[ddq]

Loved the last paragraph, always good to end with ideas for positive action.

>As cathartic as venting one’s outrage can be in the moment, it’s clear that moral grandstanding accomplishes very little beyond the fleeting satisfaction that it brings. Shaming people doesn’t seem to change their behaviour, and invoking mass shooting victims in an argument about hamburgers doesn’t move the needle on gun control. Social change doesn’t come from posting but from purposeful collective action: organizing, voting, protesting. At worst, the catharsis of grandstanding deludes us into thinking that virtuous online posturing is a meaningful form of solidarity and not a fruitless, ego-driven impulse. Tosi and Warmke argue that the purpose of recognizing moral grandstanding isn’t to get other people to knock it off; it’s to stop doing it yourself.

[sublinear]

> Social change doesn’t come from posting but from purposeful collective action

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slacktivism

Slacktivism is not going anywhere.

[em-bee]

of course not, if it wanted to go somewhere, it would have to take action ;-)

[im3w1l]

> Social change doesn’t come from posting

I have to disagree with this. Change happens because people want change. And they want change because they have been convinced of its benefits. Posting plays a role here.

[lapcat]

> Posting plays a role here.

Posting in sound bites?

I've read books that have influenced me. But tweets? Not really.

[worrycue]

Depends on the kind of posting IMHO.

Contributing to a rational civil discussion? Maybe.

Flaming, downvoting, and “collectively bullying” someone with a different opinion to enforce an echo chamber? Not so much.

The latter just drives everyone who disagrees away so the likeminded can reinforce their beliefs, pat each other on the back, and feel good about themselves.

[BHSPitMonkey]

Through posting alone, the right-wing conspiracy movement (which QAnon is one extension of) has expanded from relative obscurity into a fairly mainstream base with millions of members worldwide over the course of only about 5 years, and has already captured in just the U.S. a number of congressional seats and at least one SCOTUS judge by the looks of it. The format has a rather persuasive appeal that (in my opinion) seems to be more effective at advancing intellectually dishonest positions and worldviews.

[worrycue]

I was thinking about it from the perspective of changing people’s minds.

With right wing conspiracy movements, are they really converting anyone or just organising people who already lean in that direction and just need a rallying flag.

To go off on a tangent, I think a lot of people believe in conspiracy theories because they choose to. To quote Alan Moore,

“The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic. The truth is, that it is not the Jewish banking conspiracy or the grey aliens or the 12 foot reptiloids from another dimension that are in control. The truth is more frightening, nobody is in control. The world is rudderless.”

I think we all do that to some extent, e.g. in relationships; see “positive illusions”.