Well, I don't know that I would say chemtrails don't exist. I think there's pretty compelling evidence that they do apart from contrails (have no idea what they are or whether they matter though). I am also a proponent of labeling food so that people have the information to decide for themselves what they ingest.
I realize that you were just giving examples, and I'm not doubting that these poverty tourists exist. I am just saying that we (and many others) agree that there are enough things in the world that suck, including the state of the issues that you mentioned, like healthcare for the poor. So, my question is: if we find the current crop of activists to be lacking, then why aren't we doing better or more ourselves? Where is the "true" activism?
Reminds me of the response to Occupy. Everyone stood back and criticized their lack of organization, cleanliness, etc. Yet, nearly everyone agreed that things sucked (including banksters, bailouts, etc.). How is it that an entire potential movement was derailed by such trivial matters as where these guys were pooping? How did the collective energy of so many end up redirected away from "better" activism and into criticism of the activists?
The only plausible theory I've read on why chemtrails might exist is that they're tests of some kind of anti-global-warming geo-engineering tech that involves spraying of nano particles to increase the Earth's albedo.
So they either don't exist or don't really matter to anyone.
My point is that these and some of the other examples I gave are clueless bullshit LARPing issues of the faux-left and are not relevant to actual disadvantaged people, poor people, or minorities. The faux-left does these groups harm by stealing the spotlight and bogarting the discussion, drowning out any actual protest from people who are really struggling with issues that matter to them.
>The only plausible theory I've read on why chemtrails might exist...
OK, not to take this to a discussion about chemtrails, but I'm not sure I'd be so cavalier about claiming that they don't matter, any more than I would be about saying that they do. BTW, if the U.S. government is involved in such a somewhat massive, radical, and obviously covert anti-global warming campaign, then that's a story in itself.
>My point is that these and some of the other examples I gave are clueless bullshit LARPing issues...
I absolutely understand where you're coming from with that. Not saying I agree completely, but I hear your point.
So, moving beyond that, my question/point is the corollary: where is the "true activism"? If, as you say, the faux-left does disadvantaged groups real harm by bogarting the discussion, etc., then where are the "real" activists?
The question is not just an indictment of those of us who see the problems but sit on the sidelines; it's a question about a society that seems almost exclusively able to generate only such sensationalized, vapid activism as you describe. This, even when we can describe the problems and their importance. Why do you think that is?
The simple reason: I think most of the people with real grievances are too busy trying to make ends meet. Meanwhile people with financially underwritten agendas and/or trustafarian types who don't have to work have plenty of time to dominate the conversation.
But there are deeper issues too. At one time those so-called "trustafarian" types did campaign for workers' rights, higher wages, etc. Now they mostly campaign for trendy eco issues and other ideological issues that have little relationship to reality and no relationship to the plight of the poor. I don't know if that's intentionally constructed or a product of some sort of breakdown in social communication, but that seems to be the way it is.
The cynic in me says this: in reality these people hate the poor. The poor are dirty, uneducated, and worst of all often harbor conservative/religious social values. Moreover empowering the poor and raising their standard of living is in conflict with environmental goals of reducing resource consumption. Who wants to use more energy and land and what-not just to take care of a bunch of rednecks and brown people? That's why activism today is basically a LARP where overprivileged mostly-white children of baby boomers try to re-live their parents' glory days and where trustafarians with dreads try to show off their street cred to get laid with cute hippie chicks. That's why they pick trendy issues that don't help or in a few cases might actually hurt the poor (e.g. limiting new construction).
I think there's a bit of truth in the cynical view unfortunately.
What's the solution? For starters, I really think people should ignore "activists" that have no skin in the game. Ask yourself if they really know what they're talking about. Are they actually affected by the issue? If not, they may well be thrusting themselves into an issue for reasons that have more to do with fashion statements and scenesterism than genuine concern or well-informed efforts to improve anything.
Take GMO foods for example, an issue I've repeatedly used as an example of a trendy LARP-protestor hobby horse. I do take protestors of GMO foods seriously when they're farmers that have been wrongfully sued for patent infringement by biotech companies, and I group that under the whole problem of patent law abuse and patent trolling that also affects the software industry. So there are people who protest GMO foods that ought to be taken seriously. But the yuppie larvae who are convinced they're going to kill us all because some quack web site says so? Fuck them. They're just clogging our informational arteries with irrelevant fear-mongering bullshit and detracting from the real issue at hand.
So let's say we do that. Ignore the LARPers, but listen to the victims of IP law abuse. That leads us somewhere the LARPers never do, namely somewhere productive and empowering, since it means that those farmers can and should make common cause with those who campaign against software patents. Now we have something that has real political meaning, a real coalition to actually get something meaningful done that can help real people.
I realize that you were just giving examples, and I'm not doubting that these poverty tourists exist. I am just saying that we (and many others) agree that there are enough things in the world that suck, including the state of the issues that you mentioned, like healthcare for the poor. So, my question is: if we find the current crop of activists to be lacking, then why aren't we doing better or more ourselves? Where is the "true" activism?
Reminds me of the response to Occupy. Everyone stood back and criticized their lack of organization, cleanliness, etc. Yet, nearly everyone agreed that things sucked (including banksters, bailouts, etc.). How is it that an entire potential movement was derailed by such trivial matters as where these guys were pooping? How did the collective energy of so many end up redirected away from "better" activism and into criticism of the activists?