I didn't want to hijack this, but it seems nobody else is commenting, so I guess I don't damage anything by commenting.
It seems like the purpose of a lot of activism is to make other groups outside of the group in question less agentic (historically dominant groups in the case of the left, historically subaltern groups in the case of the right)--less willing to ask people out, less willing to write books, less willing to do things, more willing to give things up to others. (Scott Aaronson is an example you may know.) So in fact it's a matter of what group you're in. A cishet white man should be *less* agentic, more like a corpse, according to your side, and *more* agentic, less like a corpse, according to your opposite numbers on the right. The reverse is true for a trans woman of color.
So it all depends on who you are, and if like me you have some of each, well, it's not clear what side to take.
I was wondering why this post came up; “Activism” is in the comments section.
To your point, one of my ex-boyfriend’s is a left flank vet who grew up in rural Illinois. During the midterms his side wouldn’t promote him to Field Director, so he came over to work for Republicans in order to get the promotion.
He then went on to help a Democrat win a senate seat, and was completely unfazed by the fact that his own side, in effect, had wanted him to play dead.
Where there’s a will there’s a way, I suppose; but you’re right, that the intent to reduce agency of unwanteds seems to be there.
I've often thought that, and it was one of my principal complaints about masculinity. What's the point of dying nobly, better to run away and do guerrilla warfare.
I didn't want to hijack this, but it seems nobody else is commenting, so I guess I don't damage anything by commenting.
It seems like the purpose of a lot of activism is to make other groups outside of the group in question less agentic (historically dominant groups in the case of the left, historically subaltern groups in the case of the right)--less willing to ask people out, less willing to write books, less willing to do things, more willing to give things up to others. (Scott Aaronson is an example you may know.) So in fact it's a matter of what group you're in. A cishet white man should be *less* agentic, more like a corpse, according to your side, and *more* agentic, less like a corpse, according to your opposite numbers on the right. The reverse is true for a trans woman of color.
So it all depends on who you are, and if like me you have some of each, well, it's not clear what side to take.
I was wondering why this post came up; “Activism” is in the comments section.
To your point, one of my ex-boyfriend’s is a left flank vet who grew up in rural Illinois. During the midterms his side wouldn’t promote him to Field Director, so he came over to work for Republicans in order to get the promotion.
He then went on to help a Democrat win a senate seat, and was completely unfazed by the fact that his own side, in effect, had wanted him to play dead.
Where there’s a will there’s a way, I suppose; but you’re right, that the intent to reduce agency of unwanteds seems to be there.
The teacher of the assembly summed this up as "better a live dog than a dead lion".
I've often thought that, and it was one of my principal complaints about masculinity. What's the point of dying nobly, better to run away and do guerrilla warfare.
That really depends on whether you can nobly take the other guy with you.
I think Qohelet would suggest acquiescence. It's very quasi-stoic book.