Joy, please tell me even ONE THING good (or effective) that has happened through these "change.org" online petitions.
I'm not asking for much, just ONE simple ACTUAL difference that has been made by ANY 'change.org' online signing petition ever.
Like Slavoj Žižek says in his debate with Jordan Peterson (to paraphrase), "people feel they have done their duty and served their responsibility by recycling coke cans, old paper, etc., but they haven't changed their consumer behavior. In fact, because they feel that they are 'responsible citizens' because of their recycling, they continue their consumption/consumer habits and even increase it as they no longer feel the 'guilt' that has been assuaged by their 'recycling justification'".
Similary, signing these (almost USELESS IMHO) 'online petitions' serves similarly to Salvoj Žižek's analogy - it gives a FALSE SENSE of 'personal agency' or 'doing something to make a positive difference'. In fact, it often works in a NON-INTUITIVE way and may EVEN be counter-productive to creating REAL CHANGE. How? Because all that 'good intentions, anger, emotions, energy, etc.' is channeled AND DIFFUSED by the 'ok, I've signed this on-line petition, I've done my part' thinking that many people subconsciously think (maybe not you, and maybe not everyone).
IMO, such 'ONLINE PETITIONS' serve to DIFFUSE and ameliorate RIGHTEOUS ANGER at the injustice of our systems. REAL ACTION is needed. And these 'online petitions' give the FALSE SENSE of 'feeling good about doing something to make a difference', thus often preventing FURTHER (and better) actions that people SHOULD TAKE (rather than sign online petitions that often result in next to nothing).
maybe these petitions are only signed by people who already go out to protest. (i share your skepticism towards change.org, though). the hypothetical hypothesis that if you don't do these petitions, people signing them as token-resistance would be more inclined to join live protests or organising, seems a bit unlikely (but maybe grounds for a scientific study).
Love how people use 'maybe' to supplant their arguments with hypotheticals (on all sides) to provide narratives/reasons/excuses/justifications to allay their cognitive dissonances.
well, you used 'imo' too (correctly imo). it is very much possible that signing petitions works as a pressure valve that keeps people from engaging in direct action, but i contend that i don't know that for sure unless someone does some real research in the matter. as far as my own personal, anecdotal research goes (i signed joy's petition), i can confirm it will not make me skip the next protest in which i can materially participate.
also, the same hypothesis can be applied to other online keyboard activism (like commenting). the hypothesis that people vent their frustrations in the comments and then decide they've done enough and skip the next live protests seems as worthy of further research as the hypothesis regarding online petitions, imo.
Actually, you missed the WHOLE point of my initial comment. My comment was not about either/or.
(1) First and foremost, it was about 'the uselessness of online signing of petitions'. You are welcome to provide ANY EVIDENCE that anything has changed because of such petitions.
(2) Secondly, your comparison/analogy of 'commenting' is faulty. A comment is used for multiple purposes (and has multiple motivations behind it). An online petition is specific. Hence your comparison to 'keyboard activism' (which is YOUR articulation, your phrasing - i.e. you consider it to be 'activism'), is void.
(3) Thirdly, you went into a discussion of either/or. Just as in the recycling example (i.e. recycling is not as effective as people think it is - both scientifically AND psychologically), the same seems to hold true about such 'online petitions (it often lands up being more of a 'virtue signalling' act).
But please, you are welcome to persuade me otherwise by suggesting EVIDENCE for 'online petitions being useful' (beyond the token 'bringing awareness' argument that proponents often cling to).
did i? i'm sorry, i must have misinterpreted the phrasing.
1) ask chatgpt 'have there ever been 'successful' petitions on change.org?'
2) hmm, yes, makes sense from a certain perspective. lots of things concerning awareness happen online, though (people spend quite some time there), so i tend not to fully dismiss 'keyboard activism' as pejorative. both petitions and comments count, imo.
3) i'm a bit older and unfortunately unaware of a virtue signalling culture in which people signal to each other that they signed this or that petition and the acquaintance then checks out the list of signatories if they really did. thanks for bringing this to my attention.
caitlin's pieces are bringing awareness. it's probably up to the reader (when he's fully aware) to take the next step and join some focused live organisation or be the little wrench in the cogs of empire.
(1) Relying on an LLM to provide you with EVIDENCE not only belies your understanding on how LLMs work, but worse it shows your inability for independent thought and research (as you love referencing answers provided by AI LLMs so often in your comments. Anyways, I digress)
(2) You are talking about your OWN thing here. I neither made a claim for or against 'keyboard activism' (but thank you for providing a strawman argument). I said they are different, and a flawed analogy to petitions (and not whether 'keytboard activism' works or not). So again, the second you talk about 'keyboard activism' you are already on your own tangent that has nothing to do with my argument.
(3) I guess you are out of touch with how 'virtue signalling' works - both online and offline. That's ok, not everyone is expected to know (or understand) all aspects of culture. Hey, if nothing else, you learned something new.
Again, I'm not sure why you bothered to reply, since neither have you provided ANY EVIDENCE as to 'signing online petitions' changes anything in the REAL world, nor have you engaged in the argument itself (which is whether the 'online signing of petitions' as a form of activism is helpful or harmful).
But feel free to reply with whatever other tangents seem to be on your mind (yes, go crazy on comparing this to any other forms of activism you wish instead of actually discussing 'the effects/results/efficacy/output' from 'online petitions').
Joy, please tell me even ONE THING good (or effective) that has happened through these "change.org" online petitions.
I'm not asking for much, just ONE simple ACTUAL difference that has been made by ANY 'change.org' online signing petition ever.
Like Slavoj Žižek says in his debate with Jordan Peterson (to paraphrase), "people feel they have done their duty and served their responsibility by recycling coke cans, old paper, etc., but they haven't changed their consumer behavior. In fact, because they feel that they are 'responsible citizens' because of their recycling, they continue their consumption/consumer habits and even increase it as they no longer feel the 'guilt' that has been assuaged by their 'recycling justification'".
Similary, signing these (almost USELESS IMHO) 'online petitions' serves similarly to Salvoj Žižek's analogy - it gives a FALSE SENSE of 'personal agency' or 'doing something to make a positive difference'. In fact, it often works in a NON-INTUITIVE way and may EVEN be counter-productive to creating REAL CHANGE. How? Because all that 'good intentions, anger, emotions, energy, etc.' is channeled AND DIFFUSED by the 'ok, I've signed this on-line petition, I've done my part' thinking that many people subconsciously think (maybe not you, and maybe not everyone).
IMO, such 'ONLINE PETITIONS' serve to DIFFUSE and ameliorate RIGHTEOUS ANGER at the injustice of our systems. REAL ACTION is needed. And these 'online petitions' give the FALSE SENSE of 'feeling good about doing something to make a difference', thus often preventing FURTHER (and better) actions that people SHOULD TAKE (rather than sign online petitions that often result in next to nothing).
maybe these petitions are only signed by people who already go out to protest. (i share your skepticism towards change.org, though). the hypothetical hypothesis that if you don't do these petitions, people signing them as token-resistance would be more inclined to join live protests or organising, seems a bit unlikely (but maybe grounds for a scientific study).
Love how people use 'maybe' to supplant their arguments with hypotheticals (on all sides) to provide narratives/reasons/excuses/justifications to allay their cognitive dissonances.
well, you used 'imo' too (correctly imo). it is very much possible that signing petitions works as a pressure valve that keeps people from engaging in direct action, but i contend that i don't know that for sure unless someone does some real research in the matter. as far as my own personal, anecdotal research goes (i signed joy's petition), i can confirm it will not make me skip the next protest in which i can materially participate.
also, the same hypothesis can be applied to other online keyboard activism (like commenting). the hypothesis that people vent their frustrations in the comments and then decide they've done enough and skip the next live protests seems as worthy of further research as the hypothesis regarding online petitions, imo.
Actually, you missed the WHOLE point of my initial comment. My comment was not about either/or.
(1) First and foremost, it was about 'the uselessness of online signing of petitions'. You are welcome to provide ANY EVIDENCE that anything has changed because of such petitions.
(2) Secondly, your comparison/analogy of 'commenting' is faulty. A comment is used for multiple purposes (and has multiple motivations behind it). An online petition is specific. Hence your comparison to 'keyboard activism' (which is YOUR articulation, your phrasing - i.e. you consider it to be 'activism'), is void.
(3) Thirdly, you went into a discussion of either/or. Just as in the recycling example (i.e. recycling is not as effective as people think it is - both scientifically AND psychologically), the same seems to hold true about such 'online petitions (it often lands up being more of a 'virtue signalling' act).
But please, you are welcome to persuade me otherwise by suggesting EVIDENCE for 'online petitions being useful' (beyond the token 'bringing awareness' argument that proponents often cling to).
did i? i'm sorry, i must have misinterpreted the phrasing.
1) ask chatgpt 'have there ever been 'successful' petitions on change.org?'
2) hmm, yes, makes sense from a certain perspective. lots of things concerning awareness happen online, though (people spend quite some time there), so i tend not to fully dismiss 'keyboard activism' as pejorative. both petitions and comments count, imo.
3) i'm a bit older and unfortunately unaware of a virtue signalling culture in which people signal to each other that they signed this or that petition and the acquaintance then checks out the list of signatories if they really did. thanks for bringing this to my attention.
caitlin's pieces are bringing awareness. it's probably up to the reader (when he's fully aware) to take the next step and join some focused live organisation or be the little wrench in the cogs of empire.
Oh boy, I don't even know where to start...
(1) Relying on an LLM to provide you with EVIDENCE not only belies your understanding on how LLMs work, but worse it shows your inability for independent thought and research (as you love referencing answers provided by AI LLMs so often in your comments. Anyways, I digress)
(2) You are talking about your OWN thing here. I neither made a claim for or against 'keyboard activism' (but thank you for providing a strawman argument). I said they are different, and a flawed analogy to petitions (and not whether 'keytboard activism' works or not). So again, the second you talk about 'keyboard activism' you are already on your own tangent that has nothing to do with my argument.
(3) I guess you are out of touch with how 'virtue signalling' works - both online and offline. That's ok, not everyone is expected to know (or understand) all aspects of culture. Hey, if nothing else, you learned something new.
Again, I'm not sure why you bothered to reply, since neither have you provided ANY EVIDENCE as to 'signing online petitions' changes anything in the REAL world, nor have you engaged in the argument itself (which is whether the 'online signing of petitions' as a form of activism is helpful or harmful).
But feel free to reply with whatever other tangents seem to be on your mind (yes, go crazy on comparing this to any other forms of activism you wish instead of actually discussing 'the effects/results/efficacy/output' from 'online petitions').