As far as I can tell, you’re not actually saying anything in this comment. What is “exigency and practicality” in this case? What would be the “more competend and rigorous application of constructive critique”?
As far as I can tell, it’s pretty easy to figure out; first (unlike the scolds in that thread) recognize the left isn’t to blame for Covid denialism; second, elevate the right of remote participation as a universal expectation (something most VTuber groups have figured out) while maintaining the right of leadership and members to organize in certain contexts (particularly outreach) without constant referral to hazmat protocols
And third recognizing the fight over Covid awareness has been temporarily lost due to the sheer nonexistence of organized leftist counter-messaging
All subject to constant reassessment and adaptation as conditions improve or worsen
while maintaining the right of leadership and members to organize in certain contexts (particularly outreach) without constant referral to hazmat protocols
Leadership and cadres (or at the very least leadership) should be expected to take basic precautions, so that disabled people can participate non-remotely without putting themselves at severe risk. I don’t see how this demand is any different from a demand for remote participation. It’s much easier for leadership to (for example) lead by example and wear masks, which would do a lot to promote COVID consciousness in orgs, than it is to implement actually effective remote participation in many cases.
Edit: you still haven’t said what “exigency and practicality” meant, so I can only assume you meant that “practicality” was leadership taking literally no COVID precautions, which is practical because… ???
while maintaining the right of leadership and members to organize in certain contexts (particularly outreach) without constant referral to hazmat protocols
Derisively referring to asking people to wear masks as “constant referral to hazmat protocols” is disingenuous.
As far as I can tell, it’s pretty easy to figure out
“I implied my point, it’s your fault for not being able to figure it out” isn’t an argument. Say what you mean, I’m not reading your mind.
It’s much easier for leadership to (for example) lead by example and wear masks
It’s also easier to alienate new or potential members due to the dominance of covid denialist narratives in social discourse, and that conundrum shouldn’t be met with its own denialism in turn
What’s needed far more urgently is not simply COVID consciousness in orgs but also COVID awareness among society at large, and that requires counter-messaging and large-scale media organizing to pull off, which is why a focus on remote participation should be seen as a crucial tide over until said conditions improve
Then the power of example through masking will regain the valence you’re looking for
It’s also easier to alienate new or potential members due to the dominance of covid denialist narratives in social discourse, and that conundrum shouldn’t be met with its own denialism in turn
If seeing people wearing masks alienates new participants, those are not participants you want. They would functionally be wreckers. This is blatant tailism.
I’m not talking about dedicated anti-maskers, I’m clearly talking about the average maskless Joe who thru ignroance or inattention is liable to confuse your org for a health support group rather than an instrument to wield political power, in that scenario it’s not tailism you’d be facing, it’s irrelevance
…Unless that maskless Joe was already primed by sensationalized but accurate accounts of long covid, a Joe who wonders whether the aches and pains he feels daily are the results of the ravages of covid, suddenly a masked org isn’t a barrier to entry, but a cultural signal that tells that Joe “these people have their heads on straight”
I’m clearly talking about the average maskless Joe who thru ignroance or inattention is liable to confuse your org for a health support group rather than an instrument to wield political power
I think this isn’t accurate. Your claim is that someone would go to a meeting and just because the organizers are wearing masks, assume that they walked into the wrong one? Or are you dismissively categorizing (in the mind of the so-called “average Joe”) people who wear masks as unable, unwilling, or unworthy of wielding political power?
Your claim is that someone would go to a meeting and just by virtue of the organizers wearing masks, assume that they walked into the wrong one?
YES! Have you met the average American these days? When people ask me about the mask I wear at work, I’m not met with hostility, but instead confusion “why are you wearing that, did something happen?”, “are you sick?”, “is something spreading around, should I wear one?” all questions average Joes and Beckies have asked me in just the last six months
So yes, unless they’re primed, the typical American will dismiss or confuse your org for an irrelevant sideshow; that’s me pointing out an IS not an OUGHT
Right, this is tailism. “The masses are reactionary on this issue, so we shouldn’t be too progressive on it to avoid alienating them”. I’m saying once again that the people who see leaders at a meeting masking and leave immediately are reactionaries and should not be catered to because doing so will make the org toxic to disabled people and because these people you’re trying to appeal to will not be transformed into good cadres, especially if you cater to their biases instead of challenging them. Which is why tailism doesn’t work and is a bad idea.
You do understand it’s not tailism if you’re actively engaged in a campaign to shift public sentiment for the purpose of aligning your orgs aims with a newly widened pool of people
Or did you think I was just bullshitting when I wrote these words?
What’s needed far more urgently is not simply COVID consciousness in orgs, but also COVID awareness among society at large, and that requires counter-messaging and large-scale media organizing to pull off
As far as I can tell, you’re not actually saying anything in this comment. What is “exigency and practicality” in this case? What would be the “more competend and rigorous application of constructive critique”?
As far as I can tell, it’s pretty easy to figure out; first (unlike the scolds in that thread) recognize the left isn’t to blame for Covid denialism; second, elevate the right of remote participation as a universal expectation (something most VTuber groups have figured out) while maintaining the right of leadership and members to organize in certain contexts (particularly outreach) without constant referral to hazmat protocols
And third recognizing the fight over Covid awareness has been temporarily lost due to the sheer nonexistence of organized leftist counter-messaging
All subject to constant reassessment and adaptation as conditions improve or worsen
Leadership and cadres (or at the very least leadership) should be expected to take basic precautions, so that disabled people can participate non-remotely without putting themselves at severe risk. I don’t see how this demand is any different from a demand for remote participation. It’s much easier for leadership to (for example) lead by example and wear masks, which would do a lot to promote COVID consciousness in orgs, than it is to implement actually effective remote participation in many cases.
Edit: you still haven’t said what “exigency and practicality” meant, so I can only assume you meant that “practicality” was leadership taking literally no COVID precautions, which is practical because… ???
Derisively referring to asking people to wear masks as “constant referral to hazmat protocols” is disingenuous.
“I implied my point, it’s your fault for not being able to figure it out” isn’t an argument. Say what you mean, I’m not reading your mind.
It’s also easier to alienate new or potential members due to the dominance of covid denialist narratives in social discourse, and that conundrum shouldn’t be met with its own denialism in turn
What’s needed far more urgently is not simply COVID consciousness in orgs but also COVID awareness among society at large, and that requires counter-messaging and large-scale media organizing to pull off, which is why a focus on remote participation should be seen as a crucial tide over until said conditions improve
Then the power of example through masking will regain the valence you’re looking for
If seeing people wearing masks alienates new participants, those are not participants you want. They would functionally be wreckers. This is blatant tailism.
I’m not talking about dedicated anti-maskers, I’m clearly talking about the average maskless Joe who thru ignroance or inattention is liable to confuse your org for a health support group rather than an instrument to wield political power, in that scenario it’s not tailism you’d be facing, it’s irrelevance
…Unless that maskless Joe was already primed by sensationalized but accurate accounts of long covid, a Joe who wonders whether the aches and pains he feels daily are the results of the ravages of covid, suddenly a masked org isn’t a barrier to entry, but a cultural signal that tells that Joe “these people have their heads on straight”
I think this isn’t accurate. Your claim is that someone would go to a meeting and just because the organizers are wearing masks, assume that they walked into the wrong one? Or are you dismissively categorizing (in the mind of the so-called “average Joe”) people who wear masks as unable, unwilling, or unworthy of wielding political power?
YES! Have you met the average American these days? When people ask me about the mask I wear at work, I’m not met with hostility, but instead confusion “why are you wearing that, did something happen?”, “are you sick?”, “is something spreading around, should I wear one?” all questions average Joes and Beckies have asked me in just the last six months
So yes, unless they’re primed, the typical American will dismiss or confuse your org for an irrelevant sideshow; that’s me pointing out an IS not an OUGHT
Right, this is tailism. “The masses are reactionary on this issue, so we shouldn’t be too progressive on it to avoid alienating them”. I’m saying once again that the people who see leaders at a meeting masking and leave immediately are reactionaries and should not be catered to because doing so will make the org toxic to disabled people and because these people you’re trying to appeal to will not be transformed into good cadres, especially if you cater to their biases instead of challenging them. Which is why tailism doesn’t work and is a bad idea.
Great news, tailism works!
You do understand it’s not tailism if you’re actively engaged in a campaign to shift public sentiment for the purpose of aligning your orgs aims with a newly widened pool of people
Or did you think I was just bullshitting when I wrote these words?