zlacker

> A huge chunk of activism is pointless and annoying.

Activism can be annoying, but it's never pointless (not even when it fails to be effective).

> All they really do is end up getting Fox News people to vote for fascists like Trump out of spite

It wouldn't be worthwhile for activists to resign themselves to inaction out of fear of offending the "Fox news people". "Fox news people" are already more likely than not to vote for fascists like Trump, and they'll use any excuse/justification they're being fed including "I don't like the way the wrong people are using their freedom to protest the wrong things".

>>autoex+(OP)
I don't think this is really true if you look at the results of the last election. Activism just on the transgender issue alone looks to have swung a lot of votes.

>>pickle+yZ3
> Activism just on the transgender issue alone looks to have swung a lot of votes.

What activism was that? Were there sit-ins? Millions marching in the streets? Were trans people chaining themselves to bathrooms? What was the terrible activism so extreme that it pushed "fox news people" into voting for an R when they'd normally vote for a D? My guess is that there are effectively 0 "fox news people" who'd ever vote for a D to start with and that fox news watchers didn't actually see or experience much activism on the transgender issue. Instead what they mostly had a problem with was policy put in place by non-transgendered people, library books that included transgender characters, and the existence of trans people generally. No activism needed.