[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.