Do you think Advocacy Groups should stick to a single issue or expand when noticed?

[smitcompton]

Hi,

I have noticed that advocacy groups almost always expand their issues to include others that they deem also need help. For example, why does the gay coalition now include trans persons?. Why not put disabled people in there as well? I really see no advantage to this positioning. In fact usually when an issue is used as an injustice or right in some way, I'll agree with the initially positioning, but disagree with subsequent ones or add-ins. I am really distressed about Black Lives Matter. The targeting of the police shootings was, in my mind, a very effective message to all people. Now, you get the motto for all sorts of things that are not focused as well as the Police actions. Why also are black people and people of color now aligned? Are Mexicans people of color? The Italians and the Irish didn't feel as if they needed to band together to gain rights and respect. They spoke for their group only. I think single issue would work better. Your thoughts.

annette

 

[yssie]

Agree.

The more positions one tries to cram under one umbrella... There will be fewer people who agree with one entity's take on all those positions. And in my experience noone supports half a cause - either they support the entire cause, everything under the umbrella, or they take their support elsewhere!

I understand why it happens. But I agree about not agreeing with it. I don't object, exactly, I just think it's inevitably ineffective due to dilution of the primary issue(s) and elimination of potential support. One needs to look no further than the DNC for Exhibit A

 

[Karl_K]

I feel its fraud when funds donated for one issue are spent on other issues.

 

[LilAlex]

If you are offended by one social injustice, it's hard to not be offended by others, imo.

Bigotry and racism have (almost) never been super-selective in their targets so anti-bigotry "coalitions" (borrowing a word from above but I don't think it's a coalition) can push back on multiple fronts.

It's also a bit of a trap -- when inclusivity is your core value, it's hard to exclude other inclusivity agendas. I do think it is at least well-intentioned, even if the implementation can be hard to keep up with.

That said, I also think some of the inclusivity pioneers get way too hung up on attacking those who agree with their central premise but neglect or inartfully apply the newest rules. Let's focus on the bigots and not on the non-bigots who simply can't keep up with the ever-evolving nomenclature.

My minority has had the same name for millennia -- used as a slur or simply a descriptor. I don't care what you call us.