I personally got into certain forms of activism due to the idea that what was discussed within ‘institutionalized media’ did not cover the topic well or at all for any reason. I was a big time Occupy supporter because they wanted to change how America talked about wealth disparity (Any Media Necessary, p. 1). The media focused on unemployment and from what I remember more so just what are the unemployment rates. Once Occupy sprang up we started talking more about the hourly wages of millionaire CEO’s and how little their workers get in pay and health coverage.
I was young at the time of Occupy, still in High School so not young but inconveniently ‘grounded’ as a minor with no job or car. But what people claim ‘keyboard warrior activism’ is not always so lazy as people want it to seem. After turning 18 I joined the Intactivist community, an organization built on bodily autonomy and not just changing American discourse but want to get law change to ban male genital surgery (circumcision) on minors. Citing cultural bias and scientific inaccuracies they attempt to discuss America myths and cultural ‘unknowingness’ of the natural male body.
For example, after turning 18 I joined the Intactivist community, an organization built on bodily autonomy and not just changing American discourse but want to get law change to ban male genital surgery (circumcision) on minors. Citing cultural bias, scientific inaccuracies within America, and bringing into perspective how majority of countries do not do this to their infants, especially some European countries whose health organizations have criticized America for their practice, they want to change how we talk about this seemingly natural thing, which is actually highly unnatural and a human rights issue. Being a ‘keyboard warrior’ actually challenged many of my friend’s ideas. My cousin who had a son contacted me asking questions since he felt weird by the possibility of this topic coming up, eventually, he decided not to do it to his son. Also, many friends contacted me asking me about why/how I feel about it and I facilitated discussion with them.
There are two strategies I like to use, not sure if they are original, but I call them’fire start(ers/ing)’ and ‘seed plant(ers/ing)’
“Kiev, Grushevskogo str. 22.01.2014” by Ввласенко
Fire starters are what I assume most call rabble rousers. Except these two strategies do not need discourse domination or a ‘successful’ debate win. Simply meant to anger both sides of discourse and take discourse to a new, even more, controversial level. For example, when feminist groups post about female genital mutilation I would be the person to, of course, support what I do believe is solely wrong. But I’d also put statements meant to villainize those who done the same procedure to their sons. Such as “This is disgusting and horrible! What’s worse is most people commenting on this thread probably did the same to their own son! What horrible hypocrites!” It is not meant to dimish female but to push both sides of people, left or right leaning people, to become enraged to show their own hypocritical flaws and cognitive dissonance. I do not care if I “win the keyboard war” it is myself filling up on responses to direct extreme sarcastic reductio ad absurdum. This slightly goes with my next strategy.
‘Seed planting’, I equate this to the success of my friends and especially my cousin reaching out to me about male genital mutilation. Once again, it does not focus on “winning the argument” but instead planting some sort of reasonable doubt that will fester inside those who read my comments. In hopes it makes them requestion their position and either, reach out to the original commenter, research new topics, discuss amongst others (be mini-seed planters).
I thouroughly enjoy those who are radical when it comes to discourse. Even when not radicalized I fully support those who forcibly push a culture/society to think about a topic not dicussed or normalized.