[abeppu]

So if the uptake is "refrain from (non-productive) virtue signalling, especially where that takes the form of criticism or indignation directed at someone else", then considered as a first order comment and suggestion, that in general seems fine.

But:

1. One side of the culture wars really likes to temporarily put on a cloak of neutrality in a way that pretends that only its opposition is making a moral claim. This sort of "remove moral stances from casual conversation" position can similarly position itself as being neutral while actually being a weapon pointed in one direction.

2. If society as a whole is perpetrating some continual harm of some form, saying "don't interrupt our discussion about X to complain about it!" is itself perpetuating that harm, and is an expression of entitlement. If in the 1960s a white person in the south said "don't derail this conversation about hamburgers to rant about how we need to end segregation!" then they were part of the problem. Similarly today, I think it's totally appropriate to mention in that hamburger discussion that (a) beef really does have a large carbon footprint (b) the amazon really is being cut down for meat production for example.

3. We _do_ all form our worldviews in part based on what we see others expressing. No one emerges from a cave having worked out how they view everything from first principles free from the influence of the people around them. All of this public discourse does have an impact. And though large societal changes do also require organized action, they are of course also preceded by discussion, some of it uncomfortable or perceived as "disruptive" by some, which prepares society for that change.

[lapcat]

> preceded by discussion, some of it uncomfortable or perceived as "disruptive" by some, which prepares society for that change.

Is yelling in social media sound bites "discussion" though?

Recently I blocked an internet rando on social media who was arguing with me and ridiculously compared himself with Martin Luther King, because he was being "disruptive". It's true that advocates for social change are often viewed as disruptive, but the converse is not true: just being disruptive doesn't make you an effective advocate for social change. MLK spoke and wrote at length, eloquently. He wasn't writing "dunk" replies and quote tweets.

[abeppu]

Ok, I agree that disruption for the sake of disruption is distinct from disruption as a tactic towards some actual goal.

But also, MLK was part of a movement with a huge number of people, almost none of whom had his style. But the people who marched or sat at lunch counters or got beat up on bridges were still contributing something valuable in doing so even if they didn't write great letters from Birmingham jail or whatever.

[lapcat]

That's the thing about social media dunks: you can't get beat up for them. They show no personal courage or commitment. Social media dunking is disorganized, unprofessional, and likely only seen by one's own followers, if anyone. Whereas the sit-ins were well-organized and designed to bring wider public attention: "The protesters had been encouraged to dress professionally, to sit quietly, and to occupy every other stool so that potential white sympathizers could join in." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_movement#Sit-ins,...

Randomly flailing about, acting like an online vigilante, is extremely unlikely to be effective.