There’s a lot of people on here who are part of what I’d call losing causes, causes that run counter to the consumerist capitalist mono-culture, I.e. socialism, veganism, FOSS, anti-car urbanism, even lemmy and the fediverse.
I want to know what made you switch from being a sympathizer to an active participant. I believe it’s important for us to understand what methods work in getting people involved in a movement that may not have any immediate wins to motivate people to join.
EDIT: A lot of people objecting to my use of losing so I’ll explain more, all of these causes benefit from popularity and are weakened by there lack of adoption and are thus in direct competition with the capitalist consumerist mono-culture, a competition which they are currently losing.
-
Socialism on a small scale cannot solve the inherent issues of a capitalism that surrounds it.
-
Veganism benefits from more people becoming vegan and restaurants and grocery stores providing vegan options.
-
FOSS, or more specifically desktop Linux, benefits from more people being on it and software developers designing for and maintaining applications for it.
-
The more people that use transit, the more funding it gets and the better it gets.
-
the fediverse benefits from more people veing on it and more diverse communities so those with niche interests besides the above causes can find community here.
On the flip side the capitalist consumerist alternatives to all of these benefit from there popularity and thus offer a better value to most people. The question is about what made you defer that better immediate material value in favor of something else.
Because I’d rather be right than win. Nice to be both, but the former is a higher priority for me.
This answer goes hard. I guess stubbornness is needed in some cases.
I wouldn’t say Palestine is a losing cause. All the ones I listed are minoritarian, some in the low single digit percentage of people, especially in the US. A majority of people in the US and a large majority of the world want a ceasefire. It’s not failing due to lack of popular support, its failimg because a small minority of very powerful people really want this genocide.
A majority of people in the US and a large majority of the world want a ceasefire.
That is only a very recent development though. And “a ceasefire” is very different to an actual free Palestine anyway
thanks, johnny silverhand.
The world is fucked and nobody is going to win, all causes are losing causes. I might as well pick one that align with my principles so I die with some dignity
I still object to your definition of losing. Ethics diets are on the rise, and if Linux became less popular at any point that’s new information to me. I’d say we’re underdogs but things are going well.
As for actually answering, I think I just have a weird attachment to abstract conceptual correctness. Or rather, other people don’t seem to, and that’s why they can ignore things like animal welfare and creepy digital mega-corporations even if they know, on some level, that it’s inconsistent with their stated priorities and values.
I don’t agree with causes to win. I agree with causes because they’re correct. If everyone stopped believing in gravity I wouldn’t follow suit.
There are no lost causes, just struggles you don’t face.
Hope that the work we do will over time become the shade of a tree our grandkids will be able to enjoy.
deleted by creator
Minor addendum, historically arguments for socialism, at least from the Marxist viewpoint, have avoided the moral argument in favor of the scientific argument. The moral argument can be framed as perspective, the scientific argument cannot, and is much more solid. That doesn’t mean socialism isn’t morally correct, it is, it’s just also scientifically indisputably correct.
Id argue Linux is also the moral choice, or rather, the other two choices are immoral.
I understand people making choices despite popularity, it seems a lot of people here are of that category, I’m concerned with the people who are choosing not to join a cause because of its lack of popularity, leading to the issues mentioned above. I think this second group is a larger percentage of the population then the first group. I think we can agree that these causes gaining popularity is good, even though they can have value without popularity. So getting that second group into the cause would be good.
I think what your advocating is to just evangelize the benefits and then people will come. But I think there are a lot of people that even if I could explain every benefit of Linux, they’d still stay on windows citing one of the above benefits of popularity, same with a lot of the causes listed above. If we are to say evangelizing is the best/only method then we leave a lot of those people for which education is not enough.
I was looking for people who were at that point of being educated about a cause, but weighed it it less then those benefits of popularity and continued on in the capitalist consumerist system. Then maybe something else pushed those scales to the other side and they chose to join the cause. What was that experience? Was it having a child? Was it an experience with death, spiritual experience, revelation, drug trip, etc. I guess that’s the question.
deleted by creator
I kinda agree with you. Very often people with strong moral convictions (a good thing, in my opinion) believe that evangelizing alone is the only ‘valid’ approach, while popularity and convenience are seen as somehow ‘dirty’. But it is impossible to ignore the reality of how much people in their everyday lives want and need convenience. And when it comes to social media, popularity is inherently important, because people want to hang out where their real life friends hang out too. So convenience and popularity are a material necessity if a cause is not to be a losing cause.
If you manage to convert just one or two others to the cause, it’s a win already. If not, at least you are not part of the problem.
And for many of the things you listed I see a lot of progress compared to even 10 years in the past. Slow but steady.
I wouldn’t really consider any of those ‘losing causes.’
None of us have a crystal ball and know what the future will bring.
Sir or Madam, I’m a fan of the Cleveland Guardians and the Columbus Blue Jackets. Both of those are losing causes and will probably be forever.
I think you’re treating all these mostly unrelated initiatives as an “ideology” in itself and not just things people are interested in.
On the flip side the capitalist consumerist alternatives to all of these benefit from there popularity and thus offer a better value to most people. The question is about what made you defer that better immediate material value in favor of something else.
What makes you think a given person prefers the capitalist options? There are plenty of reasons to like all of these things which is why some people do.
Socialism on a small scale cannot solve the inherent issues of a capitalism that surrounds it.
No, but socialist countries are routinely sheltered from the capitalist driven cataclysms due to their control of the economy. Look at how much China was affected by the 2008 crisis vs Western countries.
Also, socialism in places like Canada necessarily means decolonization of both the Indigenous peoples here and ending our corporate exploitation of both people abroad and Canadians. If that’s not a reason to support it I don’t know what is.
Veganism benefits from more people becoming vegan and restaurants and grocery stores providing vegan options.
The WHOLE DAMN POINT of veganism is to get rid of a luxury (animal products) because you think it’s unethical. Vegans are not bothered by restaurants not catering to them because they simply won’t go.
Also, grocery stores providing grocery options? Ah yes the flop of the vegan tomato left the vegan community reeling. What are you buying at the grocery store of all places that you don’t think it’s always been possible to be vegan? You know you can just buy plants and make your own food right?
FOSS, or more specifically desktop Linux, benefits from more people being on it and software developers designing for and maintaining applications for it.
Linux is measurably more efficient. Like seriously compare the background resource usage of Linux to Windows, Linux can be up to twice as light giving you more resources for your actual applications. Linux is also a lot more private which a lot of people care about over the convenience of a mainstream big tech OS.
Also, the simplicity and dare I say “non-technical user unfriendliness” of Linux is also a draw for technical users who don’t want their computer coddling them. It’s a niche for a reason.
the fediverse benefits from more people veing on it and more diverse communities so those with niche interests besides the above causes can find community here.
Can you elaborate on this one? I don’t know what it means.
What makes you think a given person prefers the capitalist options?
The fact that they vast majority of people choose the capitalist option. You could chalk some of it up to lack of awareness, but even those that are aware still tend to go for the default capitalist option. Out of every normal person you’ve explained Linux to in real life, how many do you think made the switch? Yes individuals may choose them but the vast majority of normal people aren’t.
vegans are not bothered by restaurants not catering to them because they simply won’t go
Speak for yourself, I’m a vegetarian and often get annoyed by the lack of options, and that’s in a very liberal city. Not everyone has your same moral conviction, my girlfriend is a vegetarian too but will eat meat if it’s the only option on the menu. You can say she’s a fake vegetarian or doesn’t truly believe in the welfare of animals, but she still cares a hell of a lot more than your average person, so if she’s is still occasionally eating meat then your never going to get rid of animal products for the average person who doesn’t give two shits about animal welfare.
The fact is the more good vegan options there are the more people will be vegan, or at least partially vegan. Most people value taste and there food preferences more then animal welfare, environment etc. But if there’s an item on the menu that is tasty and they prefer and its vegan then they’ll choose it, and that’s a win. But most chefs aren’t putting there time into making a variety of tasty vegan food because the markets not there. Yes there are people with a higher moral conviction that value welfare over taste but that is a slim minority who won’t be able to stop all the abuse the industry causes.
Also you don’t always select where you go to dinner, a lot of times the friends or family your going to dinner with will select it. Some are kind and will check the menu for options but a lot of the time they can forget and just pick one. Am I supposed to not go to dinner after my cousins graduation because it’s at a steakhouse?
Can you elaborate on this one?
A platform like this benefits from having more and more diverse communities to keep people engaged. Lemmy, as it stands right now, only has a couple broad communities, mostly about these causes I mentioned: FOSS, socialism, etc. If your not interested in those communities at all you probably won’t find lemmy very valuable. Even if you are somewhat interested in those things you may still stay on reddit because it has the other communities your interested in along with those that are on lemmy. This is especially true for niche interests but even some broader interests like sports in general are completely absent from lemmy. This is self fulfilling to a certain extent, as less people talk about sports, less people post about sports, less people come here for sports etc. So for a person who wants a feed of say 50% socialist memes and 50% baseball they’re gonna go to reddit because they can get that, even if the socialist memes and discussion is better over here, now we’re missing out on that person’s discussion in the socialist meme communities and that’s a loss for everyone in that community.
Pay attention to an individual’s definition of “win” condition.
I define a “win” for FOSS on a very small, individual scale. I do not define it as widescale adoption by others. If I successfully replace a proprietary service with a FOSS service for my personal usage, that’s a win. The only “lost cause” re FOSS to me is a FOSS service shutting or being so complicated to implement and maintain that I have to revert to the google service or whatever.
Similar on veganism, a win is me personally making a step improvement on diet, not contingent on shuttering commercial meat production.
I follow my conscience, and I work hard to live up to my principles. If I didn’t, I would have a hard time living with myself.
How is (F)OSS a loosing cause?
Same for cars.
That may be true for car-centric countries/infrastructures like seemingly in the US (never was there. Only know what I read here) but Europe is not as dependant on the car.I expected “transit” to refer to non-car public transit, but I’m not the OP. That is: the more people on trains, buses, and such, the more routes and times. The route with 5 riders per day gets cut as too costly.
