At this point its hard to actually care about anything to the degree of advocating for it. If you advocate for something, someone will likely harass or attack you for that belief; and on the other end of the spectrum, someone will likely assume you're 100% 'an ally.' There's a thin line to walk now, and I don't like that.
Using an example of anti-racism movements (and equality), if someone passively supports equality, that's fine and all-- but some radicals will either treat them as if they want to destroy society as we know it (or something along those lines), others will say that they're "complacent" by passively supporting said movements, and maybe a few others will try and coerce them into becoming non-passive.
I'm not saying advocacy is bad, I'm not saying that inactivism is bad. I'm just saying that there's a thin line to walk, and people want to knock you off that.
I hear people trying to say that you have to be radical somehow, and that being moderate is 'bad' and 'destructive.' I don't need to justify my views to anyone (to quote a song: "I won't justify the way I live my life, 'cause I'm the one livin' it"), but I will say that I try to be a moderate, because radicalism of any sort (from politics to even praise of a particular product) clouds judgement, while moderation can help create grounded viewpoints (e.g. rather than [in a purely apolitical scenario] 'linux > windows, dumbass', a moderate viewpoint would be 'both platforms have their pros and cons, such as X, Y, and Z').
To the people in my inbox who are mad about KONAT (as an entity) being largely passive: seethe and cope.
Copyright 2022, Econobox_ (d.b.a konat.neocities.org)
