OH – food for thought: “They've found ways to be successful critics – emphasis on successful. They get invited to conferences, win awards, maintain influence … that success might come from never truly threatening the system.
Maybe aggressive rhetoric and a bridge-burning approach isn’t a bug but a feature. When the house is on fire, you don’t negotiate with the arsonists about fire safety regulations. You sound the alarm, loudly and repeatedly.
In a truly existential fight, we need people who value principles over profit, truth over access, and righteousness over respectability. Someone whose interests align with the cause because they’ve already burned their bridges to the establishment.
Perhaps being ‘annoying’ and ‘divisive’ is what authentic advocacy looks like when you refuse to be co-opted.”
tom jennings
in reply to Aral Balkan • • •What? There is no question that it has ever been anything less. Working with the system (sic) is why we are here.
Actual ruinous unwanted interruption and fucking up processes is the *minimum*.
Always has been.
It requires breaking the magic spell of what's normal, what's acceptable.