Forget Hashtag Activism: a Millennial's Guide To Nuclear Weapons Realism

Lasrick writes: Matthew Costlow is frustrated with his generation's tendency of "hashtag activism" and would like Millennials instead to get real on the issue of nuclear weapons. He writes: "Allow me to suggest a radical new mindset for my generation as it confronts the issues of nuclear disarmament, Russian and Chinese aggression, and nuclear proliferation: extreme humility. Instead of 'boldly' proclaiming the need to raise awareness, let's utilize our generation's greatest asset—access to data—and truly understand the issues before trying to solve anything. Instead of proposing 'fresh ideas' for their own sake, let's recognize that we are not the first generation to deal with these issues and probably will not be the last. Instead of studiously avoiding specifics or hard choices, let's face a messy reality and not simplify an increasingly complex world to bumper-sticker activism."

Comments

I think there is a fundamental problem with this..

[morethanapapercert]

There is a basic, underlying, flaw in this proposal. It's the same flaw in human nature that makes all activism and even the democratic process less effective than it is in theory.

Studying the history, reading and evaluating the various pundits, activists, experts and talking heads output is hard. Sure; any one of normal intelligence and education should be able (and willing) to do this, but it is human nature to take the easy way out if possible. How many people, even in political organizations, really pay attention to what the other guy is saying, attempt to understand what is being said and why?

It is the real world equivalent of reading all the foot notes and reading all the citations mentioned in the bibliography. It's tedious and time consuming, even people whose job it is to actually do all of that due diligence stuff tend to skimp and cut corners if they can. Only Russell's teapot knows how many student essays and theses, how many scientific papers, how many campaign and floor speeches reference totally bogus or inapplicable bullshit, counting on the audience to not bother following up on them. I am convinced however, that it is a large number.

This is just human nature, and I've come to simply accept it for what it is. So; rather than ranting on about how people should be doing X or Y, I try to ask myself Why don't> people do X or Y, How can I make X or Y the more desirable/rewarding choice than what the people are already doing?

Why don't more people do this? Obviously because doing that is also hard compared to just ranting about what people should be doing. Frankly; I consider myself a smart person, but I haven't been clever enough to figure out a way to make active, diligent participation in the democratic process more desirable/rewarding than just sitting at home complaining about the politicians.

Re:that's some serious hubris!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for offering a great example of what Costlow says is wrong with Millennials. Outrage, minimal analysis, bumper sticker solutions. The only thing keeping it from being a perfect example is the use of actual hashtags.

Bravo!

Re:mmm...

[PopeRatzo]

Have you ever been to OWS and such? Meatspace is very much about hashtag activism these days, unfortunately.

It always has been. Slogans have always been part of political activism. They've found the same political graffiti in several places in pre-Christian Europe.

Just because it's given a new name, "hashtag" doesn't mean it's something new. I'll bet there were plenty of dilettante colonials who were saying "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death" when there were no British within earshot.

It's not a new thing. Some people are Martin Luther King or Ghandi who will go to jail or starve themselves for a cause, and some people are Sarah Palin, who stands fast on the issues until she chips a nail or her gravy train gets stalled.

Re:Aggression My Ass

[_merlin]

Bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity, sucker!

If you know a better way of making more virgins, I'd like to hear it.

Re:Progressivism

[jensend]

That's total bullcrap, motivated only by your partisan arrogance. The attitudes of the left towards e.g. food production and the entire field of economics are just as totally anti-science and devoid of consideration for facts as the attitudes of the right towards e.g. global warming. There is no party or movement that can claim the high ground here and there is not a single single member of congress who can be said to be on the side of data driven politics.

And your assumption "my party is always right and we just need to work to get it a stronger following" is exactly the bullcrap herd activist mentality he's talking about here.

Even using the term "progressivism" to some extent involves the same kind of problematic hasty and violent arrogance. As Chesterton said,

Every one of the popular modern phrases and ideals is a dodge in order to shirk the problem of what is good. We are fond of talking about "liberty"; that, as we talk of it, is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. We are fond of talking about "progress"; that is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. We are fond of talking about "education"; that is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. The modern man says, "Let us leave all these arbitrary standards and embrace liberty." This is, logically rendered, "Let us not decide what is good, but let it be considered good not to decide it." He says, "Away with your old moral formulae; I am for progress." This, logically stated, means, "Let us not settle what is good; but let us settle whether we are getting more of it." He says, "Neither in religion nor morality, my friend, lie the hopes of the race, but in education." This, clearly expressed, means, "We cannot decide what is good, but let us give it to our children."

The case of the general talk of "progress" is, indeed, an extreme one. As enunciated today, "progress" is simply a comparative of which we have not settled the superlative. We meet every ideal of religion, patriotism, beauty, or brute pleasure with the alternative ideal of progress--that is to say, we meet every proposal of getting something that we know about, with an alternative proposal of getting a great deal more of nobody knows what. Progress, properly understood, has, indeed, a most dignified and legitimate meaning. But as used in opposition to precise moral ideals, it is ludicrous. So far from it being the truth that the ideal of progress is to be set against that of ethical or religious finality, the reverse is the truth. Nobody has any business to use the word "progress" unless he has a definite creed and a cast-iron code of morals. Nobody can be progressive without being doctrinal; I might almost say that nobody can be progressive without being infallible --at any rate, without believing in some infallibility. For progress by its very name indicates a direction; and the moment we are in the least doubtful about the direction, we become in the same degree doubtful about the progress. Never perhaps since the beginning of the world has there been an age that had less right to use the word "progress" than we.

Reaching solutions requires

• a sincere realization of our own ignorance and the sincerity and rationality of our opponents
• the willingness to engage in real and reasonable discourse with those we disagree with, working to find goals we can pursue with enough common cause that our pursuit will not require tyrannical coercion
• consistent attention to the data and the best science in choosing means of pursuing those goals

(Science does not prescribe goals, but describes possible courses of action and their likely consequences; many problems, from failed social programs to environmental disasters, could have been avoided had people listened to scientists from economists to ecologists about the unintended consequences of policies.)

Unfortunately, I doubt any party in any Western nation is presently capable of any of these three things.