Changing your Facebook or Twitter icon or participating in a meme is not activism. It can, however, a way to draw attention to an issue. But if you do nothing with that attention, it's wasted. Changing your icon and then posting a status message saying "I changed my icon to support children who are abused" doesn't tell me anything. Include a link to an organization that I can give me time or dollars to. Don't know one? That's okay! Ask people for one in that status message update. All it takes is an extra three seconds to make a potentially meaningless gesture into a potentially meaningful one, just by asking for people who may be more up on the issue to tell you about resources they know about.
Also "repost this if you support gay rights" stuff? Especially stuff that's sort of bullying and implies if you don't repost it you don't support gay rights or whatever the issue is? Fucking obnoxious. My journal, my words, my life. Those memes are honestly upsetting.
And then there are the innuendo-y memes (there's been a few of these to raise breast cancer lately) about "where do you like it," are also annoying. Because they don't connect to the issue, and if the only way we care about women's health is by making innuendos about fucking, we have a problem.
I am not saying don't do memes. Sometimes I change my Twitter icon for stuff too! I am not saying symbolism isn't important -- see: the AIDS ribbon. I am not saying my issues have to be your issues -- we all have different priorities and that's okay too. But I am saying that these gestures without context are the waste of a good opportunity; that only clicking the "like" button doesn't doesn't save lives; that the Internet is a powerful tool for high-impact activism through the accumulation of relatively low-impact gestures in you add a little bit of strategy to the mix.
$$, time, personal testimony, outreach to those in need, political contact are how change happens. Visibility is a tool that makes those things happen. But people aren't mind readers, and if they aren't already energized about your issue, they aren't going to go seeking shit out on their own. They need to be activated, and your innuendo, your snazzy new icon, your "say this or you suck" isn't going to do the job without just a little bit more.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-07 01:07 am (UTC)Sadly, this method is often tried by non-fictional sociopaths, and seems to work pretty well, as long as it targets "disposable" people.
I admit that I wondered where Assange/Wikileaks & Co. got the money to furnish such a lovely place.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-07 07:30 pm (UTC)Although I suppose it's also possible that somewhere in the files of the law enforcement authorities in the YnM universe, there's a note attached to an eyes-only file that reads, "Do Not Investigate Further. We Mean It. Don't Go There." And where if you have sufficient authorization, you can follow the records to one or two incident reports that involve arrest attempts and/or other criminal justice proceedings that were abruptly and showily terminated when the defendant summoned up a giant winged dragon and incinerated everyone in the vicinity. Somewhere in the annotations to these files you may find one from a very senior official, handwritten in the margins, that reads, 'Demonstrated ability to vanish from one spot and reappear in another. Even if we can convict him we can't hold him, so let's not waste any more resources.'
-- Right. Sorry, it's the worldbuilding instinct leading me astray. What I meant to say was, the mountainside lair doesn't belong to Assange or Wikileaks, but rather to the company that provides their hosting. In a way it's a shame -- it would be so much more colorful if the place were actually entirely theirs -- but at least we don't have to wonder whether they really are a giant profit-making Evil Conspiracy.
no subject
Date: 2010-12-08 05:18 pm (UTC)RE: Muraki. You just made my brain do a Yami no Matsuei and X-Files crossover, which was Not a Good Thing.