I think those 2 considerations make sense. My understanding of things is that the real war is for people's attention and the elephant in the room is why is there such a profound psychological campaign in place to do this.
Therefore, by removing your attention, you win.
Have a great sunday!
!ALIVE
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
For the activist, drawing attention to their cause is key. But they should aim to draw positive attention. What a lot of activists do is say... hey if I make life difficult for the rest of society, I'll piss them off sufficiently so that they will collectively decide, by default, to support our objectives simply to make their pain go away. So there is indirect support achieved because those feeling the pain place pressure directly on those causing the issues that are the object of the activism, to force them to put a stop to the activism... and the activist hopes the remedy comes in the form of acquiescence to their demands. It rarely does! This cannot be the right way to approach things.
I agree completely. That's not the right way to get consent/support from people. I'm not even sure if trying to get indirect support like that is even effective, but you have summarised it nicely.
@samsmith1971! You Are Alive so I just staked 0.1 $ALIVE to your account on behalf of @mypathtofire. (7/10)
The tip has been paid for by the We Are Alive Tribe through the earnings on @alive.chat, feel free to swing by our daily chat any time you want.
