The Rise of Neotoddlerism: how society encourages activists to act like infants(gurwinder.blog)
gurwinder.blog
The Rise of Neotoddlerism: how society encourages activists to act like infants
https://www.gurwinder.blog/p/the-outrageous-rise-of-neotoddlerism
14 comments
Didn't Samuel L. Jackson hold board members hostage at his school, and among the members was MLK Sr.? And he wasn't even part of a radical movement like Fred Hampton and the Black Panthers.
If you watch a video of a debate between politicians in the last few years, you think the style of conversation is not significantly different than that in videos of debates from many decades ago?
If the article were trying to make a point about politicians instead of protestors that might be relevant.
FWIW though, politicians have only really gotten appreciably stupider in the US. They’re not great here in Canada but they never have been. Even as far-right politics have gained renewed prominence in Europe (notoriously not new), they’re not being carried by MTG-esque bozos.
This suggests that an analysis that blames a global phenomenon like social media is flawed.
FWIW though, politicians have only really gotten appreciably stupider in the US. They’re not great here in Canada but they never have been. Even as far-right politics have gained renewed prominence in Europe (notoriously not new), they’re not being carried by MTG-esque bozos.
This suggests that an analysis that blames a global phenomenon like social media is flawed.
Going for shock value (which leads to more media exposure) over peaceful protesting is new, you can’t ignore that. It is in fact the most valid point of this clearly conservative-biased article. Before, you were looking for people to sympathize with your plea and behave nicely as a consequence, today it’s all about getting more clicks and eyeballs and feeding outrage.
Black Panther Party famously brought guns to the California Statehouse in Sacramento: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6woXE-RPY7A and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party#Protest_at...
Do you really want to compare the Black Panthers to Just Stop Oil?
I don't have any numbers but pretty sure violent protests, attacking monuments and historic sites, or just doing extremely provocative stuff was the exception, not the norm? Of course there will be plenty of historical events, but I don't even remember the last pacific protest or sit-down I've seen recently. These days your local beekeepers association is resorting to these tactics, because it's the only thing that works in the social media era. Combine that with general restlessness in western societies, increased police violence, and here we are...
I don't have any numbers but pretty sure violent protests, attacking monuments and historic sites, or just doing extremely provocative stuff was the exception, not the norm? Of course there will be plenty of historical events, but I don't even remember the last pacific protest or sit-down I've seen recently. These days your local beekeepers association is resorting to these tactics, because it's the only thing that works in the social media era. Combine that with general restlessness in western societies, increased police violence, and here we are...
[deleted]
It’s a nice and pat explanation, but like I said, it’s ahistorical. Gen Z didn’t invent provocation. Flag burning at Vietnam War protests was deliberately shocking. May 1968 was not “behaving nicely”. The Stonewall Riots weren’t “behaving nicely”. The Boston Tea Party was not “behaving nicely”.
I think the suffragettes would like to have a word...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette_bombing_and_arso...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette_bombing_and_arso...
> The Civil Rights movement succeeded because it was guided by leaders who had clear, specific, and realistic goals, and were able to negotiate to achieve them. Since neotoddlers “organize” mostly on social media [...]
The author somehow skips the part where Civil Rights activists were criticized for the exact same reason in their time (i.e. disrupting the daily life of people).
There are many points to make about methods of protest, but this is just not a good analysis piece.
The author somehow skips the part where Civil Rights activists were criticized for the exact same reason in their time (i.e. disrupting the daily life of people).
There are many points to make about methods of protest, but this is just not a good analysis piece.
Yeah, that quote is just objectively false, and exemplifies Dr. King's words about white moderates in Letter from a Birmingham Jail:
“…that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action’; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a ‘more convenient season.’ ”
That does not make all civil disobedience well considered or justified. But it's important to recall that we delay and delay and delay justice, and then waggle our fingers when people realize that if justice were really to be given by talking politely it would have already happened.
“…that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action’; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a ‘more convenient season.’ ”
That does not make all civil disobedience well considered or justified. But it's important to recall that we delay and delay and delay justice, and then waggle our fingers when people realize that if justice were really to be given by talking politely it would have already happened.
Disruption without clear, specific and realistic goals is a distraction.
I think the point is that many modern protests are pure disruption without any redeeming characteristics.
I think the point is that many modern protests are pure disruption without any redeeming characteristics.
Ugh... this article is getting flagged because it's ironically written in the neo-toddler style that it condemns, but the topic itself is quite interesting and I think worthy of discussion.
That cluster B personality disorders seem to be having more "effect" on society than they used to is something I've noticed myself and the reasons for why this is the case are unclear.
That cluster B personality disorders seem to be having more "effect" on society than they used to is something I've noticed myself and the reasons for why this is the case are unclear.
It's not actually irony if there is no self awareness, and this article has none. The central term "neotoddler" is itself just an instance of throwing inflammatory trash into the discourse, hoping that it will strike some chord. And pigeonholing political movements as if they're entirely represented by their worst members is just the continued stoking of polarization us-vs-them. This communication/behavioral style is definitely a trend, but the article contributes little beyond being an example.
It's the ability for "loudmouth" types to broadcast their voice far and wide. Most online content is produced by a tiny minority of prolific posters, something like a Pareto distribution. There isn't the same structured approach we had for a long time with centralized media. This has both good and bad effects, but it's the new reality.
>That cluster B personality disorders seem to be having more "effect" on society than they used to
Well no, their nonsense premise is subtly different from this one in that they don't even aspire to misdiagnose the people engaging in nuisance protests.
Well no, their nonsense premise is subtly different from this one in that they don't even aspire to misdiagnose the people engaging in nuisance protests.
Counterpoint: protests are getting louder and more obnoxious because elected officials act in favor of special interests rather than their constituents preferences?
IME some of the constituents want terrible things. I think democracy actually works most of the time
It frustrates me how much this is creeping into local politics, and how counterproductive it is.
Just last night I attended a public meeting regarding a major infrastructure project to improve Lake Shore Drive in Chicago. The project was billed as “redefine the drive”, but over a 10 year period of planning and studies, the near-final proposal was whittled down to a series of incremental improvements to some of the major pain points along LSD. Actually a lot of good stuff.
Transit and anti-car activists in the city were understandably upset as each proposal that actually prioritized transit (e.g. adding dedicated bus lanes) were eliminated the further the project went. Why? For a list of reasons far too long to dive into here, but chief among them there are major practical issues because of the history of that corridor and the sheer impact of upending one of the most traveled roads in a large city. They have to please the Illinois DOT, Chicago DOT, Chicago Parks, various other departments, meet specific requirements to qualify for federal funding (without this, the project dies), etc. Bottom line: as much as I want LSD transformed into a transit corridor, I understand why this may never happen, and almost certainly won’t happen in one fell swoop.
But a subset (not all) of the activists were just there to shit on everything. I was in one group conversation where a woman kept telling one of the planners how terrible this was and how mad she was, but when pressed for specifics she couldn’t articulate why. This kind of activism is a pure distraction. It closes the minds of people making decisions and makes it harder to have substantive debates about the issue.
To be clear, I have major issues with how the project has unfolded and shared those concerns with project leadership. It felt like a good conversation and they thanked me for having a perspective I could articulate. I don’t have much optimism that the conversation will change this project, but I now have rapport with some of the city/state leaders.
With very few exceptions, going in screaming undermines whatever it is you’re supporting. Dialogue is all we have available to change people’s minds, and true change comes from shifting collective consciousness, not by screaming the loudest. This is not to say there’s no place for anger. Anger is a signal/fuel that drives us to action. But operating from that place of anger by definition puts you at a disadvantage. Rational conversations do not happen when rage is involved.
Just last night I attended a public meeting regarding a major infrastructure project to improve Lake Shore Drive in Chicago. The project was billed as “redefine the drive”, but over a 10 year period of planning and studies, the near-final proposal was whittled down to a series of incremental improvements to some of the major pain points along LSD. Actually a lot of good stuff.
Transit and anti-car activists in the city were understandably upset as each proposal that actually prioritized transit (e.g. adding dedicated bus lanes) were eliminated the further the project went. Why? For a list of reasons far too long to dive into here, but chief among them there are major practical issues because of the history of that corridor and the sheer impact of upending one of the most traveled roads in a large city. They have to please the Illinois DOT, Chicago DOT, Chicago Parks, various other departments, meet specific requirements to qualify for federal funding (without this, the project dies), etc. Bottom line: as much as I want LSD transformed into a transit corridor, I understand why this may never happen, and almost certainly won’t happen in one fell swoop.
But a subset (not all) of the activists were just there to shit on everything. I was in one group conversation where a woman kept telling one of the planners how terrible this was and how mad she was, but when pressed for specifics she couldn’t articulate why. This kind of activism is a pure distraction. It closes the minds of people making decisions and makes it harder to have substantive debates about the issue.
To be clear, I have major issues with how the project has unfolded and shared those concerns with project leadership. It felt like a good conversation and they thanked me for having a perspective I could articulate. I don’t have much optimism that the conversation will change this project, but I now have rapport with some of the city/state leaders.
With very few exceptions, going in screaming undermines whatever it is you’re supporting. Dialogue is all we have available to change people’s minds, and true change comes from shifting collective consciousness, not by screaming the loudest. This is not to say there’s no place for anger. Anger is a signal/fuel that drives us to action. But operating from that place of anger by definition puts you at a disadvantage. Rational conversations do not happen when rage is involved.
> I want LSD transformed into a transit corridor
How is this not already true? There are scores of Lake Shore Express buses every day on routes like the 134, 135, 136, 143, 146 and 147. The Lakefront Trail has a well-maintained, grade-separated bike path that runs the entire length, alongside a running path the same (and at place the bikes and runners are also grade-separated).
LSD is in need of many improvements, especially car-related ones, but to claim that it is not a transit corridor strikes me as disingenuous. It is more a "transit corridor" than perhaps anywhere else in the city
How is this not already true? There are scores of Lake Shore Express buses every day on routes like the 134, 135, 136, 143, 146 and 147. The Lakefront Trail has a well-maintained, grade-separated bike path that runs the entire length, alongside a running path the same (and at place the bikes and runners are also grade-separated).
LSD is in need of many improvements, especially car-related ones, but to claim that it is not a transit corridor strikes me as disingenuous. It is more a "transit corridor" than perhaps anywhere else in the city
> There are scores of Lake Shore Express buses every day on routes like the 134, 135, 136, 143, 146 and 147.
Yes, and during busy periods, it’s often impossible to get a bus because they’re stuck on the drive, and when you do get a bus, you sit with the rest of the congestion. Watching your incoming bus disappear from the bus tracker is a regular occurrence, and people regularly plan for 30-60 minute delays because it’s impossible to know if today is a 20 or a 60 minute trip. This is a significantly worse transit experience than areas of the city served by the L or even other inland bus routes.
Most of the early proposals for the project specifically focused on dedicated bus lanes with a goal to encourage more bus use by ensuring people can actually get buses and those buses can actually get from point A to B. The proposal they’re moving forward with makes incremental improvements but falls far short of the original goals and what many Chicagoans and their representatives have been pushing for.
> The Lakefront Trail has a well-maintained…
Yes, I ride it daily. There are numerous danger zones where accidents regularly occur due to mixed bike, pedestrian and vehicle traffic. In just the past two weeks, I’ve encountered three cars on the bike trail, and this happens regularly. Improving these zones is one of the major wins in the proposal. There are also major stretches that are just on the other side of a single guard rail, and riding those stretches involves breathing massive amounts of exhaust. Some of the improvements incrementally improve this, but there had been hopes that they’d reroute the trail in those area to improve safety. But there just isn’t enough space in many cases.
> but to claim that it is not a transit corridor strikes me as disingenuous
Maybe you misunderstood the comment? The project started with a goal of expanding public transit and improving safety for pedestrians and cyclists. Right now, LSD is a highway meant for cars that some buses run on. I live by the red line so I can get north/south easily. The same cannot be said for people living right on the lake.
This is a once in 100 years type of project, and was seen as an opportunity to revamp public transit along the lake. This is why they spent 10 years trying to figure out how to put bus lanes in, and it’s not because it’s currently a good option for buses. It’s also why people got really upset about the direction it’s going, and thus my original comment.
> It is more a "transit corridor" than perhaps anywhere else in the city
Do you live here and use public transit on LSD regularly? Because this is just demonstrably not true. Yes, there are some bus routes that use the drive. The effectiveness of those routes varies wildly, which is one of the driving reasons behind the project.
Yes, and during busy periods, it’s often impossible to get a bus because they’re stuck on the drive, and when you do get a bus, you sit with the rest of the congestion. Watching your incoming bus disappear from the bus tracker is a regular occurrence, and people regularly plan for 30-60 minute delays because it’s impossible to know if today is a 20 or a 60 minute trip. This is a significantly worse transit experience than areas of the city served by the L or even other inland bus routes.
Most of the early proposals for the project specifically focused on dedicated bus lanes with a goal to encourage more bus use by ensuring people can actually get buses and those buses can actually get from point A to B. The proposal they’re moving forward with makes incremental improvements but falls far short of the original goals and what many Chicagoans and their representatives have been pushing for.
> The Lakefront Trail has a well-maintained…
Yes, I ride it daily. There are numerous danger zones where accidents regularly occur due to mixed bike, pedestrian and vehicle traffic. In just the past two weeks, I’ve encountered three cars on the bike trail, and this happens regularly. Improving these zones is one of the major wins in the proposal. There are also major stretches that are just on the other side of a single guard rail, and riding those stretches involves breathing massive amounts of exhaust. Some of the improvements incrementally improve this, but there had been hopes that they’d reroute the trail in those area to improve safety. But there just isn’t enough space in many cases.
> but to claim that it is not a transit corridor strikes me as disingenuous
Maybe you misunderstood the comment? The project started with a goal of expanding public transit and improving safety for pedestrians and cyclists. Right now, LSD is a highway meant for cars that some buses run on. I live by the red line so I can get north/south easily. The same cannot be said for people living right on the lake.
This is a once in 100 years type of project, and was seen as an opportunity to revamp public transit along the lake. This is why they spent 10 years trying to figure out how to put bus lanes in, and it’s not because it’s currently a good option for buses. It’s also why people got really upset about the direction it’s going, and thus my original comment.
> It is more a "transit corridor" than perhaps anywhere else in the city
Do you live here and use public transit on LSD regularly? Because this is just demonstrably not true. Yes, there are some bus routes that use the drive. The effectiveness of those routes varies wildly, which is one of the driving reasons behind the project.
There are a few interesting points in here but it's really hard to get through when the author insists on saying "neotoddler" in ever other sentence.
Oversimplistic. The people and the physical world are complicated. Attempts to simply often fail in vain.
The uncommitted movement held a sustained, organized, peaceful protest and recently got a meeting with Harris. Failing to even acknowledge that is one of many issues that moves this piece from hackish to solidly bad faith. Every movement has factions, some more effective, some less. It's not a reason to diagnose your opponents with a personality disorder.
This article reads like ragebait and not as analysis.
To classify the anti-immigrant riots in the UK into the category of "nuisance protest" is disingenuous. These protests involved plenty of violence against random non-white individuals, arson attacks against homes and businesses as well as violent clashes against police. The Stop the Oil protests were misguided I believe but were purely protest of the "nuisance" sort - no violence was directed against police or members of the general public. I guess, at a stretch, spray painting could be considered violence against property.
The Just Stop Oil protests are modeled on the protests of British suffragettes. They also started as nuisances, and when that didn't work, proceeded to real violence: bombs, acid attacks, riots.
The movement was deeply divided about whether that did more good than harm. And there's really no way to know. But it's nonetheless true that women had been campaigning for decades, and got success not long after the violence started.
Violence is the worst tool in the protest toolbox. Especially since it is available to everyone, regardless of the merits of their cause, and in fact the worst causes are the first to use it. But it comes as no surprise that even the best causes eventually reach for that tool when every other one has failed.
The movement was deeply divided about whether that did more good than harm. And there's really no way to know. But it's nonetheless true that women had been campaigning for decades, and got success not long after the violence started.
Violence is the worst tool in the protest toolbox. Especially since it is available to everyone, regardless of the merits of their cause, and in fact the worst causes are the first to use it. But it comes as no surprise that even the best causes eventually reach for that tool when every other one has failed.
Is it really “society” encourages activists to act like infants? I don’t know any private people in my life that approve of infantile behavior from adults, much less encourage it.
We used to have a popular term called “nanny state” that fits well in this discussion.
Nanny state, infant subjects
We used to have a popular term called “nanny state” that fits well in this discussion.
Nanny state, infant subjects
You choose your circles and can be selective about who you let in. I've met plenty of adults some 50+ who reason worse than many 15 year olds.
I've seen this escalate in media for many years, where loud childish points are celebrated. One current example is how republicans are "weird", and repeated by everyone for the last week, and a talking point even in international media (I'm not from the US). That's the story I'm told about US elections, that democrats think republicans are weird.
And everything that catches our attention will be repeated since they see it working and this destructive cycle continues. The idiocracy is here.
I've seen this escalate in media for many years, where loud childish points are celebrated. One current example is how republicans are "weird", and repeated by everyone for the last week, and a talking point even in international media (I'm not from the US). That's the story I'm told about US elections, that democrats think republicans are weird.
And everything that catches our attention will be repeated since they see it working and this destructive cycle continues. The idiocracy is here.
Pretty sure this is entirely ahistorical.