> What comes to my mind are labor unions, the NAACP,as well as feminists and other identity groups.
> They seem to follow a pattern of being really important for their time and place, but after winning the important, landmark victories, they stick around.
They stick around because union busting corporations, racists, and sexists don't just magically disappear or give up after they lose a battle.
If these groups were doing their job, those bad guys you mentioned should be gone by now, right? They used to make the history books with their accomplishments. What have they done for you lately?
> If these groups were doing their job, those bad guys you mentioned should be gone by now, right?
Wrong. By what magic do you think their opponents suddenly disappear or give up?
Martin Luther King said, "the arc of the moral universe is long". Progess is slow and subject to setbacks.
> They used to make the history books with their accomplishments.
Some areas of the country now want to ban the teaching of that history.
Forget racism and sexism for a moment: do you seriously think that the temporary existence of labor unions makes profit-maximizing corporations give up and give in to all of labor's demand for eternity, even after labor unions dissolved?
Do you feel the wars on drugs and terror will ever be won? I don't. I look at your wars the same way.
They'll drag on and on. Some people will get rich and powerful, but the people on whose behalf you're supposedly fighting don't really care about any of it.
They'd much rather have affordable healthcare and housing.
> They'd much rather have affordable healthcare and housing.
The "wars" for affordable healthcare and housing will also drag on and on. Because guess what, there are opposing sides fighting against each other on those issues too, and neither side will magically disappear or give up when one side wins a temporary victory.
It's truly bizarre that you think longstanding social issues can just be "solved" once and for all (if you truly believe that and aren't just trolling).
"If Christian evangelists did their job, then the whole world should be Christian." Doesn't that sound silly? It turns out that there are a whole lot of non-Christians in the world who don't want to be Christians, and they're going to do their "job" too.
So you've now compared feminist movements to Christian evangelists. Do you think christian evangelists are important and deserve our attention even if the majority of christians don't care about them? How about feminists if women don't care about them?
> So you've now compared feminist movements to Christian evangelists. Do you think christian evangelists are important and deserve our attention even if the majority of christians don't care about them?
You seem to have completely missed the point of why I mentioned them. We've now compared many different organizations and social issues. What they all have in common is that there are longstanding competiting interests on both sides, and thus an advocacy group doing its "job" doesn't entail that the opposition magically disappears. An advocacy group hasn't failed to do its job if it doesn't wipe the opposition off the face of the earth, thereby rendering itself irrelevant.
"An advocacy group should disband after one significant victory" is really an incredibly inane suggestion that could probably only be made by someone who doesn't like the advocacy group in question and wishes they would disband regardless of successes or failures.
I'm just writing to call out your abrupt change of subject and avoidance to actually answer the person you replied to. Please be a better poster, if you have no answer, just don't reply.
Get out of here with the "my team" / "your team" nonsense and the trolling in general. It's perfectly possible to make your point with reason and civility instead of cheap, shallow jabs, and if it isn't, well - probably not a point worth making.
I'm not supportive of all opinions from the left-wing about race and whatnot, but it's clear that there is real pushback. Some people want to downplay the crime of enslaving Africans and highlight "American exceptionalism", complete with evangelical Protestantism and some degree of white supremacy.
>those bad guys you mentioned should be gone by now, right
I dont follow your logic. Isnt this a bit like saying if doctors were doing their job, cancer should be gone by now? If police does their job all crime is gone?
Scientists research cancer and are producing visible, measurable results. If they hadn't had any for the past 50 years, I'd say maybe they should change course.
Are you saying that the civil rights and feminist movements in the US have not had visible measurable results in the last 50 years? If so, you are wrong.
I don't think they're too powerful. Like I said, the major victories were won long ago and are in the history books.
The institutions that claim to fight those things are the ones who are the bad guys now. All the while, ignoring the real problems that everyone wants solved.
Wage slavery and misogyny *are* real problems that sane people want solved.
Yes they are still problems.
No, there hasn’t been newsheavy significant wins recently. There has, however, been newsworthy significant losses.
The idea that institutions should disappear because they’ve managed certain successes is utterly, bafflingly stupid. That’s especially the case as we are still current fraught with issues that these institutions exist to help with.
Given you mention NAACP I'm assuming your comment refers to US-based organizations.
In that respect "feminists" won a landmark victory in 1973 that was just recently overturned in Roe v Wade. That's one example of the importance of "sticking around".
As all your examples are of groups leaning one particular way politically I'll proffer another example from other side.
Consider the NRA, presumably they don't need to exist as the 2nd amendment enshrines the right in our constitution.
As you may point out that right is under constant threat. Apply that same logic to the groups you're disparaging and you may better understand their purpose.
The "culture war" just resulted in the reversal of Roe v Wade denying millions of women with healthcare access. The current and previous presidents both called for depriving people of their constitutional 2nd amendment rights. Even if you specifically dislike the NRA their stated purpose is objectively needed.
To reorient the discussion back on topic, the Sharky Principle is often weaponized by those who don't understand the ongoing endangerment of our basic rights. Even with immediate relevant examples like Dobbs v Jackson. Though it may be broadly applicable across organizations it's important to pick good examples.
> The "culture war" just resulted in the reversal of Roe v Wade denying millions of women with healthcare access.
I don't really think it's accurate to describe abortion as "healthcare access". Whatever your views on the topic may be, the situation is more complex than that.
It really is that simple. Women are at severe risk now if they develop certain normal conditions which are mathematically certain to happen to a number of people every year, but now they have to leave to free states (if they can) or plead with a court system to get life/fertility-saving healthcare because the medical treatment is an abortion. Anyone doing IVF especially has to worry about that because there are more situations which can go wrong with elevated risk of death or loss of fertility. It’s not even directly reproductive care: some things like chemotherapy have the risk of complications due to pregnancy during treatment, which has numerous documented cases where treatment was delayed waiting for proof that someone isn’t pregnant because state law prohibits an abortion if that happens.
There’s another aspect which again really is that simple: the liability risk of having some theocrat second-guess their medical expertise means that hospitals are closing obstetric departments and doctors are leaving repressive states. Reduced access guarantees that people who would have had medical care a few years ago do not today.
Douglas Murray's book "The Madness of Crowds" explains this very succinctly. On the other side of the political aisle you could reference the pro-life-only voting block who now finds themselves trying to raise money on an issue that has been resolved (in their minds). "Dog Catches Car" is the headline for all of these issues.
You're correct on a theoretical level. But in reality these are still very real issues. You don't even have to squint - just look at the Supreme Court and Dobbs v Jackson.
Yup: Looks like there is an industry
with a standard operating pattern:
Form a public interest group. Find an
issue, e.g., a claim of a big threat, some
version of the old the sky is falling.
To put over the issue: For evidence for
the threat, scientific is not necessary;
anecdotal is sufficient. Celebrity
endorsement can help.
Get the media hungry for content on-board:
Have them gang up, pile on, form a mob,
publish shocking content, get credibility
for the group and the issue via one for
all, all for one, write click-bait
headlines. Then the media gets eyeballs
and ad revenue.
The group gets publicity, credibility,
donations, goes for legislation and
appropriations which help the group,
result in campaign contributions, maybe
cushy jobs.
Make use of a fact of life in politics:
One percent of the voters making a big
noise can scare politicians more than the
other 99% not much concerned.
I.e., there is "extortion" -- objecting to
the issue can result in getting hurt.
But eventually too many of that 99% find
reasons not to like the issue, and it
dies.
From the perspective of most people belonging to those groups, the major battles are all won and they have much bigger cocerns in their day to day lives. These groups know that, so they have to keep manufacturing outrage in order to stay relevant.
You don't stop fighting after the major battles are won. You fight until the the war is over.
As long as there are groups that continue to fight to reverse the gains that were hard won, one must continue to fight hard. Complacency risks society regressing. See: abortion rights.
I am a gay man and I see increasing homophobic speech that stems from transphobia which most definitely isn't a "solved issue". This worries me.
Yes there was a battle in culture and politics that lasted decades for gay men, but as soon as you let go. You will see conservative groups pushing back. Because they're not gone, there is a long way for them to go as a lot of these ideas come from religious and conservative groups that will probably never go away.
Sorry, but the fight is not over. You don't see it because you're not a part of it it's as simple as that.
If you haven't taken the time to understand why people are still struggling then you can't come and say "well this is a done deal".
Societies move forward but they so with a constant push back. That's just how it is. Even today there is so much homophobia, transphobia, misoginy and racism being touted by people in our most powerful sitting positions that it's silly to think this is "made up" struggle for these groups to "stay relevant". I mean, homosexuals, transpeople, women and racial minorities are never going to go away so they're always going to be relevant.
> Even today there is so much homophobia, transphobia, misoginy and racism being touted by people in our most powerful sitting positions t
Is that really the case though? It seems like in many (most? nearly all?) cases we've gone from people saying things that are overtly and objectively racist / sexist / etc. to things that aren't but could be construed that way if you squint hard enough, and it's largely in the eye of the beholder to decide, and along with that we've seen the rise in assuming people's intent. Once you've crossed the bridge of assuming intent, then pretty much everything can be further "evidence" of the foregone conclusion.
I invite you to take the statements of the "people in our most powerful sitting positions" for any recent period of time (the past month, the past 6 months, whatever) and make a note of all the ones that you are sure are homophobic, transphobic, racist, or whatever and try to take a look at them with fresh eyes. Set aside for a moment what you are so "sure" about their intent and background and see how many you can find are actually and objectively bad, or if they are just "bad" in the sense because (a) they have a different view than you and/or (b) it's only bad because in your mind that person is already <whatever>-ist and so everything they say is just going to be viewed through that lens.
We're never going to say that e.g. racism is a completely solved problem, but the headway we've made over the past century or two is so incredible that from the 30,000 ft view we're relatively close, and the organizations that exist to combat it have largely outlived their purpose and, unfortunately, in many cases seem to exist mostly to fan the flames.
Actually, I think this is a fantastic example of my point. He did not, in fact, call LGBTQ+ people filth, at least according to the quote in the article - the headline and the article clearly misconstrue what he said.
But let's pretend for a moment that he did say that. Is a state senator from Oklahoma one of the "people in our most powerful sitting positions"? With a sufficiently large population, we will be able to find people saying hateful things until the end of time - I don't dispute that at all. There will always be morons. But as you cast a wider and wider net to find people saying stupid things, you have to also take into account their proportion of the population. Even if he had really said that, he'd be part of a vanishingly small minority. Heck, the very fact that an article was written about what he not-quite said also shows how far we've come.
"We are a religious state and we are going to fight it to keep that filth out of the state of Oklahoma because we are a Christian state – we are a moral state"
Seems to me that he did, in fact, call LGBTQ+ people filth.
When later questioned about calling LGBTQ+ people filth, he answered: "I support my constituency, and like I said, we’re a Christian state, and we are tired of having that shoved down our throat at every turn. I’ll let my words [spoken here] speak for theirselves, but that is my statement, and I stand behind it, and I stand behind the Republican Party values, and that is my statement"
I get that you want there to be a bright line rule and that the only way for you to see that he said this was if he said it in a way that cannot possibly be construed as anything else, but that's not the reality of the english language. Since his statement was clarified further, I think we can all take it to mean what the headline says and agree that the bit of grace we might grant someone being misunderstood is run through.
> Is a state senator from Oklahoma one of the "people in our most powerful sitting positions"?
Actually, yes. If anything, recent legislation has shown that you underestimate the power of state government at your peril.
As to the "vanishingly small minority" - I'd say if 0.01% of people felt that way, it would be vanishingly small. The reality is, given Republican party platforms in multiple states, that closer to 21% of people feel this way. 21% is a minority, it's true, but it is not vanishingly small.
> Seems to me that he did, in fact, call LGBTQ+ people filth.
I see that you are choosing to read it that way, but that is quite literally not what he said, and I don't agree with the assumptive leap that you took to get there. Is it possible he meant it the way you're choosing to interpret it? Of course it is. But it seems at least as plausible that he didn't (the fact that he said 'that' and not 'them' means he's probably referring to some sort of dogma or indoctrination or messaging, and not people), but you - and the author of that article apparently - are choosing to go with that particular interpretation anyway. If you can't see the rather large assumption you're making, to me that's a far bigger problem, because it all but guarantees a state of perpetual aggrievance.
Regarding the other stats, that is actually committing the common follow on mistake of lumping everyone together as the same. Again, let's pretend this rando really meant things the way you're choosing to interpret it. To go from there to implying that he is equivalent to everyone who is not on board with gay marriage is again a huge (and false) assumption that only serves to ratchet up your frustration / anger / whatever towards people who don't see the world the same way.
(And as an aside, if you are truly interested in making further progress on some of these issues instead of just being angry about them, you need those people as your allies and could probably win many if not most of them closer to your POV, but demonizing them by lumping them in with the tiny minority representing the worst of them all but guarantees that won't happen.)
>But it seems at least as plausible that he didn't
I do not believe that is true. Possible, perhaps. Plausible, much less at least as plausible? No. You're kinda making an unjustified leap to support your position here. The alternative meaning of his statement is that LGBTQ+ behavior is filth and that their advocacy for equal rights and safety was advocacy for filth. That is essentially the same as calling the behavior that makes them members of a subgroup filth, and so the subgroup is made up of filth as a requirement for membership. The fact is, though, that he was asked about his statement in the context of calling LGBTQ+ people filth and reiterated that his words stood as a Christian and Republican.
>Regarding the other stats, that is actually committing the common follow on mistake of lumping everyone together as the same. Again, let's pretend this rando really meant things the way you're choosing to interpret it. To go from there to implying that he is equivalent to everyone who is not on board with gay marriage is again a huge (and false) assumption that only serves to ratchet up your frustration / anger / whatever towards people who don't see the world the same way.
That's not really it - I implied that he was similar to about 20% of the population, which is about 2/3 of the population against gay marriage or who believe gay and lesbian people are sinning/immoral. These people advocate for their position. They do not want gay people to exist; they would prefer that sin be eradicated. It is not a stretch to say that people who openly state that their core beliefs are antagonistic to the existence of a group of people are similar to one another in terms of their general unwillingness to allow those people to exist peacefully and freely.
>And as an aside, if you are truly interested in making further progress on some of these issues instead of just being angry about them, you need those people as your allies and could probably win many if not most of them closer to your POV, but demonizing them by lumping them in with the tiny minority representing the worst of them all but guarantees that won't happen.
I don't think that's actually true. If you look at the history of the civil rights movement, at least in the US, it has not required the willing participation of out-and-out bigots to make forward progress. It has required the population that is not flatly bigoted to either take action or get out of the way, but nobody required the KKK to become the ally of the civil rights movement. Fortunately, as their behavior is less respected or allowed, they get less out of being members of their groups and most withdraw or change their behavior.
The groups organizing against trans people are amplifying the problem 10000000000x.
A recent example is [1]. Many anti-trans activists, including some that represent themselves as more polite, are actively engaged in a conspiracy to eliminate the notion of transgender experiences being a real part of humanity. This is obviously going to elicit a response from trans people like me, and our reaction is not just understandable but wholly legitimate. Why are you not focusing your attention on those people?
If the "transgender experience" is males insisting that they have the right to impose themselves on any female-only space simply because they imagine themselves to be women, disregarding the boundaries and consent of actual women, then this experience should indeed be eliminated. If you are behaving in this way, please stop it.
And yet, you continue to use software and hardware that trans people have made significant contributions to, including quite likely (at least indirectly) some written by myself.
This is the great tragedy of open source software, isn't it? We keep laboring on things that make people's lives better, including the lives of the people who hate us. Sometimes I ask myself if focusing my career on FOSS always was a mistake.
> The fact that you think racial equality or feminism are "done" illustrates clearly that the problem isn't solved.
Where are you going with this?
I mean, do any of those institutions formed solely for feminism (for example) actually have a metric for when they will be done?
Did they actually draw a line in the sand, saying "When we reach this point, we will dismantle the institution because at this point we will, happily, no longer be necessary?"
Because to all of us watching, they don't have a "done" metric. They don't have a goal, which when reached, will cause their existence to be unnecessary.
Their primary goal isn't "fighting for $whatever", it's to ensure the continued existence of the institution.
Sane people don't work that way - they have a goal in their mind, and once that is achieved they move on to a new goal.
The way it applies to companies, we can state that <whatever>-ism is solved because we reached some metric. So I'm not sure we can close up shop on an <ism> issue after winning some policy or reaching some type of measurable threshold.
That said, what I'm really hearing in this conversation isn't actually that the -ism institutions need to go away. What I'm really hearing is that some folks are very fatigued and tired of being inundated with the -ism dialogue and the demand to spend any energy on it at all. This seems to be significantly true for the people not affected by a particular ism.
And on the side of the -isms, folks are saying, "We absolutely do not feel heard, you're not hearing us about my particular -ism! You can't ignore the badness of the -ism. listen to me! I will step up my activism!"
The reality of the matter is that the -isms aren't going to go away and change is going to be a generational process. For example, every significant founding woman of woman's suffrage died of natural causes (old age), and none of them got to see womens' voting rights pass in their lifetime. Now that women voting isn't even a question of debate and very obvious, no one is really debating in earnest whether women should be allowed to vote or not. That's just a ridiculous thing to consider.
If you want a metric for a measurable threshold of when the ism-issue should go away, it's when we reach a point where the ism-issue has reached a point of saturation where it's plain and obvious and has enough societal inertia not to be challenged. And if people decide to revive something like whether women should be allowed to vote, trust that there will be an opposing force that rises up to fight that.
The pandora's box of the internet and social media is that much of the learned-helplessness to accept that an -ism-issue is here to stay can actually be rallied against, and that change can come about from it. So I would expect that this is the new reality we live with. One can either fight for or against the ism, or ignore it and focus on their interest of choice.
I'm not sure what you think the goal should be. Do you imagine a world where racist policies end and never resume? We're a long, long, long ways from that so it seems premature to ask for organizations opposed to racism in government and business to close up shop, eh?
Tbh this comes across as related to the typical conservative argument that racism is over because we elected a black man president. That's not really what you're talking about, is it?
> Do you imagine a world where racist policies end
Yes. I don't, right now, see racist policies.
> and never resume?
Why does that matter? Can't a new institution form to fix the problem if it comes up again?
If society goes through (for example) 100 years of a totally racist-policy-free existence, why on earth would you argue that the institutions founded to oppose racist policies continue existing for that 100 years?
