Talk:Slacktivism

Definition

Should it rely be defined as "little or not practical effect"? If what you do has some effect, than I don't think it's fair to consider it slacktivist. Once the definition is opened beyond having no effect, it becomes very difficult to draw the line. Is donating $100 to cancer research slacktivist? It will obviously have very little effect in the grand scheme of things, and for some people, would be easy to do. Therefore, I propose the meaning is only for thing that really have no practical effect, such as internet petitions and bracelet wearing campaigns. Also, here's an article that gives my definition: [1]. --MikeMan67 (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Buy Nothing Day and Earth hour do have effects. Therefore, the author of this page is incorrect is saying these slacktivisms has "little or no practical effect." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.223.62 (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Slacktivism should be redifined to having no practical effect, as the definition of "little or no effect" leads to ambiguity. As Mikeman67 noted, is donating money to organizations slacktivist? At what level of donations does slacktivism stop? 1,000 dollars? 10,000 dollars?

As for Earth Hour, it does limit the emissions of a few hundred tonnes of CO₂ from being emitted and raises awareness of climate change a lot more than magnetic ribbons on cars or facebook groups.76.226.192.156 (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Negative vs. Positive

I think the discussion on whether to include the term has petered out, with 'include' having won the day. I'm not sure that the negative connotation of the word is the only meaning associated with it. People who participate in slacktivist activities have co-opted the term in a positive light to refer to their actions. Often the term isn't intended to project the idea of useless actions, so much as small, incremental actions that are meant to be carried out by large numbers of people. Individually they are slacking, but collectively they are a useful tool in promoting a cause or agenda.

Part of the problem may be that more activities have now been described as 'slacktivist,' many of which are not meaningless actions. The micro-donating or micro-volunteerism of the Obama campaign would be a good example. A person donating $10 may not make much of a difference, but when the process of donating that amount is so simple that millions can do it from their computer, the aggregate of their donation becomes something of a phenomenon. The same goes for someone spending an hour doing a phone-bank from their home.

Essentially, I want to update the article to reflect the expanded meaning of the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donaldrobertsoniii (talk • contribs) 08:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Support

Support -- Although this term is not used commonly, I believe it is deserving of an article on wiki. If this term is offensive to you, it is because it is meant to be. The article describes the word as a pejorative and thus it is assumed that the user means to disparage or belittle people engaged in (what the user deems to be) slacktivism. I even call it slacktivism when I let the checkout clerk scan a certificate so that I donate a dollar to some charitable organization. I appreciate that they make it that easy. However, true slacktivism should have the following elements: 1) it should have little or no effect on it's intended issue; 2) it should require little or no effort on the part of the person; and 3) it should create a false belief in the person that they have actually contributed to the solution.Toddelia (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Support -- Slacktivism seems to be a more recent development, while the term armchair activist has been around for a while and is more commonly used. --Michael White^T·C 02:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Support -- I've never heard the term "slacktivism" used, but I've heard "armchair activist" used for years. Therefore, I think it would be much more appropriate to have this article (perhaps rewritten) at armchair activism. --metzerly 04:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Support -- Might as well keep the term. The 2002 NYT and 2001 Newsday citations now verify its use. Here we should function like linguists and record the use of language rather than attempt to dictate its use.

Support -- I have heard the term used in Israel (in English) in several conversations regarding Earth Hour. It was written about in various respectable newspapers, in blogs (Google it), and mentioned in entertainment shows. Pejorative as it is, it is a real notable perspective of a social phenomenon. It should definitely stay. 93.172.153.242 (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Support -- Armchair Warriors seems to be a more common term. It dates at least to the 1963 Twilight Zone episode No Time Like the Past where a man that is tired of war travels to the past and criticizes a man who advocates sending others off to battle. 22yearswothanks (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose -- We all should be following our dreams and participating with passion in the activism(s) that appeal to us, but as long as one has to work a 9-5 to survive, what other options do we have besides "slacktivism?" Really. I don't think this phenomenon and it's negative connotations should be placed on the people. Most of us are doing the best we can. As long as I'm going to school full-time, working 2-3 jobs on the side, being incredibly active in the student groups of my choice, and trying to fit in time with my friends and family of top of it - no I'm not going to have much time to do more than join a facebook group and post on its wall every now and then and/or blog about a cause that I believe in. In that case, it is unfair to label these behaviors as "less than."

Further, is this term implying that other (or "real") forms of activism do not cause one to feel good about themselves? Just because something is painful (I'm sure Cesar Chavez's hunger strike was far from painless) doesn't mean that it isn't rewarding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariposa625 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

One counterpoint is to consider those who do do more, who make it their 9-5 jobs to work on these causes, even at some significant cost to their ability to realize their own dreams. Also, blogging can be "more than" slacktivism, when you're actually contributing significant thoughts and content, not just signing your name to something. Winged Cat (talk) 01:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems you oppose the dismissive use of the term. But do you oppose or even deny that there is a notable perspective called "Slacktivism"? 93.172.153.242 (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I've heard the opposite; "Slacktivism" used more than "armchair activism". The other article could be a redirect, and there could be something specified in the article as to lack of clarity as to which term came first, but "slacktivism" was made notable by Snopes and is, in any case, the term more currently used.--み使い Mitsukai 05:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

So you actually Support this article, no?

Oppose - I don't think this article is in accordance with Wikipedia's Notability guidelines, and does not respect a neutral point of view either. I recommend it for deletion. Gapagos (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Move proposal

What is the actual proposal here? Move from where to where? Andrew Oakley (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Okay, perhaps it's a regional thing, but I've never heard the phrase "slacktivist." Perhaps I could make a separate article for armchair activism that refers to this pejorative as well. --metzerly 00:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

That might work, considering that there's different terms for Limousine liberal, chardonnay socialist and champagne socialist are three different articles regarding three different regional terms for the same concept. The explanation of the terms within the article is mainly what differentiates them.--み使い Mitsukai 00:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment

So, we're signing our names to Internet petitions, for and against, on whether to have an article discussing the act of signing names to Internet petitions? Winged Cat (talk) 01:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

POV and Weasel tags

I removed these two tags because this article is about a social perspective (a valid subject, just like Nihilism for example). Pejorative as it may be, the phenomenon is described neutrally. 93.172.153.242 (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing FreeRice

There was a section called "Other Examples" which consisted solely of FreeRice. I've removed it because, although it does have some characteristics of slacktivism (supporting a good cause without leaving your chair), unlike most slacktivist efforts, it has a very real benefit if enough people participate (and they do). So I don't think it would be good to lump it in with other kinds of slacktivism. - furrykef (Talk at me) 00:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary?

This article seems much more appropriate for Wiktionary; see WP:NOTDICTIONARY. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)