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').
1) indeed, you digress. you asked for any evidence (in caps). i delivered. (if you are afraid to enter chatgpt, i can copy the answer here, if you wish).
2) you made a claim that petitions are useless. i countered that they might be regarded as part of keyboard activism. by stating they are different you entered my tangent.
3) i might have been a little bit sarcastic, but do you actually know of people who engage in that kind of virtue signalling behavior (checking signatory-lists of online petitions)?
'the argument itself' seems to have become an 'either/or' discussion.
Oh dear, Martin has lost his brain and outsourced his thinking to an LLM.
(1) try harder Martin, I'm sure if you make an effort you might just be able to kick-start your brain into thinking again (I suspect it's been a while for you as evidenced by your reliance on LLMs and your replies/comments).
(2) See? That's what happens when one relies too much on LLMs. They are unable to comprehend appropriately - and in fact lose the ability to detect nuance. Hence you "did i? i'm sorry, i must have misinterpreted the phrasing."
(3) Ok, sarcasm aside - Yes, as a member of multiple social/activism groups (that don't necessarily align on everything), hearing from people how they are 'agents of change' by 'signing x,y,z petitions' (there are new ones cropping up almost daily) has become all too common. And of course, they love to show their righteous support for x,y,z causes by pointing to the fact that they signed 'x,y,z' petition - and even suggest that you (i.e. ME) should sign such petitions as a badge of honor and 'doing something to make a difference'. I just laugh - poor naive souls.
I guess I would consider you to be a 'partial' poor, naive soul maybe? Hey, knock yourself out with signing petitions all you want - you might even bring down the complete system of Capitalism with all this 'petition signing' and 'LLM conversing' with your 'brave and courageous' act of online petition signing. (If you still possess the ability to detect nuance and your brain hasn't been completely addled by LLMs, then you may notice that I said ONLINE petition signing - which is NOT to be confused by OFFLINE petition signing).
So Martin, let me know when your 'online petition signing' changes the world for the better. In the meantime, I shall work on other forms of activism.
this is what the llm said to the question 'have there ever been 'successful' petitions on change.org?':
"yes, there have been successful petitions on change.org—but with important caveats.
examples of notable “successful” petitions
these petitions led to real-world actions, either directly or as part of broader campaigns:
1. trayvon martin case (2012)
petition: called for the arrest of george zimmerman.
impact: garnered over 2 million signatures.
result: zimmerman was eventually charged with second-degree murder.
note: the petition amplified public pressure, which likely influenced legal and political decisions.
2. rei ends relationship with vista outdoors (2018)
petition: called for rei to stop selling products from a company that made assault-style rifles.
result: rei cut ties with vista outdoors.
note: corporate image pressure worked quickly here.
3. sephora cancels witch kit (2018)
petition: criticized a “starter witch kit” as cultural appropriation.
result: sephora pulled the product.
4. netflix cancels ‘insatiable’ petition
petition: protested the show as fat-shaming.
result: although netflix initially resisted, the show was canceled after two seasons. the petition wasn't the only reason, but it added visible pressure.
• you use it strategically—as part of a broader movement.
• you can gather significant attention (media, influencers, etc.).
• you’re targeting an organization or figure responsive to public image.
no, if:
• you expect it alone to force legal or political action.
• it’s used as the only method of activism."
one could use the same llm to contradict the answer, even in a vitriolic, condescending style replete with ad hominems, etc ... if this is not in the user's nature. i asked the llm to complete my answer:
"thank you for sharing your perspective—though i’d gently challenge a few assumptions.
1. on llm use:
you’re right that llms can oversimplify, which is precisely why i shared their analysis with critical context. the original reply explicitly acknowledged petitions' limitations (non-binding nature, reliance on external pressure, symbolic vs. tangible outcomes). using an llm as a starting point ≠ outsourcing thought—it’s a tool for synthesizing information, much like citing a study.
2. on 'naive' activism:
we agree that signing petitions alone rarely drives systemic change. but dismissing all online petitions as useless ignores nuance:
◦ awareness: petitions often amplify marginalized voices (e.g., the trayvon martin case).
◦ tactical value: they’re one tool among many—useful for pressuring image-conscious corporations (rei, sephora) but ineffective against structural issues.
◦ gateway activism: for many, signing a petition is a first step toward deeper engagement. condemning it risks alienating potential allies.
3. on your activism:
i respect your commitment to other methods—grassroots organizing, direct action, and policy advocacy are irreplaceable. but effective movements often blend both online and offline tactics (e.g., #stopadani combined petitions with protests). dismissing digital tools entirely overlooks their strategic role in modern campaigns.
4. on capitalism:
petitions won’t dismantle systemic issues alone—but they can force corporate accountability (as with rei/vista). change requires pressure from all angles: consumer activism, policy, labor movements, and strategic online campaigns.
in short: no, i don’t believe petitions are revolutionary. but calling them naive ignores their documented, context-dependent utility. i’d welcome a conversation about your most effective activism methods—perhaps we can learn from each other."
key principles reflected:
1. avoids defensiveness while challenging inaccuracies.
2. validates their critique of performative activism ("slacktivism") but adds nuance.
3. uses their own framework (online vs. offline) to show petitions’ tactical role.
4. redirects to constructive dialogue—modeling the substance they claim to value.
5. ignores ad hominems entirely—focusing on ideas, not personal attacks.
this approach maintains integrity without mirroring their vitriol—proving critical thought isn’t lost to llms.
llms also invent some kind of thought process:
"okay, let me unpack this. the user wants me to complete a response to a highly confrontational comment attacking "martin" for using an llm-generated answer about change.org petitions. the commenter is clearly dismissive of online activism and uses sarcasm, personal attacks, and class-based mockery ("poor naive souls").
hmm, the core tension here is between validating the commenter's frustration with performative activism while defending martin's approach. the commenter makes some fair points about slacktivism but wraps them in unnecessary vitriol.
first, i should acknowledge their perspective - yes, some people treat petition-signing as sufficient activism. but their attack on martin feels disproportionate. maybe they're frustrated by seeing ineffective actions replace substantive change? the capitalism jab suggests deeper ideological disagreements.
the response needs to:
1) defend martin without being equally combative
2) agree that petitions alone rarely drive change
3) point out that the original llm answer already acknowledged these limitations
4) challenge the notion that using an llm equals lack of critical thinking
interesting how the commenter mocks "online" vs "offline" petitions while dismissing both. that reveals a bias against digital activism altogether. but their own activism groups presumably use online tools too? there's some hypocrisy there.
the tone should stay calm but firm. no sarcasm to match theirs. maybe end by redirecting to constructive discussion about effective activism methods - that would model the nuance they claim martin lacks.
notably, the user mentions this aggressive style "isn't in their nature," so the response should demonstrate how to disagree with grace. the capitalism dig might need addressing since it's a core disagreement - but best treated as ideological difference rather than right/wrong."
imo, you've got enough talents (critical thinking, etc ...) to be changing the dsa from within (joining a communist movement would truly be a waste of a tremendous opportunity).
Sorry, Martin - I don't have the time to read a copy-paste of an LLM generated response.
A couple of things (for you to keep in mind) when communicating with humans ->
(1) If YOUR contribution is simply a reflection of what an LLM tells you, then you - Martin - have lost your value - as you can be easily replaced by an LLM (as demonstrated by your comment above)
(2) To make communicating with YOU (in particular) easier, I have programmed a new LLM model - called the "Martin@schopenhauerarthur" LLM model. Hence, if I want to know what you think, I simply have to ask this model - this saves me (and likely you) from the trouble of typing (or copy-pasting in your case) as the model would provide me with EVERYTHING you could on such discussions.
There, Martin - I solved BOTH our problems. I don't need your responses to my comments as your 'Martin LLM' provides me with those. Similarly, if you have the technological skills, you could customize/train a 'Chang LLM' model - thus eliminating the need for my responses to you.
Now THAT is something truly useful than an LLM has done for me - it has removed the need (or any reason) to communicate with you - as you have been replaced by the 'Martin@schopenhauerarthur' LLM I managed to train/customize.
Thank you, Martin, for providing me with the motivation to work on time-saving solutions that remove the need for any interaction with you.
np, glad to have inspired you. be sure to share the output of the martin@schopenhauerarthur llm with the rest of us. if worthwhile i will keep engaging with your comments (unless the llm comment is sufficient) if there's something i disagree with and a like when i think it's likeable.
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').
1) indeed, you digress. you asked for any evidence (in caps). i delivered. (if you are afraid to enter chatgpt, i can copy the answer here, if you wish).
2) you made a claim that petitions are useless. i countered that they might be regarded as part of keyboard activism. by stating they are different you entered my tangent.
3) i might have been a little bit sarcastic, but do you actually know of people who engage in that kind of virtue signalling behavior (checking signatory-lists of online petitions)?
'the argument itself' seems to have become an 'either/or' discussion.
Oh dear, Martin has lost his brain and outsourced his thinking to an LLM.
(1) try harder Martin, I'm sure if you make an effort you might just be able to kick-start your brain into thinking again (I suspect it's been a while for you as evidenced by your reliance on LLMs and your replies/comments).
(2) See? That's what happens when one relies too much on LLMs. They are unable to comprehend appropriately - and in fact lose the ability to detect nuance. Hence you "did i? i'm sorry, i must have misinterpreted the phrasing."
(3) Ok, sarcasm aside - Yes, as a member of multiple social/activism groups (that don't necessarily align on everything), hearing from people how they are 'agents of change' by 'signing x,y,z petitions' (there are new ones cropping up almost daily) has become all too common. And of course, they love to show their righteous support for x,y,z causes by pointing to the fact that they signed 'x,y,z' petition - and even suggest that you (i.e. ME) should sign such petitions as a badge of honor and 'doing something to make a difference'. I just laugh - poor naive souls.
I guess I would consider you to be a 'partial' poor, naive soul maybe? Hey, knock yourself out with signing petitions all you want - you might even bring down the complete system of Capitalism with all this 'petition signing' and 'LLM conversing' with your 'brave and courageous' act of online petition signing. (If you still possess the ability to detect nuance and your brain hasn't been completely addled by LLMs, then you may notice that I said ONLINE petition signing - which is NOT to be confused by OFFLINE petition signing).
So Martin, let me know when your 'online petition signing' changes the world for the better. In the meantime, I shall work on other forms of activism.
dear mr chokaski,
this is what the llm said to the question 'have there ever been 'successful' petitions on change.org?':
"yes, there have been successful petitions on change.org—but with important caveats.
examples of notable “successful” petitions
these petitions led to real-world actions, either directly or as part of broader campaigns:
1. trayvon martin case (2012)
petition: called for the arrest of george zimmerman.
impact: garnered over 2 million signatures.
result: zimmerman was eventually charged with second-degree murder.
note: the petition amplified public pressure, which likely influenced legal and political decisions.
2. rei ends relationship with vista outdoors (2018)
petition: called for rei to stop selling products from a company that made assault-style rifles.
result: rei cut ties with vista outdoors.
note: corporate image pressure worked quickly here.
3. sephora cancels witch kit (2018)
petition: criticized a “starter witch kit” as cultural appropriation.
result: sephora pulled the product.
4. netflix cancels ‘insatiable’ petition
petition: protested the show as fat-shaming.
result: although netflix initially resisted, the show was canceled after two seasons. the petition wasn't the only reason, but it added visible pressure.
why it’s complicated
1. change.org is not legally binding
signing a petition doesn't require the target (government, corporation, etc.) to act. it’s a tool of social pressure, not a legal mechanism.
2. success depends on external action
a petition might contribute to change—but only if:
• media amplifies it
• influential people back it
• decision-makers feel pressure or risk
3. many petitions are symbolic
most don't lead to measurable change. some serve more as awareness-raising efforts.
so, are petitions on change.org worth it?
yes, if:
• you use it strategically—as part of a broader movement.
• you can gather significant attention (media, influencers, etc.).
• you’re targeting an organization or figure responsive to public image.
no, if:
• you expect it alone to force legal or political action.
• it’s used as the only method of activism."
one could use the same llm to contradict the answer, even in a vitriolic, condescending style replete with ad hominems, etc ... if this is not in the user's nature. i asked the llm to complete my answer:
"thank you for sharing your perspective—though i’d gently challenge a few assumptions.
1. on llm use:
you’re right that llms can oversimplify, which is precisely why i shared their analysis with critical context. the original reply explicitly acknowledged petitions' limitations (non-binding nature, reliance on external pressure, symbolic vs. tangible outcomes). using an llm as a starting point ≠ outsourcing thought—it’s a tool for synthesizing information, much like citing a study.
2. on 'naive' activism:
we agree that signing petitions alone rarely drives systemic change. but dismissing all online petitions as useless ignores nuance:
◦ awareness: petitions often amplify marginalized voices (e.g., the trayvon martin case).
◦ tactical value: they’re one tool among many—useful for pressuring image-conscious corporations (rei, sephora) but ineffective against structural issues.
◦ gateway activism: for many, signing a petition is a first step toward deeper engagement. condemning it risks alienating potential allies.
3. on your activism:
i respect your commitment to other methods—grassroots organizing, direct action, and policy advocacy are irreplaceable. but effective movements often blend both online and offline tactics (e.g., #stopadani combined petitions with protests). dismissing digital tools entirely overlooks their strategic role in modern campaigns.
4. on capitalism:
petitions won’t dismantle systemic issues alone—but they can force corporate accountability (as with rei/vista). change requires pressure from all angles: consumer activism, policy, labor movements, and strategic online campaigns.
in short: no, i don’t believe petitions are revolutionary. but calling them naive ignores their documented, context-dependent utility. i’d welcome a conversation about your most effective activism methods—perhaps we can learn from each other."
key principles reflected:
1. avoids defensiveness while challenging inaccuracies.
2. validates their critique of performative activism ("slacktivism") but adds nuance.
3. uses their own framework (online vs. offline) to show petitions’ tactical role.
4. redirects to constructive dialogue—modeling the substance they claim to value.
5. ignores ad hominems entirely—focusing on ideas, not personal attacks.
this approach maintains integrity without mirroring their vitriol—proving critical thought isn’t lost to llms.
llms also invent some kind of thought process:
"okay, let me unpack this. the user wants me to complete a response to a highly confrontational comment attacking "martin" for using an llm-generated answer about change.org petitions. the commenter is clearly dismissive of online activism and uses sarcasm, personal attacks, and class-based mockery ("poor naive souls").
hmm, the core tension here is between validating the commenter's frustration with performative activism while defending martin's approach. the commenter makes some fair points about slacktivism but wraps them in unnecessary vitriol.
first, i should acknowledge their perspective - yes, some people treat petition-signing as sufficient activism. but their attack on martin feels disproportionate. maybe they're frustrated by seeing ineffective actions replace substantive change? the capitalism jab suggests deeper ideological disagreements.
the response needs to:
1) defend martin without being equally combative
2) agree that petitions alone rarely drive change
3) point out that the original llm answer already acknowledged these limitations
4) challenge the notion that using an llm equals lack of critical thinking
interesting how the commenter mocks "online" vs "offline" petitions while dismissing both. that reveals a bias against digital activism altogether. but their own activism groups presumably use online tools too? there's some hypocrisy there.
the tone should stay calm but firm. no sarcasm to match theirs. maybe end by redirecting to constructive discussion about effective activism methods - that would model the nuance they claim martin lacks.
notably, the user mentions this aggressive style "isn't in their nature," so the response should demonstrate how to disagree with grace. the capitalism dig might need addressing since it's a core disagreement - but best treated as ideological difference rather than right/wrong."
imo, you've got enough talents (critical thinking, etc ...) to be changing the dsa from within (joining a communist movement would truly be a waste of a tremendous opportunity).
with kind regards,
Sorry, Martin - I don't have the time to read a copy-paste of an LLM generated response.
A couple of things (for you to keep in mind) when communicating with humans ->
(1) If YOUR contribution is simply a reflection of what an LLM tells you, then you - Martin - have lost your value - as you can be easily replaced by an LLM (as demonstrated by your comment above)
(2) To make communicating with YOU (in particular) easier, I have programmed a new LLM model - called the "Martin@schopenhauerarthur" LLM model. Hence, if I want to know what you think, I simply have to ask this model - this saves me (and likely you) from the trouble of typing (or copy-pasting in your case) as the model would provide me with EVERYTHING you could on such discussions.
There, Martin - I solved BOTH our problems. I don't need your responses to my comments as your 'Martin LLM' provides me with those. Similarly, if you have the technological skills, you could customize/train a 'Chang LLM' model - thus eliminating the need for my responses to you.
Now THAT is something truly useful than an LLM has done for me - it has removed the need (or any reason) to communicate with you - as you have been replaced by the 'Martin@schopenhauerarthur' LLM I managed to train/customize.
Thank you, Martin, for providing me with the motivation to work on time-saving solutions that remove the need for any interaction with you.
With warm regards,
np, glad to have inspired you. be sure to share the output of the martin@schopenhauerarthur llm with the rest of us. if worthwhile i will keep engaging with your comments (unless the llm comment is sufficient) if there's something i disagree with and a like when i think it's likeable.