But more importantly, I think a lot of progressives would be upset if they knew that by creating, signing, or sharing a Change.org petition they were actually helping a consulting firm make a lot of money by advancing conservative causes.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
People hear a name like "change" and believe what they want to believe I guess.
Any education petition at Change.org should be examined carefully or else you will end up as a "supporter" of these two groups without your knowledge.
A lesson in making sure who you are dealing with.
If they did, they wouldn't allow you to sign up for .com, .net, .org, and so on all at the same time.
And dot org doesn't promise a thing. *pulls up extra screen, types in local public radio station with dot-com* Yeah, they bought that domain name. If going to a dot-org was giving anyone a warm fuzzy about being all joined together in an anti-capitalistic union of progressivism... that doesn't say good things about progressives.
Second, yes, anyone can purchase a .org/.com/.net whatever domain. But when someone purchases a .org website, they are strongly implying that they are a nonprofit. It's not a promise; it's an implication. There's a reason change.org took that domain, and the reason was obviously to mislead. That, in itself, is a good enough justification to not use them for anything (whatever they do these days).
They fooled me using .org, but no more.
I'm not yet convinced it's time to jump on the High Horse Bandwagon. As per "it gets worse" link:
"By not embracing American progressivism, the company said it hopes to make its platform more welcoming to people around the globe who might see such an association as imperialist or anti-Muslim."
Attribution of this statement aside, it's not totally preposterous. The last 20 years of neoliberalism (NAFTA, G20, G8, Davos, countless climate talks, drone strikes, etc. etc. etc.) haven't exactly burnished the images of elected American liberals such as Clinton, Gore and Obama. American liberalism kinda *does* have a reputation as imperialist and anti-Muslim. The neocons are worse, for sure, but that doesn't exactly excuse the American left-that's-now-right-of-center.
It would be extremely irresponsible to not be against islam, which is pro-violence, pro-death, anti-women, anti-gay, anti-science, anti-democracy, anti-human rights and anti-reason.
Just last week they beheaded a man in Saudi Arabia for sorcery. Saudi Arabia, a US ally and main exporter and funder of the psychotic death cult of islam accross the western world.
Not to mention how many problems European countries now have for allowing muslim immigration.
I, for one, appreciate it. Thank you, once again.
I don't recall @ 16 being an ignorant pigfucking douchebag before (although his presentation of a few anti-religion books written by scientists as being science was dumb), so it's possible he was being ironic, but played it too straight. Hopefully he'll clarify.
By your logic, Christianity is the same because of a few abortion clinic bombers and young earth creationists. Of course, you may believe this as well, but there it is.
sure, here is the source that islam is a psychotic death cult-
You can also watch news every day, you know...killing daughters for getting raped, poisoning girl schools in Afghanistan, throwing acid in women's faces, organized beating of gays in Holland and UK, beheading sorcerors, 100% animosity towards evolution enforced by threats of violence, etc.etc.
You fucking useful idiot...
Yes, islam is intrinsically evil, just like christianity, I provided the link so feel free to read the fundamental source documents of both.
Also christianity has been mostly tamed, islam hasn't in the slightest. In every European country with the muslim population getting higher you see a heightening in discrimination, anti-science and violent behavior.
Is this a joke?
And like Theodore Gorath said, the actions of a few radicals don't determine the nature of the religion as a whole.
I don't understand what is your problem, I gave you a link to quran with easily navigated categories on the side so you can see that islam is highly mysoginistic, homophobic, violent, immoral, anti-scientific and bizarre.
LOL, you're an idiot, try to address specific statements and arguments, not brainfart psych and terminological gibberish.
"And like Theodore Gorath said, the actions of a few radicals don't determine the nature of the religion as a whole."
google "useful idiot" because that's what you are.
when a muslim student posted a twitter saying he doesn't agree with everything Mohammed said immediately dozens of thousands of people joined facebook page asking for his death.
when indonesian clerk posted on internet that there is no god, he was almost killed by a mob and is now sentenced to 2.5 years in prison.
These are not radicals, from top to bottom they demonstrate characteristics which I listed above in every single muslim country and in every country in which muslim population exceeds certain percentage or density in a certain area.
Beliefs inform actions and they get their beliefs from quran. It was not tamed like christianity was so nowadays most christians ignore what's in the bible.
It is disgusting and irresponsible to pretend otherwise.
Show that you can think for yourself and be rational, and then we'll talk. Keep citing your personal scriptures, repeating your mantras, and expressing your bigotry and you'll continue to get the contempt and derision you deserve.
wtf are you even talking about??what personal scriptures, what mantras, what bigotry??
what does that even have to do with anything I said and linked here?
Jesus imaginary christ on a pogo stick!
The arms dealer comparison is specious (a battle of ideas is intrinsically a good thing - it helps you identify any problems or weaknesses in your ideas and arrive at the best solution; a battle with bullets is nearly always bad), and I don't follow the logic of this:
Anyway, for everyone bemoaning the fact that petitions are "armchair activism" and diluting activist impact, I think you're patently wrong. I don't know anyone who signs online petitions instead of marching in the streets, occupying spaces, boycotting products or vendors, etc. I know people who sign online petitions instead of nothing, and I know people who sign online petitions in addition to other forms of activism. Too, there are any number of companies, government officials, etc. who have bowed to public pressure enacted through online petitions. This sounds like the same kind of, "New technology is ruining everything!" reaction we see all the time. I don't think the claim is any more credible this time around, as demonstrated by the real-world impacts of countless petitions.
These commentaries seem like they're coming out of protected bubbles, where the speaker is surrounded entirely by like-minded people, similar to me before the results of our recent recall election in WI. See, in our recall, we had a lot of people who actually dislike our governor vote for him because they objected to the recall process itself, and a lot more people who will be harmed by him not vote at all because they simply want nothing to do with politics. The seriously-politically-engaged are almost certainly a minority. Making things like consciousness-raising and public-pressure-levying petitions available to more people is not a blow to democracy, it's a boon; the same goes for Progressivism. In fact, Change.org's argument that expanding access to as many people as possible is an intrinsic good is the same logic used for get-out-the-vote efforts, and the benefit to Progressives is the same, too; while voting drives almost always claim to be non-partisan, we all know that the more people vote, the better Progressive and populist causes tend to do.
Finally, casting Change.org as some sort of Conservative (or anti-Progressive) consulting agency is disingenuous on the part of the Americablog writer. They're not Frank Luntz, as made evident by the fact that they dropped Right-wing clients in response to pressure from their user base. I don't usually play the realist part in debates, but I apparently have to this time, because half of y'all seem to be looking at this from a perspective not grounded in the reality of contemporary USA culture. Yes, this is neo-Liberalism, and yes, neo-Liberalism is predicated on a number of faulty premises. Unfortunately, we're sort of stuck with neo-Liberal companies (including every 'non-profit' - in scare quotes because, while the corporation itself is held to not making profits in a number of ways, it's possible for individuals working for non-profit groups to rake in plenty of money as payment for their labor, and the groups that are part of the charity-industrial complex are especially bad - activist organization ever) as a primary vehicle for effective activism due to present cultural features, including legal privilege for corporate entities and a globalized, largely-deregulated market economy. I'm a big fan of direct action, but I also think that ignoring effective tools at one's disposal because of a desire for some sort of ideological purity is absurd. The most effective movements are those that work both within and without the institutionalized systems of power.
There, I gave you a source with an easily navigable interface so you can look up the stuff proving my assertion.
You're not much of a scientist, nor are you remotely rational.
Not really. Let's take imperialist and leave anti-muslim aside for now. There's a fertile line of academic debate, from a Marxist/anti-capitalist point of view that the U.S. practices cultural imperialism, initially exporting things like coke and jeans and reaping profits, but also through world military dominance, influencing other countries economies through the WTO, the World Bank, and the UN.
I'm not saying I agree with all of the criticism, but you can't dismiss this as a "thing of the past", nor does the anti-capitalist critique necessarily endorse repressive regimes. Many of the protesters at G8 and G20, for example, or those critical of NAFTA, see the US as propping up oppressive/violent regimes such as Saudia Arabia, Colombia (for a time), MX (depending on your world view), while selectively intervening in other countries' politics based on self-interest (Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya but not Syria, Bahrain or Yemen).
It's pretty hard to argue that, at an international level, the US is a big fuzzy teddy bearer of human rights and freedom of expression. And neoliberalism has some responsibility for that.