Do you want to play?
January 4, 2002 2:31 PM   Subscribe

Do you want to play? "If these rules make sense to you, we could quickly cross the line from words to action, both on the Web and in neighborhoods and villages around the world, by inviting people and organizations that support these goals to meet and work together, locally and face-to-face -- in schools, community centers and houses of worship -- or online and across any cultural or national border." I like the sound of this ambitious initiative of idealist.org.
posted by sudama (33 comments total)
 
The intangible but crucial feeling that we are not alone - that in our neighborhood and all over the world there are others who understand and support what we are doing.

"We live as we dream- alone." -Joseph Conrad, "Heart of Darkness"

And frankly, it's far better that way.

"Men go crazy in congregations, they only get better one by one" -Sting, "All This Time"
posted by dissent at 3:14 PM on January 4, 2002


Something about the particular sound of the ActivistSpeak -- or perhaps just the combination of progressive cheerleading and bad illustration -- in this article made me think of Muir's Velvet Monkeywrench. I am at a loss to explain.
posted by majick at 3:25 PM on January 4, 2002


Oprah would love this site
posted by tiger yang at 4:19 PM on January 4, 2002


Oprah would love this site
posted by tiger yang at 4:19 PM on January 4, 2002


The only problem with this concept is the a priori assumption that everyone in the world actually wants to "get along", and that it's just a matter of finding some way to facilitate that.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 5:26 PM on January 4, 2002


If you think there is good in everybody, you haven't
met everybody.
posted by semmi at 9:50 PM on January 4, 2002


Jesus, ya'll are cynical.
posted by Optamystic at 9:52 PM on January 4, 2002


Um, no -- just realistic. (I know that there are people with whom it is impossible to "get along." I've met some of them.)
posted by Steven Den Beste at 10:08 PM on January 4, 2002


You're right, Steven. I was referring more to the general tone that seemed to be pissing on the very idea of increased positive interaction between disparate individuals and groups. I mean, we've got to start somewhere, right? Oprah-and-activist-speak notwithstanding, at least these people are trying, which is more than most of us are bothering to do.
posted by Optamystic at 10:30 PM on January 4, 2002


Generally speaking, the sort of people who want to get together and solve the world's problems are not the sort of poeple you really want doing it. The people who you want doing it are the ones who understand what's really involved and who, because of this understanding, would not want to touch the project with a ten-foot pole.
posted by kindall at 10:33 PM on January 4, 2002


Try "getting along" with this.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 10:45 PM on January 4, 2002


So, according to your line of reasoning, since the Taliban are bad, we should throw out any and all hope of getting along with our fellow humans?
posted by Optamystic at 11:00 PM on January 4, 2002


I think he's saying some people just don't fit into the "hold hands and say cumbaya" structure.
posted by owillis at 11:03 PM on January 4, 2002


This looks like an interesting site, why do you have to bring the Taliban into this. Of course there are some people who you can't get along with. (I just saw someone quote Sting up there!)
posted by chrismc at 11:33 PM on January 4, 2002


Optamystic, we will try to get along with people if and only if there's reason to believe that they truly want to get along with us. But to try to pretend that it's possible to do this with everyone is going to accomplish nothing beyond getting us all killed (or worse!) when we run into people like the Taliban.

This effort is a complete wast of time because it isn't needed for the people who already want to get along, and won't work with anyone else. All it can accomplish is giving warm-and-fuzzy feelings to those who participate in it.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 12:15 AM on January 5, 2002


Take a look at what they're saying:

We each have our own beliefs, but our work together is independent of any political ideology or religious creed, and is guided by our common desire to find practical solutions to social and environmental problems, in a spirit of generosity and mutual respect.

In pursuing our goals, we do not engage in violent or illegal action, or in any action against a person or group on the basis of age, race, nationality, origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation or physical or mental ability.

Ideas are important to us, but people matter more. And patience and laughter always help.


That's their manifesto. We will never be violent; patience and laughter always help; all problems can be solved if only we're willing to work together.

But if you try that with religious zealots like the Taliban, all it's going to get you is burned and thrown from the top of an 18 story building after months of torture. That's what almost happened to the guy described in that WaPo article. The only thing which saved him was a fat bribe.

The fundamental assumption behind this group's theory is flawed. They think that everyone ultimately wants to get along, and it just isn't true. Not everyone out there is "guided by a common desire to find practical solutions to social and environmental problems, in a spirit of generosity and mutual respect." Sometimes they're too busy torturing apostates to have any time for that kind of crap.

There really are evil people out there, people who have no interest whatever in being open minded, people who know the answer and will kill any heretic who disagrees. You can't reason with them; they'll shoot you. If you refuse to be violent with them, then you'll die without sin -- but you'll still be dead.

All of us would love to live in a world where every problem could be solved without violence, but that doesn't happen to be the world we're actually living in, and there is no way to transform this world into that one.

Pacifism doesn't work, and there's no way of dressing it up which will correct its fundamental flaws.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 12:33 AM on January 5, 2002


If pacifism doesn't work, explain Ghandi's successes. Or the black civil rights movement which succeeded more through non-violence than through armed resistance. Or the ability of Solidarity in Poland to break the Communist regime.

(Notably, these movements all achieved success not by saying "individualism is great" but "united we stand, divided we fall" or "the people united will never be defeated".)

Even if there are evil people out there, we don't overcome that by sitting around and whinging that there are evil people out there - we do it by bringing all the good people together.

I'm sick of all this individualist crap. Steven claims "You can't reason with them; they'll shoot you. If you refuse to be violent with them, then you'll die without sin -- but you'll still be dead.". True, if you try to fight them as an individual. But if you bring together everyone who opposes evil, you can overcome them. Some of you will die, but the movement will prevail. And that is the point of this site.
posted by robcorr at 1:08 AM on January 5, 2002


If pacifism doesn't work, explain Ghandi's successes. Or the black civil rights movement which succeeded more through non-violence than through armed resistance. Or the ability of Solidarity in Poland to break the Communist regime.

(Notably, these movements all achieved success not by saying "individualism is great" but "united we stand, divided we fall" or "the people united will never be defeated".)

Even if there are evil people out there, we don't overcome that by sitting around and whinging that there are evil people out there - we do it by bringing all the good people together.

I'm sick of all this individualist crap. Steven claims "You can't reason with them; they'll shoot you. If you refuse to be violent with them, then you'll die without sin -- but you'll still be dead." True, if you try to fight them as an individual. But if you bring together everyone who opposes evil, you can overcome it. Some of you might die, but the movement will prevail.

Nothing great has ever been achieved by an individual.
posted by robcorr at 1:10 AM on January 5, 2002


Er... sorry, thought I was still previewing. :-\
posted by robcorr at 1:12 AM on January 5, 2002


One can hardly disagree with their 'rules': "Working with others, our goal is to help build a world where all people can live free and dignified lives." But that's because they're so general as to be completely unhelpful. Anyone but a skinhead is going to agree with them.

Or a member of the Taliban, or a Nazi, or a Marxist, who have non-standard definitions of the words 'free and dignified'. To be fair, Idealist.org doesn't seem to saying that violence is always wrong, just that it is wrong for private individuals who are attempting social change.

I don't see anything wrong with this effort; I'm not sure how it differs from what Idealist.org is doing already.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 2:39 AM on January 5, 2002


Robcorr, this explains Ghandi and King.

It also explains why what they did is not universally applicable.

It's not that pacifism cannot work under certain very specific and well-selected circumstances, it's that it cannot work invariably under all circumstances.

If you had been a Ghandi living in Afghanistan in 1999 (or France in 1943) and tried to apply his techniques, you'd be dead now and would have accomplished nothing.

The argument I have with this effort is that it claims that the approach is universal. Violence is always wrong, patience and humor always help.

If you're ever captured and facing torture, let me know how well "patience and humor" work -- if you survive the experience.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 6:28 AM on January 5, 2002


I managed to crack wise mst3k style through most of Kate and Leopold, does that count?
posted by dong_resin at 6:48 AM on January 5, 2002



Thanks for the link, Sudama, and

at least these people are trying, which is more than most of us are bothering to do

word to Optamystic (and robcorr). What is it with assholes who just have to piss all over every positive idea that comes their way? If you think the effort is a waste of time, why even bother dissing it? Or better, why not come up with an alternative that you think will work?

I don't think anyone is really claiming that these ideas will solve all of the world's problems. They just might, however, solve some of them. Sure, not everyone wants to get along, and I don't see why you think Idealist is assuming the opposite. Some of us DO want to get along, and there ARE problems we can solve by doing so. Why go out of your way to find problems that this approach cannot immediately solve, and why generalise from those specific instances to "it's all a waste of time"?

Efforts like this might fail to improve the human condition, but sitting around taking cheap shots at them certainly will fail to achieve anything at all.
posted by sennoma at 7:54 AM on January 5, 2002


Sennoma, to the extent that criticism reroutes effort from futile activities into fruitful ones, then criticism is itself fruitful.

In engineering we know that design checkers contribute as much as designers: designers increase the value of a product by adding features, design checkers increase the value of a product by removing flaws.

Political criticism is an attempt to remove flaws from the system.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 8:21 AM on January 5, 2002


I can't imagine what led Steven to believe idealist.org wants us to hold love-ins to defeat the Taliban. The site is offering a blueprint for community organizing -- nothing more, nothing less.

it isn't needed for the people who already want to get along

Tell it to Rodney King, tell it to communities across the US ravaged by police racism and brutality. Tell it to anyone who doesn't have a voice in a politician's ear because they don't have a dollar in a politician's pocket.

idealist.org isn't suggesting (other than rhetorically) that this plan will bring about a global revolution of peace and love; they're offering some ideas about connecting across traditional divides and finding discrete, local solutions to discrete, local problems.

(Did you even read the page, Steven?)
posted by sudama at 9:06 AM on January 5, 2002


to the extent that criticism reroutes effort from futile activities into fruitful ones, then criticism is itself fruitful

True, but I don't see the Idealist effort as futile. It looks a little pollyanna-ish, but the basic premises seem sound to me. Where we disagree seems to be on the nature of those premises. I think they are looking to find solutions to relatively small, solvable problems, not to tackle all the world's problems at once. It's possible that all they will ever solve are small problems, but that's no bad thing to accomplish; and it's also possible that, step by step, they might work up to some of the enormous problems that you have mentioned above.

(Also, I retract my "What is it...come their way?" sentence, which was unnecessarily snarky. My apologies.)
posted by sennoma at 10:45 AM on January 5, 2002


Sudama, I read it thoroughly and came away completely unimpressed.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 10:53 AM on January 5, 2002


The site is offering a blueprint for community organizing -- nothing more, nothing less.

if you look at some of the most successful community organizers, most of them don't use 'generousity and mutual respect' as a common denominator. Saul Alinsky, who founded the Industrial Areas Foundation (one of the largest orgs dedicated to community organizing) and trained several notable organizers, including Cesar Chavez, taught his organizers that good organizing came from understanding the self-interest of individuals and using common interests - not common ideals - to bring people together. alinsky had a talent for bringing together groups of people that couldn't stand to be in the same room with each other, but what do it because they had a shared interest in a particular issue. this didn't mean that they respected each other any more or would be on the same side of the fence when the next hot issue came up. Alinsky used to say that people will do the right things for the wrong reasons. And he was fine with that. Alinsky was a realist.

In theory, idealist.org's project sounds great (simple, not messy), but in practice - even in community organizing - it rarely works that way.
posted by lizs at 11:18 AM on January 5, 2002


word to Optamystic (and robcorr)...

Uh, word to sennoma: I wasn't dissing the site. I think it's cool. Maybe you should read my post again...
posted by robcorr at 8:42 PM on January 5, 2002


Nothing great has ever been achieved by an individual.

That is the biggest line of hyperbole I've ever read.

The greatness of an individual is not determined with the same standards one would use for the great outcomes via mass movement. A mistype to be sure.
posted by crasspastor at 12:01 AM on January 6, 2002


robcorr, "Word" signifies agreement.
posted by Optamystic at 1:19 AM on January 6, 2002


Sheesh. One hardly knows where to begin.

Steven: we will try to get along with people if and only if there's reason to believe that they truly want to get along with us

Of course. But since this article is simply about organizing a network of people who want to improve life in their communities, it seems fair to assume that those involved will want to get along.

Those rules are not, as you put it, a "manifesto". They are not a formula for magically bringing about world peace. They are a set of ground rules to guide a certain group of like-minded individuals in working with each other. And the point of the article is not simply to put those ideas out into the air in the hope that they will suddenly make everyone "just get along". The point of the article is to attract the attention of people who might be interested in joining this network.

Nobody was talking about conquering the Taliban with love--at least, nobody but you was, and you don't seem to like the idea anyway. What the people at idealist.org seem to be saying is this:
Since there are a lot of people and organizations out there with some of the same basic ideals, we're building up a network through which they can share information and resources so that they can all be more effective.

In light of this description, look over the article again. Notice the section on "help centers" and the examples of how they'd be used. Notice that there's not really any talk of resolving major military conflicts through peaceful conversation, but lots of talk of, say, cleaning up sidewalks, or taking care of children. Do you begin to see why some of us might think you missed the point of the article, and wonder if you even read it?

Do you understand why it might look like you just saw a reference to non-violence and immediately went off on unprovoked tirade against pacifism? Think about what they're doing here. They're not saying they'll stop wars. They're just saying they won't start riots.

Now you still may have no interest in this group. You may well think they're misguided. But you must realize that everything you've said so far in this thread has been entirely beside the point.
posted by moss at 2:31 AM on January 6, 2002


The "rules" don't make sense to me. The rules of basketball are specific enough that people can come together and play basketball because they both know what basketball is.

But simply praising ideas, laughter, patience, generosity, respect, etc. is not nearly specific enough. We all have different ideas of what constitutes generosity, what the difference is between patience and passivity, what is funny and what isn't, how one shows respect. It's only when you can get some agreement on far more specific expressions of these ideas that you'd have any kind of groundrules to organize around.
posted by straight at 6:40 AM on January 7, 2002


« Older This propaganda leaflet   |   sodaconstructor Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments