> That mass movements coincide with a period of "betterment" is an interesting way to try to understand the civil rights and equal rights movements in the 50's and 60's.
These are specifically not what the author was talking about, since they had clearly defined goals that were achieved, as per:
> The True Believer advises against supporting organizations without clear, attainable objectives. The dockyard philosopher reminds us that we should be skeptical of mass movements without clearly defined goals.
I don't have a history background but I assume that the desegregation of schools for blacks and equal pay for women (and reproductive freedom since it just popped into my mind) seem pretty clearly defined.
Equal pay for women isn't a movement. Modern feminism is the movement, and there this quote becomes relevant:
> Mass movements that are good at what they do make previously content individuals frustrated and further frustrate their adherents while pretending to advance the movement. This means that the strongest mass movements are inevitably going to be the ones that are the best at not delivering the goods.
Equal pay for equal work is pretty much achieved and the so-called gender wage gap is extremely misleadingly used to foster frustration.
I’m very curious for an example of a mass movement without clearly defined goals. Even USSR communism, Naziism, and the cultural revolution in China had clear goals. Cults have clear goals. Hate groups have clear goals. Seems orthogonal to his thesis about mass movements arising from personal emotional issues.
Maybe he means narrow vs broad goals, but given the absurd breadth of his poorly defined hypothesis (irony alert) I’m not inclined to try and make his thesis clear for him.
The MAGA movement does not seem to have any clear goals; the general theme I discern from it is "burn it all to the ground" (a literal quote from a supporter).
Some of their grievances are legitimate (government failures, the decline of relative prosperity) and others are "understandable" (the fear and dislike of "others" that they are uncomfortable with (LGBQT+, different religions and races, the decline of the default dominance of their alphas (white men)), the defining name of their movement is as vague as can be.
That is, what is the specific greatness to be returned to and what does achieving it look like?
>The MAGA movement does not seem to have any clear goals; the general theme I discern from it is "burn it all to the ground" (a literal quote from a supporter).
I took a trip to New Hampshire this past week and noted a banner on a house that read:
Trump 2024
Make the liberals cry!
Which seems like a pretty clear goal to me. Achieving such a goal does absolutely nothing to make my home (the United States) a better place for anyone, including those who support such a goal. Rather, it just drives division and makes reasonable compromise more difficult. Which will likely just make addressing the legitimate grievances (and there absolutely legitimate grievances) such folks have impossible to alleviate.
>Some of their grievances are legitimate (government failures, the decline of relative prosperity) and others are "understandable" (the fear and dislike of "others" that they are uncomfortable with (LGBQT+, different religions and races, the decline of the default dominance of their alphas (white men)), the defining name of their movement is as vague as can be.
Absolutely. At the same time, the "cultural" portions of the above list can be credibly addressed by simply allowing folks to live their own lives. Want to be an Evangelical Christian? Go for it! Think sex with someone of a particular gender isn't right? Don't do it. Think abortion is wrong? Don't have one.
But considering those who believe differently on a few points, especially in a nation where the vast majority of us agree on most things, the enemy is counterproductive in the extreme.
The vast majority of us just want a decent chance at having a good life, regardless of other issues. Adopting the attitude that those who disagree with you about specific things are evil and must be eradicated is, IMHO, reductive in the extreme and almost guarantees that the issues the vast majority of us can agree upon won't be addressed.
Due to the sensitivity of the subject I was trying to be on point the article and the OP about unclear goals without shitting on the followers themselves.
But yes, you're right, and it's actually way worse than being discussed because this movement is really a cult and has destroyed countless families as well as threaten the foundations of democracy itself.
There's a kind of madness to it all and I know I can't be the only one who struggles to come to terms with the fact that so many of our fellow citizens have succumbed to it.
This comment is really funny to me because it seems clear that the way we arrived at "make liberals cry" is exactly as described in this article. Movement without any clear goals fails to accomplish anything. Followers of the movement become increasing distressed as they realize they haven't accomplished anything. Said followers double down on tribalism to distract from its failures.
you've seen the outcome here go exactly as predicted but haven't connected the dots I guess.
>Movement without any clear goals fails to accomplish anything.
You seem to have misunderstood my point, which was that even if there are clear goals, that's not a guarantee that such goals are useful or reasonable -- even if they are accomplished.
But that doesn't make such goals any less clear or specific.
These are specifically not what the author was talking about, since they had clearly defined goals that were achieved, as per:
> The True Believer advises against supporting organizations without clear, attainable objectives. The dockyard philosopher reminds us that we should be skeptical of mass movements without clearly defined goals.