Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, June 20, 2012
Politics Not the Change You Believed In
Posted by Dan Savage on Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:42 PM
Change.org isn't what it seems.
There's a rather large brouhaha growing over the fact that unbeknownst to a lot of progressives, Change.org—a site a lot of folks on the left use to build free petitions—is actually a for-profit consulting firm whose clients include some rather nasty conservative causes, including anti-union and anti-teacher clients.
And it gets worse.
2
Oh my god! The inevitable comments from some anonymous troll are probably going to be right! This totally proves the invalidity of all leftist causes.
3
rather large brouhaha growing rather large brouhaha growing rather large brouhaha growing rather large brouhaha growing
4
Uh, sorry, but duh. Change.org never claimed to be a site that promotes progressive causes, It's just a petition site. The founder has said so in interviews like this one on The Daily Show:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-ap…
People hear a name like "change" and believe what they want to believe I guess.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-ap…
People hear a name like "change" and believe what they want to believe I guess.
6
".org" strongly implies non-profit. If they wanted to be a for-profit org, they should have gone with a .com name like everybody else. If this post is accurate, they're misrepresenting big time in this respect. I've gone there in the past for stuff, but I won't be going there again.
7
Understand,too, that if you sign some of the petitions at Change.org, you sign up as part of Michelle - I taped my students mouths shut - Rhee and her astro-turf group, StudentsFirst and Stand for Children, an ed reform group.
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.
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.
8
Well, online petitions are a stupid bullshit platitude anyway. If armchair progressives have to stop using change.org, maybe they'll do something tangible instead. One can hope. Fuck online petitions, go start an initiative drive, or charity, or help a campaign, instead of just clicking "Me Too" on a web page that no one that matters will ever see.
9
@6 Nobody gives a shit if an .org is for-profit, any more than if a for-profit radio station was in the low 90s on the dial. Not even PIR, who runs it these days.
If they did, they wouldn't allow you to sign up for .com, .net, .org, and so on all at the same time.
If they did, they wouldn't allow you to sign up for .com, .net, .org, and so on all at the same time.
10
Like 8, I've never understood why anyone thinks someone gives half a wet orzo about an online petition. You care so deeply you'll click? Just like for watching Muppet videos on YouTube, and links to xkcd cartoons? That's why when people ask you to pressure your senator, they always tell you to write or call.
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.
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.
11
Thank you for letting me know Dan, my support of them is now revoked and yes, I thought .org meant not for profit, my bad!
12
First, in its infancy change.org appeared to be trying to be more than just an online petition site.
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).
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).
13
Well, Danny bum boy, we know what word you use to describe gays who don't follow you politically, mind divulging your secret word for blacks who disagree with you?
14
Back in the dark ages of the internet, there were rules about .com, .net and .org, and .org was reserved for non-profits. Let's say before '95. Apparently another area of the internet that went to hell once opened to the masses.
They fooled me using .org, but no more.
They fooled me using .org, but no more.
15
@13 Ban. Known troll.
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.
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.
16
Also, good one with the "anti-muslim" idiocy.
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.
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.
18
Thank you, Dan Savage. At least when you are not doling out your excellent brand of relationship advice or hilariously mocking assholes like Li'l Ricky S, you are one of the few people with posting privileges here who supplies us with accurate and useful information.
I, for one, appreciate it. Thank you, once again.
I, for one, appreciate it. Thank you, once again.
19
@16: Please cite your sources showing that Islam is "pro-violence, pro-death, anti-women, anti-gay, anti-science, anti-democracy, anti-human rights and anti-reason".
20
@ 19, isn't it interesting that Islam is guilty of all that, yet millions of non-Muslims living in Muslim nations AREN'T beheaded? Or that Europe's problems have nothing to do with the fact that they DON'T try to integrate immigrants like we do in America?
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.
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.
21
Unfortunately, the "anti-imperialist" and "anti-muslim" argument is an echo of postmodern, relativism mumbo jumbo. This wacky-left argument often argues that human rights are a "western" notion, so westerners need to tolerate intolerance and opression. Maybe foreigns like being massacred by (conventienly western-sponsored) despots? We can't ask them, of course, because, conveniently, freedom of expression is not part of their culture. Asking them what they think would be oppression! In order to know what they really want, we have to ask the people oppressing them! That's how we respect their culture.
22
@16: You would do well to realize that just because there are many high profile religious leaders in the Islamic world who are anti-reason/science/democracy/etc., this does not mean the religion itself is intrinsically that way, or its adherents are.
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.
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.
23
@19
sure, here is the source that islam is a psychotic death cult-
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/…
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...
sure, here is the source that islam is a psychotic death cult-
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/…
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...
24
@22
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.
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.
25
So the pro-Iraq invasion progressive Dan Savage is bothered that a company, supposedly representing themselves as a progressive organisation (despite them never having said so), are misrepresenting progressives as "Imperialist" and "anti-Muslim"?
Is this a joke?
Is this a joke?
26
@23: Whoa there cubby, that's not a citation. You basically just told me to look it up myself. Nah bro, you need to show me the proof itself.
And like Theodore Gorath said, the actions of a few radicals don't determine the nature of the religion as a whole.
And like Theodore Gorath said, the actions of a few radicals don't determine the nature of the religion as a whole.
27
@ 26, after looking through his comment history, it's clear that mattyx is a religious atheist - one for whom atheism is a faith instead of a rational position. Look through it, and you'll find both his mantras (in the form of repeating the same brief statements) and his scripture citations (the same handful of atheist books). His posts make me think of the hare krishnas.
28
@26
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.
@27
LOL, you're an idiot, try to address specific statements and arguments, not brainfart psych and terminological gibberish.
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.
@27
LOL, you're an idiot, try to address specific statements and arguments, not brainfart psych and terminological gibberish.
29
@26
"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.
"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.
30
@ 28, you've proven incapable of creating a cogent argument yourself, both here and in other discussions. You call opinions "science" just because they were written by scientists. And you repeat yourself whether the situation calls for it or not. It all adds up to nothing, so there's nothing for me to respond to.
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.
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.
31
@30
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!
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!
32
And we should stop using web server companies that host Republican clients, and stop using cell phone services that vend to Republicans, and... Really? This is fucking stupid. Change.org, while I find their use of the ".org" domain disingenuous, is a technology platform. We might as well foreswear internet access or the English language.
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.
More...
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:
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.
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.
33
@ 31, I already clearly identified all that. Go back and read all my posts again, and if you're still confused let me know.
34
@28: The moon is made of green cheese. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
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.
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.
35
@21 "Unfortunately, the "imperialist" and "anti-muslim" argument is an echo of postmodern, relativism mumbo jumbo. " (edited for ya)
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.
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.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
America Doesn't Care About Black People by Charles Mudede
-
SL Letter of the Day: Gonna Boil My Laptop After Answering This One by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Bigot Florist Files Countersuit by Dominic Holden
-
Slog Super Poll: Who Should Be Mayor? by Dominic Holden
-
America's Epidemic of Toddler-on-Toddler Gun Violence Continues by Goldy
-
Tim Burgess Quits the Mayor's Race by Dominic Holden
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (35) RSS