I remember in the 2009 when there was the National Equality March on Washington D.C. calling for gay marriage and equal protections for LGBT people in America. 200,000 people attended and the media... completely ignored it. Not a peep. You wouldn't even know it happened.

1. It was a legally ordained and risk-free action. People standing at a park and listening to speakers
2. It required media attention to have an impact
3. It was a Symbol of people being pro-gay rights; it did nothing to force hands

and so... yeah nothing rly came of it. Their demands were eventually won but... way way later. there was no response to the march itself.

Remember, the revolution will not be televised and the corporate media is not your friend. They will never frame your actions how you want them to and will only cover what is safe.

For any action you must consider what it does if nobody knows you did it. Employing symbols and ideas in your action can make it more effective, but ultimately it must have a material component. and if you face no possible risk, then your action probably isn't threatening enough to the status quo.

if they'd never try to punish you for your action it's because they don't find it threatening

also you don't have to be doing "shut it down" actions for this to apply

If the media doesn't cover your community garden project, it still has impact so long as it is feeding people and fostering food autonomy; and the risk to yourself is being punished for zoning violations or whatever not allowing urban agriculture.

@shel I have to respectfully disagree, in part, regarding "media involvement = no impact".

There are times and places where media coverage *does* raise awareness of an issue; that, IMO, is impact.

Yes, mainstream media is very prone to distortion. But take the Mni Wiconi actions: distorted or not, the media coverage of those brave folk shone a nearly unprecedented spotlight on American Indian rights.

People can't take action on things they've never heard of ∑;3

@qwyrdo You've misunderstood the thread

If your action *depends* on media attention *to have any impact*

having media attention is good but you *must* consider what impact you would have *without* the media present.

@shel Ah, thanks for clarifying! This, I wholly agree with.

@shel this is an excellent thread. thank you! 💓

As for giving money to organizations:
1. If you give enough money that it srsly affects your budget, that does carry risk tru
2. Regardless of if anyone knows you gave the money, that org now has money
3. While giving money does symbolically show support; money also translates to resources.

That Said:
Money is valuable
Volunteers and accomplices are invaluable.

Staving off burnout by spreading the work or providing things like water and shelter are so so so important. accomplices keep work alive

[also ofc donating to an NGO like the ACLU has much less impact than donating to your local local organizations

@shel i went to occupy ice pdx on wednesday and i was thinking many of these same things! the tactics i saw reminded me of occupy but tighter and more practiced. every day they stick around is a tangible victory ✊️

it certainly helps that the mayor told the cops not to get involved 😅

@shel DC media were contacted well in advance. They refused to cover it.

@shel As I was at Occupy, I have to highlight that OWS did go into financial offices, ODC went into lobbying firms, and many others more directly took actions against representations of local issues. You're correct to highlight that misrepresentation from the media was a factor, but you're underestimating just how much of one.

There's always a big difference between what a political movement does, and what is perceived as their actions, and I just have to take issue with "all [you] really did was symbolically live in parks." No, we did a lot more to directly confront the people we took issue with. The problem falls outside the direct action folk; they're doing enough. It's the ancillary teams that aren't making sure their actions are represented.

@emsenn gosh! I had no idea that OWS went inside the buildings! Just goes to show how bad the media distortion was

@rocket @shel As I said, and you highlight, the failing was on the behavior of the ancillary teams, but what you describe is not the behavior of the coordinators who lived at the camps.

Further, if you want to have a productive conversation, don't refer to me in third person as a fucker and say the things that got me beaten were "pageantry." Even if you believe that, I don't consider that an appropriate way to address another human.

@rocket Your anger about the reaction to Occupy as it was seems at-odds with your belief that it should've done more direct action; there is a widely recognized correlation between how, let's say active, a movement is, and the severity of law enforcement & corporate response to it. Criticizing Occupy for causing in an increase in grocery store security while suggesting they rob banks seems illogical.

@shel When the camps got shut down in November a lot of people recommended switching to mobile warfare with swarming attacks and rapid dispersal on bankers, CEOs, billionaires &c. Probably would've worked. Occupying foreclosed homes was very effective where it was tried, but didn't catch on.

@shel Here's something I wrote based on roughly similar principles, regarding DAPL: https://c4ss.org/content/46708

@shel I'm going to have to disagree about Occupy, from my view at Occupy Oakland. Your perspective is that of protest, when we were trying to build something new. There were no demands, and the media presence was met with open hostility (news vans were treated about the same as cop cars). There were protests, like the port shutdown or anticap blocs, but they were more reflections of the camp than end goals.