Sven Slootweg (soft-deprecated) @joepie91@pixie.town

De Dumpert-test: Als je commentaar op Dumpert had kunnen staan, kun je het misschien maar beter voor je houden.

You are probably going to run into a lot of people who tell you that your tactics/arguments/whatever do not convince them, and maybe they'll even tell you some specific way in which you should do it differently.

Don't waste your time on these people.

With that, I don't mean that you shouldn't develop an insight into the concerns of the broader population - you should *especially* learn about the concerns of people who are not in your direct social circles, because tunnel vision is a very real thing.

What I mean is that *these specific people* are not trying to be helpful - they are being *entitled*. They are defining (their perception of) your success by whether you are catering to *them, specifically, individually*. And they have already made up their mind that they don't agree with you, no matter what you do.

They are not activists, and even if they may have some notion of concerns among their social circles, they do not have the expertise in activism to turn that into the right solutions and tactics. They are not qualified advisors.

And usually you'll find that whatever tactic or argument they propose, it's something that allows them to more easily dismiss it - a tactic that is less disruptive, an argument that is a "compromise". Because they were never trying to help you make your activism a success; they were just trying to get rid of something that bothered them.

Activism is *supposed* to bother people - that is how things get changed. And contrary to apparently popular belief, it doesn't work by rationally convincing people (if only it were that easy...); it's a long-term process that involves steering public discourse, emotional responses, and so on. Often in ways that seem ineffective or counterproductive at first, but that have far-reaching and difficult-to-measure long-term effects.

You should of course find the tactics that work best for your cause; there is no universally effective strategy. But resist the temptation to follow the guidance of the least qualified and least engaged people in the room, however helpful it may sound on the surface.

Learn from experienced activists instead, inside and outside of your own cause.

Once again disappointed in Dutch gay people who seem completely unaware of the history of queer rights, and who insist on dividing queer people into "normal gay people" and an implied everybody else, to try and gain the acceptance of queermisic assholes

(This is the English version of https://social.pixie.town/@joepie91/111227961313694045)

After 10+ years of constant complaining about activists, I'm very much done with this, and my patience for it is running lower by the day.

As an activist, whatever you do, it'll always be wrong - you're too violent, you're not violent enough. Everybody has an opinion about it, and they won't hesitate to voice it.

There is absolutely zero recognition that activism is a skill like any other, and that perhaps the people who have been doing it for years, might actually know what they're doing.

Instead, people who wouldn't recognize a protest if it hit them in the ass and certainly have never been involved in one, will lecture you about how "you won't accomplish anything this way".

You walk a protest march? "Nobody will give a shit anyway, you're just disrupting people's lives"

You go to court? "Hopeless, you're just wasting the time of the legal system"

You block a road? "You're just bothering innocent drivers, and creating dangerous situations"

You wreck shit? "You're violent, and you should go through the correct channels instead, go into politics"

You decide to go into politics? You'll be laughed out of the room, and constantly ridiculed about how "you can't possibly be expected to be taken seriously".

Well, what the fuck do you want then? How, exactly, do you think that problems are going to be solved? By yelling some shit from the sidelines, and hoping that the situation will magically change?

By relying on the "steady march of progress"? Which, by the way, is driven by activism?

If you're not willing to make a concrete contribution to activist campaigns, fine, but then *shut up*, do not meddle with them, and leave the job to the people who actually understand how activism works beyond gut feelings. Acknowledge that it is a skill, and it is not yours.

Take a step back, withhold comments and opinions, and instead amplify what activists are saying. Provide them with support in the manner that they request.

Or if you *do* want to get involved with activism, then that's also fine - but then you need to take the time and effort to understand why campaigns work how they do, why *activists* do what they do, and what the long-term effects of this might be that aren't immediately obvious to you.

Late toevoeging: en zeker als je vaker kritiek hebt op de tactieken van activisten, dan op de dingen waartegen ze ageren, dan moet je je echt even achter de oren krabben over waar je mee bezig bent.

Na ruim 10 jaar constant geklaag tegenover activisten aan te moeten horen ben ik het intussen wel echt zat, en mijn geduld hiervoor begint steeds minder te worden.

Als activist kun je het nooit goed doen - dan ben je te gewelddadig, dan ben je niet gewelddadig genoeg. Iedereen heeft er een mening over en twijfelt niet om die te verkondigen.

Er is geen enkele erkenning dat activisme ook gewoon een specialisme is zoals ieder ander, en dat mensen die het al jaren doen misschien een idee hebben wat ze doen; nee hoor, de beste stuurlui staan aan wal, en iemand die in z'n leven nog nooit een demonstratie van dichtbij gezien heeft leest je gerust de les over hoe "je zo toch echt niets gaat bereiken".

Loop je een demonstratie, dan "gaat toch niemand zich daar iets van aantrekken, en je verstoort alleen maar de orde".

Begin je een juridisch proces, dan is het "kansloos en het rechtssysteem overbelasten met onzin, doe eens echt wat".

Blokkeer je een weg, dan "val je onschuldige automobilisten lastig en creeer je gevaarlijke situaties".

Sloop je dingen, dan "ben je gewelddadig en moet je het netjes proberen op te lossen door de politiek in te gaan".

Ga je de politiek in, dan wordt je weggezet als lachertje en als publieke schietschijf gebruikt want "dit kan je toch niet serieus nemen" (zie bijvoorbeeld de reacties op BIJ1).

Ja, wat wil je godverdomme nou? Hoe denk je, precies, dat problemen opgelost gaan worden? Door wat van de zijlijn te roepen en te hopen dat de situatie op magische wijze verandert? Door te vertrouwen op de "steady march of progress" (die overigens het gevolg is van, jawel, activisme)?

Als je niet bereid bent om concreet bij te dragen aan activistische campagnes, prima, maar bemoei je er dan ook niet mee en laat het over aan de mensen die het *wel* begrijpen voorbij het niveau 'onderbuikgevoel'. Erken dat het een specialisme is dat je niet hebt.

Neem een stap terug, onthoud je van eigen commentaar of mening, en leg de focus op wat activisten zelf zeggen. Ondersteun ze op de manier waar om gevraagd wordt.

Of als je *wel* bij activisme betrokken wilt raken, ook prima - maar neem dan ook de tijd en moeite om te begrijpen waarom campagnes werken zoals ze doen, waarom activisten doen wat ze doen, en hoe dat op de lange termijn effecten kan hebben die je niet direct voor ogen hebt.

So I randomly ran across this old news article about some 'entrepreneur' who developed, among other things, spying software: https://www.bizjournals.com/dayton/stories/2002/02/04/story4.html

And wouldn't you know it, today they run a cryptogrift company.