- cross-posted to:
- inperson@slrpnk.net
- climate_lm@slrpnk.net
- cross-posted to:
- inperson@slrpnk.net
- climate_lm@slrpnk.net
A reminder folks: people engage in this kind of radical protest because it works:
Results of two online experiments conducted with diverse samples (N = 2,772), including a study of the animal rights movement and a preregistered study of the climate movement, show that the presence of a radical flank increases support for a moderate faction within the same movement. Further, it is the use of radical tactics, such as property destruction or violence, rather than a radical agenda, that drives this effect. Results indicate the effect owes to a contrast effect: Use of radical tactics by one flank led the more moderate faction to appear less radical, even though all characteristics of the moderate faction were held constant. This perception led participants to identify more with and, in turn, express greater support for the more moderate faction. These results suggest that activist groups that employ unpopular tactics can increase support for other groups within the same movement, pointing to a hidden way in which movement factions are complementary, despite pursuing divergent approaches to social change.
Turn it around.
What makes you think that disruptive protest would work?
Stupid debate tactic.
The people I’ve personally turned to my cause, and the evidence that it works broadly are what makes me think what I’m doing works.
I’ll get ahead of your next argument (are you really convincing anyone by being disruptive?): Yes. When I disrupt traffic, I’m not trying to convince the people whose everyday life I’m disrupting by adding 10 seconds to their daily commute. Rather, I am expecting them to be completely and utterly intolerant of me and my cause such that they stir themselves up and look unreasonable. If a bystander sees this dynamic play out, me being calm and my opposition having a baby tantrum in public, who do you think they’re gonna side with when the conversation goes wide or even makes the news?
Now you. What is your solution?
Although there is little empirical support for negative radical flank effects, a number of correlational studies support the positive radical flank effect hypothesis (11, 13). But other empirical tests find no evidence that radical flanks increase or decrease support for moderate factions within the movement (14). Thus, the radical flanks literature has yielded inconsistent findings.
From your paper.
So the author and I agree that this is theoretical at best.
This debate tactic of ignoring most of what I said, nitpicking a portion of it, and making me defend it, when it was you who was asked a question, isn’t going to work on me.
Why don’t you show me hard empirical evidence that it works?
Please answer the question.
It’s a silly question that assumes that harmless but disruptive is in any way useful.
So, no I won’t answer it because you haven’t proven it’s a valid question. You might as well ask me my opinions of flying carpets vs. transporters.
The question was
What is your solution?
Vote for the best possible candidate who has a reasonable chance of winning.
Back in the day, Frederick Douglas had a chance to support an abolition candidate with no chance, or Abe Lincoln.
Lincoln wasn’t running on abolition, but Douglas felt he was the best they could get.
Also, thanks for admitting the other question was nonsensical.