>My overarching point is that I'm gonna spend nary a second
>condemning the protesters because if you agree with their
>underlying *purpose* then all your time and energy needs to be
>spent bashing the other side. I don't see how it's beneficial
>to spend even a second criticizing the people who are fighting
>for something that you say you believe in, even if you may
>cringe at their tactics for whatever reason.


The idea that if you are on the same "side" you shouldn't question their tactics is such a simplistic flattened, short-sighted way to think about any topic.

And the simplest way to understand why it is, just consider for a second what if their tactics actually HURT your cause?

Like it's crazy to me that you guys aren't at all engaging the idea that this tactics are not effective and might actually be counterproductive.

I would love for someone to provide some evidence that this is actually effective. You all just seem to have this faith that because they are doing it and have good intentions, it must be good. Or this simplistic idea that all attention/publicity is good publicity.

But yall's conversation doesn't seem to take into consideration effectiveness. You want to give these folks participation trophies for trying. Fuck that. They (we) are all supposed to be grown ups and you don't get an E for effort as a grown up.

That's why people are calling it performative.





**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"