all tribes. I don’t have a particular system I envision, because I think that once we have a new paradigm, we will create systems that support that paradigm. Just like in the Industrial Revolution, nobody had to advocate a particular method of manufacture — individual companies tried out their own, and the ones that worked became commonplace. (Not that I’m advocating the Industrial Revolution as a positive paradigm shift, but it certainly was a paradigm shift.)

Or, in Daniel Quinn’s words, “If the world is to be changed, it will not be changed by old minds with new programs, but by new minds with no programs at all.”

#39 Posted by scwizard on July 7th, 2009 1:08 am | link

I write about politics on my livejournal because I already get to talk about Starcraft on temaliquid.

Comparing one spectator sport to another >_>

scwizard’s last blog post..Healthcare reform

#40 Posted by Friday 15 January 2010 « Odoodee on January 15th, 2010 6:49 am | link

[...] & Jobs|Entertainment|Health|Maps|Movies|Music|Politics|Real Estate Teddy Pendergrass Dead At [...]

#41 Posted by Saturday 16 January 2010 « Odoodee on January 16th, 2010 6:45 am | link

[...] & Jobs|Entertainment|Health|Maps|Movies|Music|Politics|Real [...]

#42 Posted by Sunday 17 January 2010 « Odoodee on January 17th, 2010 7:39 am | link

[...] & Jobs|Entertainment|Health|Maps|Movies|Music|Politics|Real [...]

#43 Posted by Tuesday 19 January 2010 « Odoodee on January 19th, 2010 6:58 am | link

[...] & Jobs|Entertainment|Health|Maps|Movies|Music|Politics|Real [...]