Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Social change has to be slow?

jaaron

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jan 1, 2016
Messages
803
Discussion question.

This is something I've heard my whole life. Social change has to be slow. People advocating for change have to be patient, wait for the dominant culture to accept a slow march toward equality.

Do you believe this?

My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is, Why?

Why should people have to accept waiting for any kind of equality? Whether it's of religion, colour, ethnicity, gender, sexuality. To some extent, I can see why BLM protests could boil over into chaos and violence. I can see why people are taking statues down themselves. How many years is it acceptable for people to have to wait for the same rights and opportunities I have? And why should they have to?
 

kenny

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
28,874
Wrong is wrong.
You speak up to shine a light on what's wrong in a society.

It is good to expect what is wrong to be changed to what's right.
Why wait patiently and passively?
That's not fair to the oppressed groups.
 

missy

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
38,763
One has to be loud and persistent and strong. We must make our voices heard now.

The time is now.

There is no more convenient time for doing what’s right.

Now is the time.

The time is always right to do what is right.
 

voce

Ideal_Rock
Joined
May 13, 2018
Messages
3,974
Social change CAN be slow. It's historically been slow. That doesn't mean it HAS to be slow. It shouldn't be slow.

The speed really depends on what your meter is. Laws can get passed overnight. Over the course of a day, the Supreme Court can change how laws get interpreted and enforced.

But people who persist in their wrong beliefs and experiences won't change. So if you want racism to disappear because a law has been passed, the reality is that it's not going to go away so quickly.

While I believe social change can happen instantly, that's only for actions and opinions of people who are actually open to change. For the measurable EFFECTS of social change to catch up to the INTENDED RESULTS of social change, it'll take many years.
 

dk168

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
Messages
6,658
If one believes something is not right, one can act accordingly one's belief immediately without the influence from others.

One does not have to be a sheep that requires to be led. One can lead if one chooses to do so.

It is about having managerial courage, and having the confidence to strike out on one's own if required.

DK :))
 

the_mother_thing

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
6,224
Once something is determined to be ‘factually right’, there is a legal way to go about effecting desired change. Speaking out & creating awareness about an issue, peaceful demonstrations, having ‘a conversation’, run for office, and voting, are reasonable & legal options. Yes, those measures take time, but there is no constitutionally-guaranteed right to ‘instant gratification’.

Destroying others’ or public property, resorting to violence or intimidation tactics, etc., to force or compel change is not legal nor proper per our laws, nor do they contribute to a civil society. We are a nation of laws, and as we’ve heard repeatedly over the last 9 months, no one is above the law ... regardless of their ‘cause‘ or beliefs.
 

jaaron

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jan 1, 2016
Messages
803
Social change CAN be slow. It's historically been slow. That doesn't mean it HAS to be slow. It shouldn't be slow.

The speed really depends on what your meter is. Laws can get passed overnight. Over the course of a day, the Supreme Court can change how laws get interpreted and enforced.

But people who persist in their wrong beliefs and experiences won't change. So if you want racism to disappear because a law has been passed, the reality is that it's not going to go away so quickly.

While I believe social change can happen instantly, that's only for actions and opinions of people who are actually open to change. For the measurable EFFECTS of social change to catch up to the INTENDED RESULTS of social change, it'll take many years.
I don't necessarily disagree with you on that. There's only so far you can budge opinion in a time frame, but I guess I feel like opinion should have to catch up to equality rather than the opposite.
 

jaaron

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jan 1, 2016
Messages
803
Once something is determined to be ‘factually right’, there is a legal way to go about effecting desired change. Speaking out & creating awareness about an issue, peaceful demonstrations, having ‘a conversation’, run for office, and voting, are reasonable & legal options. Yes, those measures take time, but there is no constitutionally-guaranteed right to ‘instant gratification’.

Destroying others’ or public property, resorting to violence or intimidation tactics, etc., to force or compel change is not legal nor proper per our laws, nor do they contribute to a civil society. We are a nation of laws, and as we’ve heard repeatedly over the last 9 months, no one is above the law ... regardless of their ‘cause‘ or beliefs.
I think those are easy things to say when you're in the group for whom those tactics work. For example, there was an incident here in the UK where demonstrators threw a statue of a notorious slave trader (at least 20,000 people are have estimated to have died on his ships) into the river and there was much handwringing about how the removal of the statue was just, but people should have gone through proper channels. Well, people have been trying to get that statue removed through those official channels for a decade. Official channels were not working to affect change. How long should they wait?

And why should two men who want to get married have to wait until 2015 for that to be legal in the US? Why should their right to marry whoever they want have to be ruled on and 'granted' rather than just existing as mine does? Why should their right to do that have to be fought for and ruled on and given to them rather than just existing as a fundamental right as mine does?

Many inequalities are just plain wrong. Immoral, unethical, unacceptable. Wrong. Why should the people affected by those inequalities, not only accept them, but have to accept the fact that they might not see material change in their lifetimes?
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,806
I do not think that social change has to be slow. I also do not think that social change has to be effected by a group that is seeking social change, although there may be groups that have been seeking change for centuries. Sometimes an event that no one anticipated precipitates rapid social change. One example would be that durig World War II in the United States when the men were sent to war, the women went to work in the factories. The role of women in the workplace changed quickly during the years between 1941 and 1946.
 

voce

Ideal_Rock
Joined
May 13, 2018
Messages
3,974
I do not think that social change has to be slow. I also do not think that social change has to be effected by a group that is seeking social change, although there may be groups that have been seeking change for centuries. Sometimes an event that no one anticipated precipitates rapid social change. One example would be that durig World War II in the United States when the men were sent to war, the women went to work in the factories. The role of women in the workplace changed quickly during the years between 1941 and 1946.
I don't think that's a good example. Look how quickly things reverted in the 1950s.

A better example is WWI, where women fortuitously got the right to vote.
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,806
I don't think that's a good example. Look how quickly things reverted in the 1950s.

A better example is WWI, where women fortuitously got the right to vote.
It was not exactly fortuitous. A huge amount of work had been done preparing society for women's suffrage in decades before the war and so many men had been killed during the war (in Europe if not The United States) that it was known as The Lost Generation. Many women were unable to marry because there were so few men left alive after the war.
 

voce

Ideal_Rock
Joined
May 13, 2018
Messages
3,974
It was not exactly fortuitous. A huge amount of work had been done preparing society for women's suffrage in decades before the war and so many men had been killed during the war (in Europe if not The United States) that it was known as The Lost Generation. Many women were unable to marry because there were so few men left alive after the war.
Fortuitous in the sense that there were fewer men left who would oppose them. Do you really think that had everything gone fine and dandy, women would have gotten suffrage in 1918? Despite decades of hard work, anytime something like this is achieved, it's the collapse of opposition as much as how much hard work you put into it.
 

dk168

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
Messages
6,658
But what if one's believes are wrong? Like immediately punching someone in a face, taking someone's belongings or someone's life?
One has to ask if that person did what he/she did knowing it was wrong.

However, there may be circumstances when what would normally considered as wrong to be justifiable under mitigating circumstances.

All IMHO.

DK :))
 

Musia

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Mar 28, 2020
Messages
843
One has to be loud and persistent and strong. We must make our voices heard now.

The time is now.

There is no more convenient time for doing what’s right.

Now is the time.

The time is always right to do what is right.
Missy is this a right time for you to join this kind of peaceful protests? https://www.nationalreview.com/photos/new-york-city-hall-autonomous-zone/#slide-1 How do you want to act right now? Maybe organize a group in your own neighborhood or join the one already actively acting. How do you see you can make rapid changes in society, peoples' mentality or law? Stay on streets till your demands are met? Or ruin everything around? What if the other people are not ready for changes? Will they approve your actions or want positive changes in society if they disapprove the way you act? They will most likely actively oppose you, right?
 

the_mother_thing

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
6,224
@jaaron Every country is different - its government, laws, people, history/experiences, priorities, beliefs, progress, etc. If people keep re-electing the same people, and those elected officials don’t effect the desired/promised changes, voters should stop re-electing those same people, or do a better job of - peacefully - persuading enough other people to adopt their positions to get more people to vote their way. Violence/destruction does not persuade me, personally.

Each country has laws for a reason - largely to remain a civil society for all. That requires all people respect those laws - not “some”. How many times over the last 9 months did we (in the U.S.) hear “nobody is above the law”? Laws define how society should - at a minimum - behave, and provide for the general security of all. If there is no respect for others, their property and livelihood, why should they respect “yours”? Why should they adopt your beliefs? It’s a dangerous slippery slope that only short-sighted & narrow-minded people support. If one group breaks the law to make a point, why shouldn’t others do the same when it’s something they object to? For example, would you tolerate others breaking the law and causing you/your business personal distress/loss/ruin if their cause was not something you support? See the problem with this thinking?

You cited gay marriage in your example, but note that it became legal in the U.S. one year later than it was legal in the U.K. As a country, England is ~1,000 years old whereas the U.S. is <300 years old; so I would not say the U.S. as a whole is exactly slow to enact social change. Further to that point, why aren’t people converging on the Middle East in the tens of thousands and demanding change, rioting, protesting and destroying property there to fight for gay rights where little to none exist?
 

jaaron

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jan 1, 2016
Messages
803
@jaaron Every country is different - its government, laws, people, history/experiences, priorities, beliefs, progress, etc. If people keep re-electing the same people, and those elected officials don’t effect the desired/promised changes, voters should stop re-electing those same people, or do a better job of - peacefully - persuading enough other people to adopt their positions to get more people to vote their way. Violence/destruction does not persuade me, personally.

Each country has laws for a reason - largely to remain a civil society for all. That requires all people respect those laws - not “some”. How many times over the last 9 months did we (in the U.S.) hear “nobody is above the law”? Laws define how society should - at a minimum - behave, and provide for the general security of all. If there is no respect for others, their property and livelihood, why should they respect “yours”? Why should they adopt your beliefs? It’s a dangerous slippery slope that only short-sighted & narrow-minded people support. If one group breaks the law to make a point, why shouldn’t others do the same when it’s something they object to? For example, would you tolerate others breaking the law and causing you/your business personal distress/loss/ruin if their cause was not something you support? See the problem with this thinking?

You cited gay marriage in your example, but note that it became legal in the U.S. one year later than it was legal in the U.K. As a country, England is ~1,000 years old whereas the U.S. is <300 years old; so I would not say the U.S. as a whole is exactly slow to enact social change. Further to that point, why aren’t people converging on the Middle East in the tens of thousands and demanding change, rioting, protesting and destroying property there to fight for gay rights where little to none exist?
I am American, and also, although not practicing, a lawyer (almost a ls contemporary of a recent not-so-impressive Supreme Court nominee, in fact), so thanks for that little ABC primer on how laws work. And, although you won't get any argument from me that reform is desperately needed there, I'm not really interested in engaging in whataboutism on the Middle East.

But see, this

Why should they adopt your beliefs?

is case in point on why people are resorting to violence. When you cast the conversation as a question of belief, you're starting from a place that is fundamentally wrong. Why should people have to accept that their rights because of colour, ethnicity, religion, gender or sexuality are open to debate? A matter of belief rather than a given?

Violence/destruction does not persuade me, personally.

Right. People shouldn't have to persuade you, personally, that they're entitled to the exact same rights as you. They. Just. Are.
 

voce

Ideal_Rock
Joined
May 13, 2018
Messages
3,974
Missy is this a right time for you to join this kind of peaceful protests? https://www.nationalreview.com/photos/new-york-city-hall-autonomous-zone/#slide-1 How do you want to act right now? Maybe organize a group in your own neighborhood or join the one already actively acting. How do you see you can make rapid changes in society, peoples' mentality or law? Stay on streets till your demands are met? Or ruin everything around? What if the other people are not ready for changes? Will they approve your actions or want positive changes in society if they disapprove the way you act? They will most likely actively oppose you, right?
Missy is in favor of making sure people's voices get heard. I don't think that guarantees rapid social change, but if you don't protest, surely there will be people who believe the status quo is just fine as it is.

I am reminded of the book "Between Two Fires" written by Joshua Yaffa. I am worried that in the absence of outright protests, too many people will conform and become a prisposoblenets in their own way, compromising away their morals.

Here is an excerpt of a review from NPR.
1593804754102.png

I know protesting is on one end and compromising is on the other, but it's not that easy to decide where to walk in between, and most people are somewhere on the spectrum between protest and compromise. When you're trying to resist and combat the oppression (in Russia, the state; in America, both racism and poverty), I don't know that there's clearly a "right" or "wrong" way. Let people do what they think is right without passing judgement? Is that too much to ask for?
 

Matata

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
7,310
I no longer have enough lifespan left to patiently wait for social change on issues important to me but I'm all in for a social revolution.
 

voce

Ideal_Rock
Joined
May 13, 2018
Messages
3,974
I no longer have enough lifespan left to patiently wait for social change on issues important to me but I'm all in for a social revolution.
Yikes. I think "social revolution" is a very loaded term. I hope your comment was in jest.

You may be thinking of the "World Peace" and feminism movements that had emerged in the 1960s. I think America was very fortunate to have had JFK as a leader to navigate the country back then. To me, and to anybody else who permanently left China or the USSR, there is no such thing as mere "social" revolution; revolution is bloody and messy! Look at the French Revolution! The Russian Revolution? The Chinese Revolution?

The only revolution not violent was "The Glorious Revolution", but that was in its immediate time a political, not social, revolution.

Not to mention, right now the leader at the helm of American politics is Trump? I would not welcome revolution. Revolution is extreme in extent and unpredictable in terms of consequences. The concept of social revolution is tantamount to destruction to me.
 

Emerald City

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Jun 1, 2020
Messages
230
I am American, and also, although not practicing, a lawyer (almost a ls contemporary of a recent not-so-impressive Supreme Court nominee, in fact), so thanks for that little ABC primer on how laws work. And, although you won't get any argument from me that reform is desperately needed there, I'm not really interested in engaging in whataboutism on the Middle East.

But see, this

Why should they adopt your beliefs?

is case in point on why people are resorting to violence. When you cast the conversation as a question of belief, you're starting from a place that is fundamentally wrong. Why should people have to accept that their rights because of colour, ethnicity, religion, gender or sexuality are open to debate? A matter of belief rather than a given?

Violence/destruction does not persuade me, personally.

Right. People shouldn't have to persuade you, personally, that they're entitled to the exact same rights as you. They. Just. Are.
Your former profession is not something that is known to every PSer. I guess we're supposed to just know that you're a lawyer and refrain from expressing opinions and knowledge about laws in response to your posts.

It's frightening how people are advocating violence. Violent revolutions tend to eat their own, because the goalposts keep changing, and "Right Thought" for today suddenly becomes wrong. Violence begets violence.
 

voce

Ideal_Rock
Joined
May 13, 2018
Messages
3,974
It's frightening how people are advocating violence. Violent revolutions tend to eat their own, because the goalposts keep changing, and "Right Thought" for today suddenly becomes wrong. Violence begets violence.
I don't disagree with a single word there. Violence begets violence. Police brutality and violence led to violence from protesters. It IS scary. Where does the cycle end?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JrJ

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,806
You may be thinking of the "World Peace" and feminism movements that had emerged in the 1960s. I think America was very fortunate to have had JFK as a leader to navigate the country back then.
I was a child and in love with JFK when he was president, but I do not think we can credit him for an era of relative domestic tranquility in the United States. The memory of that innocent era right before all hell broke loose, makes me smile, though. Poor LBJ. He got the chants of "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" and and bumper stickers that said, "Where is Lee Harvey Oswald now that you really need him?".
 

Musia

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Mar 28, 2020
Messages
843
Let people do what they think is right without passing judgement? Is that too much to ask for?
Voce, I believe in peoples' right to protest, but they should do it peacefully. I am not passing judgement, I strongly disagree and oppose violence, hatred, ruining other people businesses or damaging public/private property. Is that too much for me to ask to be allowed to go to a city park with family, to sit on a patio of a restaurant, to drive through city streets without facing a danger of being pulled from my car and being beaten? What about my rights to live my life as I would like to? Or should I be suffering till protesters change laws and our society becomes almost perfect? How long should I wait till VIOLENT protests stop affecting my life in a negative way? I believe I have a right to either join peaceful protests or remain silent. Or participate in some other way if I want changes in society. Actually, I would LOVE to join peaceful protests right now, right after I finish my lunch. Do I have a right to believe that every human life matters, not only BLM? I would love to join marching people who believe in ELM!!! And make sure my voice is loud enough! But I won't ruin anything and I won't insult other citizens who have a right to live their daily life as they want to. If someone tells me now how to live, it is a type of tyranny, right?

I personally believe that I have a right to get food in a restaurant without being interrupted by mob, even if the mob is peaceful Are you going to join any protest soon @voce? Will you be happy if a mob blocks the entrance to your house or apartment and demands you to stay there for hours or join them right away? They are idle people without responsibilities if you ask my opinion. I can only devote 2-3 hours once a week honestly if I want to join peaceful protests and still be performing my duties as wife, mother and grandmother. 1'.jpg
 

voce

Ideal_Rock
Joined
May 13, 2018
Messages
3,974
I was a child and in love with JFK when he was president, but I do not think we can credit him for an era of relative domestic tranquility in the United States. The memory of that innocent era right before all hell broke loose, makes me smile, though. Poor LBJ. He got the chants of "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" and and bumper stickers that said, "Where is Lee Harvey Oswald now that you really need him?".
I credit JFK not for the personal charisma, but because I keep hearing his name come up in courses on critical decision making. He was humble and sought to really understand issues, unlike the current president. Kennedy himself designed this decision-making process that has been emulated since. So, even if he himself wasn't responsible for everything, he was a good leader in bringing the right decision-making process to the government, top-down. I really can't say that Johnson or Nixon ran their administrations this way. What I can say is that many academics studied Kennedy's approach and laud it for critical decision-making in group settings, including business organizations today.

Kennedy did de-escalate the Cuban Missile Crisis, so that has to contribute in some way to relative domestic tranquility?

1593808911152.png
1593808851561.png
 

Emerald City

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Jun 1, 2020
Messages
230
Voce, I believe in peoples' right to protest, but they should do it peacefully. I am not passing judgement, I strongly disagree and oppose violence, hatred, ruining other people businesses or damaging public/private property. Is that too much for me to ask to be allowed to go to a city park with family, to sit on a patio of a restaurant, to drive through city streets without facing a danger of being pulled from my car and being beaten? What about my rights to live my life as I would like to? Or should I be suffering till protesters change laws and our society becomes almost perfect? How long should I wait till VIOLENT protests stop affecting my life in a negative way? I believe I have a right to either join peaceful protests or remain silent. Or participate in some other way if I want changes in society. Actually, I would LOVE to join peaceful protests right now, right after I finish my lunch. Do I have a right to believe that every human life matters, not only BLM? I would love to join marching people who believe in ELM!!! And make sure my voice is loud enough! But I won't ruin anything and I won't insult other citizens who have a right to live their daily life as they want to. If someone tells me now how to live, it is a type of tyranny, right?

I personally believe that I have a right to get food in a restaurant without being interrupted by mob, even if the mob is peaceful Are you going to join any protest soon @voce? Will you be happy if a mob blocks the entrance to your house or apartment and demands you to stay there for hours or join them right away? They are idle people without responsibilities if you ask my opinion. I can only devote 2-3 hours once a week honestly if I want to join peaceful protests and still be performing my duties as wife, mother and grandmother. 1'.jpg'.jpg
What isn't being directly addressed by those advocating violent protests is the fact that such protests violate property rights. Several years ago, the protests in St. Louis damaged mostly black-owned businesses. That was some irony right there.
 

Matata

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
7,310
@Musia that poster you posted is exploitation of one of the most tragic events occurring in US soil. Defunding the police means reallocation of some of their budget to fund positions in other areas that are better equipped to handle non violent issues. Defunding actually helps the police by relieving them of going on calls for which they have no training -- mental illness, drug addiction, domestic violence for example -- and allows for those who have training in those fields to handle the calls. Reallocation of funds also means investing in solving problems at the community level in an effort to mitigate the social issues that form the basis of criminal behavior. It's a win-win.
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,806
I credit JFK not for the personal charisma, but because I keep hearing his name come up in courses on critical decision making. He was humble and sought to really understand issues, unlike the current president. Kennedy himself designed this decision-making process that has been emulated since. So, even if he himself wasn't responsible for everything, he was a good leader in bringing the right decision-making process to the government, top-down. I really can't say that Johnson or Nixon ran their administrations this way. What I can say is that many academics studied Kennedy's approach and laud it for critical decision-making in group settings, including business organizations today.

Kennedy did de-escalate the Cuban Missile Crisis, so that has to contribute in some way to relative domestic tranquility?

1593808911152.png
1593808851561.png
I view President Kennedy totally differently from the way you do, but we would need a new thread to discuss him. I also do not have the stamina to do so right now. Maybe you could take a rain check for a debate on how he handled the Cuban Missile Crisis? :))

Deb :wavey:
 
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    Push Present: Engagement Ring Upgrade
    Push Present: Engagement Ring Upgrade
    20th Anniversary Upgrade
    20th Anniversary Upgrade
    Horses for Courses: Polo Match Jewelry
    Horses for Courses: Polo Match Jewelry

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top