Hacker News Reader

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11295364 and marked it off-topic.

You're not wrong about Rosa Parks, but I'm not sure how it applies any differently. Whether her example (though not the premier example) inspires someone to take up civil disobedience or not is entirely up to how she had inspired that person. The fact remains that she did engage in civil disobedience so why does it matter that she wasn't the first?

It had nothing to do with Rosa Parks specifically. I was pointing out to the OP that we can't sit here in our ivory desk chairs and tell other people to make a large sacrifice based on some superficial ethos argument. If you want to truly inspire people you do so with honesty and good intentions. You don't grasp at straws and tell people they can be Rosa Parks if they do what you say.

I will concede that explicit is better then implicit, but I seized the opportunity to clear up a historical inaccuracy in the process.

> If you want to truly inspire people you do so with honesty and good intentions.

No-one is being dishonest. No-one in this thread claimed Parks was the first. You're attacking a strawman.

> You don't grasp at straws and tell people they can be Rosa Parks if they do what you say.

Um what? Doesn't the history - the fact that Parks' act wasn't spontaneous but was in fact planned and organized - exactly align with that?

Sorry but you spent a good deal of your argument undermining Rosa Parks' contribution to civil disobedience so it's hard to swallow that it had nothing to do with her in particular.

And believe me: I'm all about not invoking easy references to drum up BS patriotism, but if that's your point, then say it like I just did.

I might also add that you yourself would probably benefit by putting something on the line before you make a career out of siezing on opportunities to clear up historical inaccuracies. Unless I somehow stumbled upon talking to Malala Yousafzi.

I don't see that as "undermining". It's more that Rosa Parks is very symbolic, but in many ways she was "standing on the shoulders of giants", and we see her, the symbol, but not the giants.

>will happily throw the rest of it away for this comment

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his [karma] for his friends."

John 15:13

About Rosa Parks' civil disobedience: It was pre-planned, they had a strategy, it was coordinated.

Ad hoc civil disobedience won't accomplish much, is very easy to ignore, dismiss.

I've organized activists for change. Our accomplishments were very modest.

Our efforts would have had much greater impact if I had first learned how to play the game. Goal setting, messaging (framing), working the public relations, social networking, organizing volunteers, letter writing, attend public hearings, finding allies, etc, etc.

There are plenty of books and training available to teach future change agents how to be effective.

"Power concedes nothing without a demand." -- Frederick Douglas

At some point it becomes theatre, like the fools who climbed aboard a Google bus and pretended to be entitled prats yelling out the window. That's evil. So be careful how much scripting you do. It can come back and bite you. Seeming authentic and spontaneous, isn't as good as actually being that.

All politics is theater. Aka rhetoric. You're always playing to the audience. Some play the game better than others.

Concern trolling is just yet another way to mute, suppress, inhibit action.

When you've tried, failed, picked yourself back up, cleaned yourself up, and then tried again, eventually succeeding... Then I'll be able to hear your concerns.

...and that's how stunts like the Google bus happen. Folks keep rationalizing to themselves "its in a good cause".

I think both of you are being pretty negative.

There is a way to refute the parent post without demeaning his opinion, and in my opinion, another commenter did better at that than you.

Thanks for sharing details about Claudette, I didn't know that.

It would be good not to forget Bayard Rustin either.

"Rustin was also a pioneer in the movement to desegregate interstate bus travel. In 1942, he boarded a bus in Louisville, bound for Nashville, and sat in the second row. A number of drivers asked him to move to the back, according to Southern practice of Jim Crow, but Rustin refused. The bus was stopped by police 13 miles north of Nashville and Rustin was arrested. He was beaten and taken to the police station, but was released uncharged"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayard_Rustin

This is a fairly balanced, cogent and thoughtful response to the overall thread. I too would welcome dissenting arguments presented instead of the knee-jerk downvote.

I don't see what relevance it has apart from being pedantic. It didn't add to the discussion at hand.

The people back then running the campaign knew good PR, so what.

So, we should know good PR in this time and date, as well? But understand what is PR and what is too much idealism.

I think people have responded honestly that your line of reasoning is not consistent. You go on a tear about Rosa Parks, then argue it's not about Rosa.

It's like your arguing that no one on HN should encourage people to take part in civil disobedience, if someone is in the position to do so. I strongly disagree with that, as well.

> Edit: I have 820 karma remaining and will happily throw the rest of it away for this comment

Oh wow, sacrificing internet points.

I think your talk about Rosa parks does little to nothing to further your point.