After years of following and sharing your writing, this is the first time I've felt that your analysis was a bit reductive and short-sighted. The element that most concerns me is your conveyed attitude and assumptions about masking.
Framing the wearing of masks in public gatherings as a lack of courage and a moral failure is a very strong assertion about the character and motives of quite a lot of people. You mention that "some" organizers wear masks for the reasons that you denounce as un-heroic, but you omitted that other organizers may have very valid reasons to mask. You also gave zero reasons to not mask, nor any basis for your statements about the inherent morality of face exposure. You may have written about the persuasive potential of a visible face at other times, but not supporting those statements here makes the post unsharable for me.
It feels like the wearing of masks was excessively centered here. You describe the organizers as masked, when the person being interviewed didn't have a mask on, and several other organizers didn't have masks on. And again, the focus on masks seems off-message. If the people who followed him while holding signs and not answering questions had not been masking, would it not have been harassment?
What concerns me most here is that you exclusively represented the wearing of surgical masks as tools to hide one's identity. At no point did you even acknowledge that the masks being worn were PPE, and not a bandana tied over their faces like a cartoon bandit. Equating all masks with an intent to hide, as if there is no valid or honest purpose for covering your face, is a pre-judgement that is deeply alienating and downright harmful to people like me.
Perhaps you meant to acknowledge that ill, immunocompromised and religious organizers would have very valid reasons to cover their face, but forgot to include that. It would have been worth stating that those people exist, that it's good for us to have our faces covered, and that we deserve to be in public spaces, and even included in protests. Perhaps you meant to acknowledge that protecting yourself against Covid when you're spending the day surrounded by densely packed crowds is a very reasonable thing for anyone to do.
Not acknowledging those realities perpetuates the prejudice that we have to deal with. People with medical and religious reasons to cover our faces exist, and we don't have to give up our faith or our health to be heroic. Please don't spread negative attitudes or encourage pre-judgement based on the things we have to wear.
Hi Erin, thanks for your thoughtful response. You're right. There's a huge difference between wearing PPE for medical reasons and wearing it to conceal your identity. And in this case I don't have proof one way or the other. I will add that caveat to the article to clarify. I've recently noticed an uptick in non-PPE mask-wearing in general at protests, especially on college campuses, and I may have conflated the occurrences out of concern about the message it sends to the public. I sympathize with the fear of reprisals, but part of civil disobedience is being willing to suffer the consequences of your actions as a way demonstrating the moral corruption of the regime.
There might also be some conflation between civil disobedience and nonviolent protest, such as organized events of public dissent. I was confused, but now that i know what else you were thinking of while writing, it makes more sense.
Large-scale marches, like the one in this video, are arranged with permits and the cooperation of the law, including police. While the civility may have been lacking in these interactions, there is no disobedience present. When attendees are expected to stay nonviolent and law-abiding, it's just public speech, and not civil disobedience.
Personally, I don't see civil disobedience as an ideal tool for distributing messaging or for mass persuasion. The inherently fraught nature inhibits that feeling of safety that's required for us to open up to new ideas. Valuable and worthwhile, yes, (at least to me) but for communication, it's an unpredictable medium at best.
It's very understandable that the permitted marches and non-permitted acts of civil disobedience might blend together in the mind during these intense times. I look forward to your thoughts on where personal persuasion fits into public action.
You're right. There is usually a distinction between civil disobedience and permitted protest. I brought it up in this context because I think many people fear government repression in response to their actions. When that happens, simple public actions like protests become civil disobedience. Hence, the conflation.
The person was clearly trolling. Have you been part of these protests? Anyone covering their faces was being aggressive or destructive? If we wanted to talk about masked people we could talk about those kidnapping working people and making their lives hell.
Hi Miguel, you’re right. Apologies. I should have answered your questions before posing my own. I have been to protests in the past, but not recently because of medical issues. Instead, I try to spend those days getting the message out by talking with voters about the protests and why they’re important. As for whether there’s been any aggression or destruction at the protests, to my knowledge the answer is no, which is terrific and, really, to be expected. Is there anything else you want to know?
If I may, why is it the furthest left protests are always assigned to represent the Democrats as a whole?
Trump has literally dined with Nick Fuentes and said every heinous thing imaginable but not one swing voter cared
Why is there such a double standard in political media on this? I say this as someone who’s been around those types of protestors and most didn’t vote at all cause of Gaza but we get stuck with them as our main image
Hi Andy, thanks for your question. The answer is complicated. From a psychological perspective, a lot of it comes down to cognitive bandwidth. Our brains, with their limited capacity, just aren't very good at nuance. We resort to all kinds of mental shortcuts to think about the world, dividing it in to simple binaries: right vs. left, good vs. bad, democratic vs. authoritarian. The reality, of course, is that everything exists on a spectrum, but you'd never know it from the way we talk. As for the media, it worsens this binary by focusing on the most extreme (aka attention-grabbing) events and ideas. No one is going to turn on the news to hear about another liberal protest unless there's something novel about it. Unfortunately, that novel thing is often bad news for our image.
What does all this mean for organizers and activists? We need to be very disciplined in our strategy and messaging. We must be fresh and interesting enough to capture the media's attention while simultaneously winning and maintaining the public's sympathy. It's a very difficult needle to thread, which explains why truly successful social movements are so rare. If it were easy to do, everyone would do it.
My biggest concern right now is that humans are inherently social/gossipy creatures that tune into social issues like trans people in women’s sports more so than tax policy etc…algorithms then send those to the top of peoples social media feeds. I think the right had the more timely issue with trans people in womens sports vs the left’s of just racism. I’m not sure how the left can force social issues into a click bait world that appeal to the center right now.
Interestingly watching the right now, there is heavy talk about the Blake Lively scandal and basically using her to be a representative of the left. If the left defends her then we’re accused of being “too focused with celebrities” and then if we don’t the image of us being like her sticks. How do we get around that kinda thing?
Hi Andy, there is a concept originally from psychoanalysis called "transference." It refers to patients' tendency to redirect feelings they had for important figures in their lives (like parents) toward the therapist. As therapists, we take advantage of this tendency to help build a strong alliance with our clients and then assist them in resolving long-term emotional issues.
Regarding politics, transference is also a vital force. When we enter a political conversation with someone, they inevitably "transfer" onto us their feelings toward the most salient political figures in their lives. If they disagree with us, they respond to us emotionally as if we are a stereotypical "libtard," perhaps AOC or Rachel Maddow.
The key to solving the problem you identify is how we respond when that transference happens. Instead of focusing on issues, we must change the other person's feelings toward us. When their feelings toward us change, their feelings about the left change, too.
Ultimately, it all comes down to earning the other person's trust. If we can gain their trust, their attitudes toward us will inevitably change and, ideally, we will become their stereotypical idea of who a Democrat (or liberal or progressive or whatever) is, rather than the person they dislike so much now.
Locke Peterseim has recently written about my Trust Pyramid and what it takes to have a conversation that changes the way Republicans think. Here's the article. Hope it's helpful.
How is that surprising? Young far left protesters are absolutely repellent to everyone except themselves. They're loud, obnoxious, authoritarian, and unbelievably sanctimonious. The right has all the motivation in the world to plaster the internet with these idiots. They're doing wildly more damage to their cause than they are helping it, yet they're totally blind to this. These sorts of people are staples for right wing rage bait shows.
Democrats would absolutely love for everyone to think of the buffalo horn lunatic when they think 'Trump supporter' and not the old grandfatherly guy down the street who will mow your lawn if your mower breaks down (but happens to be politically stupid).
These far left jackasses really are fueling MAGA, but they're so damn far up their own asses that they'll continue their insufferable childish crap until they've driven every normie possible into the arms of MAGA simply by being irritating and smug.
Hi 40belowzero, thanks for responding. My sense is that the organizers of the 50501 marches are fairly moderate and mostly middle-aged. Can you tell me more about where you're coming from on this?
A good rule of thumb is that if the other side constantly wants to show footage of your side's protests and your side's social media video clips, then your activists suck and they're hurting their cause. There are scores of online right wing shows that air clips of far left protests and activists. You can watch them all over Substack as well.
I've never voted for a republican in my life--only straight ticket dem, except I sat out 2022--and I have doorknocked, caucused, phonebanked, a donated to democrats and liberal causes my entire life....but these woke left progressives who are incapable of good faith discussion with anyone who doesn't subscribe to their entire doctrine are embarrassing and it's unfortunate that democrats are associated with them.
I hear you. There's a fair amount of fodder out there for both sides to make a mockery of each other. Trolling MAGA is basically what's kept Jordan Klepper busy for the last four years, right? As you say, not being able to hold a discussion with anyone who doesn't already agree is deeply problematic. If you don't want to have those discussions, fine, just don't hold yourself out as a representative of the movement. We need people who can speak eloquently and persuasively about why change is needed. Otherwise we're just preaching to the choir and that never accomplished anything.
Yes. That's it. We should never call out bad behavior from our own side, lest we be accused of really being on the other side.
I hate Trump. I voted Harris. I hate that my only option is to support a party that can't beat a corrupt, narcissistic, authoritarian buffoon. I want democrats to win. The idiots in the video clip aren't helping anyone win anything.
I’ll ask you then though, do you think the radical left hasn’t always been on the Dem’s side? Campus protestors have been a major thing since the 60s. Why is it bigger now?
We can’t stop them no matter what and a lot of them are not even voters
I'm not equipped to say anything about radical left protests in the 60s. I can say that there is a concerted effort by the right to link the obnoxious far left with democrats. A few democrats have embraced these people, but most elected democrats at least seem to fear them. A small number are doing what I think is correct and actively distancing themselves from the far left, particularly the cultural far left. Even when their ideas have some kernel of merit, they are so awful at making a case for those ideas that they drive people to MAGA.
If they were just immature loudmouths who can't have good faith discussions, I'd ignore them. Unfortunately, unless the democratic party actively distances from them, they will continue to be an electoral liability for democrats. I don't want woke crazies driving the discussion and I don't want MAGA tearing our Contitution and civil society to shreds. Is it too much to ask to have a few smart, sensible people in the room?
Hi Irene, thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. It sounds like you’ve had a lot of bad experiences with trolling in the past. Can you tell me more about that? If you could share the context and describe what the trolls did, maybe I could better understand where you’re coming from.
I’m not building anything with people who voted for and support this administration, because of what they stand for is intolerance and hate for Americans who aren’t them. I’m not going to tolerate white nationalists and I don’t want to “understand” them.
I understand how hard it is to do any of the things Karin is suggesting, but here is one perspective I'd like to offer. Just as the left has a range of people from open to closed-minded, so too does the right. I know because I talk with them. They are also stuck in the dichotomy of only two options, Democrats and Republicans. Being human with them, as you probably do at the grocery store, is a start.
After years of following and sharing your writing, this is the first time I've felt that your analysis was a bit reductive and short-sighted. The element that most concerns me is your conveyed attitude and assumptions about masking.
Framing the wearing of masks in public gatherings as a lack of courage and a moral failure is a very strong assertion about the character and motives of quite a lot of people. You mention that "some" organizers wear masks for the reasons that you denounce as un-heroic, but you omitted that other organizers may have very valid reasons to mask. You also gave zero reasons to not mask, nor any basis for your statements about the inherent morality of face exposure. You may have written about the persuasive potential of a visible face at other times, but not supporting those statements here makes the post unsharable for me.
It feels like the wearing of masks was excessively centered here. You describe the organizers as masked, when the person being interviewed didn't have a mask on, and several other organizers didn't have masks on. And again, the focus on masks seems off-message. If the people who followed him while holding signs and not answering questions had not been masking, would it not have been harassment?
What concerns me most here is that you exclusively represented the wearing of surgical masks as tools to hide one's identity. At no point did you even acknowledge that the masks being worn were PPE, and not a bandana tied over their faces like a cartoon bandit. Equating all masks with an intent to hide, as if there is no valid or honest purpose for covering your face, is a pre-judgement that is deeply alienating and downright harmful to people like me.
Perhaps you meant to acknowledge that ill, immunocompromised and religious organizers would have very valid reasons to cover their face, but forgot to include that. It would have been worth stating that those people exist, that it's good for us to have our faces covered, and that we deserve to be in public spaces, and even included in protests. Perhaps you meant to acknowledge that protecting yourself against Covid when you're spending the day surrounded by densely packed crowds is a very reasonable thing for anyone to do.
Not acknowledging those realities perpetuates the prejudice that we have to deal with. People with medical and religious reasons to cover our faces exist, and we don't have to give up our faith or our health to be heroic. Please don't spread negative attitudes or encourage pre-judgement based on the things we have to wear.
Hi Erin, thanks for your thoughtful response. You're right. There's a huge difference between wearing PPE for medical reasons and wearing it to conceal your identity. And in this case I don't have proof one way or the other. I will add that caveat to the article to clarify. I've recently noticed an uptick in non-PPE mask-wearing in general at protests, especially on college campuses, and I may have conflated the occurrences out of concern about the message it sends to the public. I sympathize with the fear of reprisals, but part of civil disobedience is being willing to suffer the consequences of your actions as a way demonstrating the moral corruption of the regime.
Thank you for clarifying your article.
There might also be some conflation between civil disobedience and nonviolent protest, such as organized events of public dissent. I was confused, but now that i know what else you were thinking of while writing, it makes more sense.
Large-scale marches, like the one in this video, are arranged with permits and the cooperation of the law, including police. While the civility may have been lacking in these interactions, there is no disobedience present. When attendees are expected to stay nonviolent and law-abiding, it's just public speech, and not civil disobedience.
Personally, I don't see civil disobedience as an ideal tool for distributing messaging or for mass persuasion. The inherently fraught nature inhibits that feeling of safety that's required for us to open up to new ideas. Valuable and worthwhile, yes, (at least to me) but for communication, it's an unpredictable medium at best.
It's very understandable that the permitted marches and non-permitted acts of civil disobedience might blend together in the mind during these intense times. I look forward to your thoughts on where personal persuasion fits into public action.
You're right. There is usually a distinction between civil disobedience and permitted protest. I brought it up in this context because I think many people fear government repression in response to their actions. When that happens, simple public actions like protests become civil disobedience. Hence, the conflation.
Brilliant analysis, Karin!
The person was clearly trolling. Have you been part of these protests? Anyone covering their faces was being aggressive or destructive? If we wanted to talk about masked people we could talk about those kidnapping working people and making their lives hell.
Hi Miguel, thanks for taking the time to respond. I suspect different people have different definitions of trolling. What’s yours?
Clearly you don’t like answering questions, just making them. You acting like a troll. No need to reply as I won’t waste any more words with you.
Hi Miguel, you’re right. Apologies. I should have answered your questions before posing my own. I have been to protests in the past, but not recently because of medical issues. Instead, I try to spend those days getting the message out by talking with voters about the protests and why they’re important. As for whether there’s been any aggression or destruction at the protests, to my knowledge the answer is no, which is terrific and, really, to be expected. Is there anything else you want to know?
If I may, why is it the furthest left protests are always assigned to represent the Democrats as a whole?
Trump has literally dined with Nick Fuentes and said every heinous thing imaginable but not one swing voter cared
Why is there such a double standard in political media on this? I say this as someone who’s been around those types of protestors and most didn’t vote at all cause of Gaza but we get stuck with them as our main image
Hi Andy, thanks for your question. The answer is complicated. From a psychological perspective, a lot of it comes down to cognitive bandwidth. Our brains, with their limited capacity, just aren't very good at nuance. We resort to all kinds of mental shortcuts to think about the world, dividing it in to simple binaries: right vs. left, good vs. bad, democratic vs. authoritarian. The reality, of course, is that everything exists on a spectrum, but you'd never know it from the way we talk. As for the media, it worsens this binary by focusing on the most extreme (aka attention-grabbing) events and ideas. No one is going to turn on the news to hear about another liberal protest unless there's something novel about it. Unfortunately, that novel thing is often bad news for our image.
What does all this mean for organizers and activists? We need to be very disciplined in our strategy and messaging. We must be fresh and interesting enough to capture the media's attention while simultaneously winning and maintaining the public's sympathy. It's a very difficult needle to thread, which explains why truly successful social movements are so rare. If it were easy to do, everyone would do it.
Thanks for thoughtful response!
My biggest concern right now is that humans are inherently social/gossipy creatures that tune into social issues like trans people in women’s sports more so than tax policy etc…algorithms then send those to the top of peoples social media feeds. I think the right had the more timely issue with trans people in womens sports vs the left’s of just racism. I’m not sure how the left can force social issues into a click bait world that appeal to the center right now.
Interestingly watching the right now, there is heavy talk about the Blake Lively scandal and basically using her to be a representative of the left. If the left defends her then we’re accused of being “too focused with celebrities” and then if we don’t the image of us being like her sticks. How do we get around that kinda thing?
Hi Andy, there is a concept originally from psychoanalysis called "transference." It refers to patients' tendency to redirect feelings they had for important figures in their lives (like parents) toward the therapist. As therapists, we take advantage of this tendency to help build a strong alliance with our clients and then assist them in resolving long-term emotional issues.
Regarding politics, transference is also a vital force. When we enter a political conversation with someone, they inevitably "transfer" onto us their feelings toward the most salient political figures in their lives. If they disagree with us, they respond to us emotionally as if we are a stereotypical "libtard," perhaps AOC or Rachel Maddow.
The key to solving the problem you identify is how we respond when that transference happens. Instead of focusing on issues, we must change the other person's feelings toward us. When their feelings toward us change, their feelings about the left change, too.
Ultimately, it all comes down to earning the other person's trust. If we can gain their trust, their attitudes toward us will inevitably change and, ideally, we will become their stereotypical idea of who a Democrat (or liberal or progressive or whatever) is, rather than the person they dislike so much now.
Locke Peterseim has recently written about my Trust Pyramid and what it takes to have a conversation that changes the way Republicans think. Here's the article. Hope it's helpful.
https://karintamerius.substack.com/p/the-smart-politics-toolbox
Thanks! That’s insightful!
I’ll add too for me it’s often that appeal to logic is my normal way of convincing (like at work etc..). so that’s really helpful 🙂
How is that surprising? Young far left protesters are absolutely repellent to everyone except themselves. They're loud, obnoxious, authoritarian, and unbelievably sanctimonious. The right has all the motivation in the world to plaster the internet with these idiots. They're doing wildly more damage to their cause than they are helping it, yet they're totally blind to this. These sorts of people are staples for right wing rage bait shows.
Democrats would absolutely love for everyone to think of the buffalo horn lunatic when they think 'Trump supporter' and not the old grandfatherly guy down the street who will mow your lawn if your mower breaks down (but happens to be politically stupid).
These far left jackasses really are fueling MAGA, but they're so damn far up their own asses that they'll continue their insufferable childish crap until they've driven every normie possible into the arms of MAGA simply by being irritating and smug.
Hi 40belowzero, thanks for responding. My sense is that the organizers of the 50501 marches are fairly moderate and mostly middle-aged. Can you tell me more about where you're coming from on this?
A good rule of thumb is that if the other side constantly wants to show footage of your side's protests and your side's social media video clips, then your activists suck and they're hurting their cause. There are scores of online right wing shows that air clips of far left protests and activists. You can watch them all over Substack as well.
I've never voted for a republican in my life--only straight ticket dem, except I sat out 2022--and I have doorknocked, caucused, phonebanked, a donated to democrats and liberal causes my entire life....but these woke left progressives who are incapable of good faith discussion with anyone who doesn't subscribe to their entire doctrine are embarrassing and it's unfortunate that democrats are associated with them.
I hear you. There's a fair amount of fodder out there for both sides to make a mockery of each other. Trolling MAGA is basically what's kept Jordan Klepper busy for the last four years, right? As you say, not being able to hold a discussion with anyone who doesn't already agree is deeply problematic. If you don't want to have those discussions, fine, just don't hold yourself out as a representative of the movement. We need people who can speak eloquently and persuasively about why change is needed. Otherwise we're just preaching to the choir and that never accomplished anything.
You’re very obviously right wing and your opinion on this is completely irrelevant
Yes. That's it. We should never call out bad behavior from our own side, lest we be accused of really being on the other side.
I hate Trump. I voted Harris. I hate that my only option is to support a party that can't beat a corrupt, narcissistic, authoritarian buffoon. I want democrats to win. The idiots in the video clip aren't helping anyone win anything.
I’ll ask you then though, do you think the radical left hasn’t always been on the Dem’s side? Campus protestors have been a major thing since the 60s. Why is it bigger now?
We can’t stop them no matter what and a lot of them are not even voters
I'm not equipped to say anything about radical left protests in the 60s. I can say that there is a concerted effort by the right to link the obnoxious far left with democrats. A few democrats have embraced these people, but most elected democrats at least seem to fear them. A small number are doing what I think is correct and actively distancing themselves from the far left, particularly the cultural far left. Even when their ideas have some kernel of merit, they are so awful at making a case for those ideas that they drive people to MAGA.
If they were just immature loudmouths who can't have good faith discussions, I'd ignore them. Unfortunately, unless the democratic party actively distances from them, they will continue to be an electoral liability for democrats. I don't want woke crazies driving the discussion and I don't want MAGA tearing our Contitution and civil society to shreds. Is it too much to ask to have a few smart, sensible people in the room?
Bull. This piece wasn't worth reading. Sick of putting up with trolls.
Hi Irene, thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. It sounds like you’ve had a lot of bad experiences with trolling in the past. Can you tell me more about that? If you could share the context and describe what the trolls did, maybe I could better understand where you’re coming from.
You aren't helping.
I’m not building anything with people who voted for and support this administration, because of what they stand for is intolerance and hate for Americans who aren’t them. I’m not going to tolerate white nationalists and I don’t want to “understand” them.
I understand how hard it is to do any of the things Karin is suggesting, but here is one perspective I'd like to offer. Just as the left has a range of people from open to closed-minded, so too does the right. I know because I talk with them. They are also stuck in the dichotomy of only two options, Democrats and Republicans. Being human with them, as you probably do at the grocery store, is a start.