Slashdot Mirror
Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted
An anonymous reader writes "Social media is ill-suited to promoting real social change, argues Malcolm Gladwell in this article from The New Yorker magazine. He deftly debunks conventional wisdom surrounding the impact of Twitter, Facebook and other social media in driving systemic social change, comparing them to the organizational strategies of the 1960s civil rights movement. For example, the Montgomery bus boycott, he argues, was successful because it was driven by the disciplined and hierarchically organized NAACP. In contrast, a loose, social-media style network wouldn't have sustained the year long campaign. He concludes that social media promote social 'weak ties' which are not strong enough to motivate people to take big risks, such as imprisonment or attack, for social change."
He got elected?
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
You claim that neither the war in Afghanistan nor in Iraq acheived their stated aims. I would argue that both acheived their stated aims (although there is a good chance that that will yet be reversed in Afghanistan). In Iraq, the stated aim was the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. Now, I may be mistaken but I am pretty sure that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power there. In Afghanistan, the stated aim was the removal of the Taliban from power and destroying the Al Qaeda training camps that were operating openly there, The Taliban are not in power in Afghanistan and the Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan have been destroyed. Now there is reason to believe that when we remove our troops from Afghanistan the Taliban will be able to regain power, so that war may yet prove to be a failure.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
There is no more "left activism" because the left has already won. The left already controls the universities, newspapers, and government. The left is now the establishment.
Creative Demolition
Activism from the left is dead in the US. There's no significant, effective opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the concentration of wealth, the crushing of unions, the decline in wages, or the tax benefits enjoyed by Wall Street. (All of which would have been unacceptable to the Eisenhower administration, an indication of how far to the Right the US has moved.) The activist organizations that accomplish anything are either on the Right, funded by big business, or church-based. Or they're purely self-interested, like gun owners and gays.
In my circles, I find that people on the Left just aren't going for "activism" because they try to understand the other side's point of view, then attempt an argument on the other person's terms. "Well, I can see why you say that, but ..." That may work in an academic context, one professor having a disagreement with another professor, but totally kills any sense of activism. There's nothing to get worked up about. I live in the Midwest, so maybe that's just "Minnesota nice" getting in the way?
But the Right gets all up in your face about it, completely ignoring any contrasting opinion. It may make them look like narrow-visioned morons, but it's pretty effective to whip up something like a Tea Party frenzy.
It's like my friends on the Left just don't get worked up over anything. There's lots we should get worked up about, but we just don't. Man, it would be easier if we could all flip a switch in our brains, and ignore what the other side is saying. Like the Right.