SuperNovaCouchGuy2

I remember on another post someone said the protests were ineffective and then you said you would make this post

We were talking about a skill that many people have and this one person does not.

Are you sure that "many people" have the necessary social skills to engage strangers about political topics? Furthermore I agree that people who have major difficulty socializing are in the minority, but this isn't some excuse to minimize the gravity of such a situation as just a matter of individual "skill improvement".

That's also why it's a terrible metaphor, because it begs the question of people having wildly and fundamentally different innate potentials

I explained what I meant in an earlier post. "Potential" is just wishful thinking until realized and it isnt just about "innate potential", its about where a person is at in terms of their abilities, strengths, weaknesses, due to how they have ended up at a certain point in life. People do vary in their abilities based on a combination of their genetics and their environment, not everyone has the ability to become competent at a given skill.

It's so disgusting to pretend that it's just science that people simply can't improve even a little because, idk, they went to a bad school or something.

This is cope because I never said this and explicitly said the opposite.

but what you are describing is a bizarre essentialism that is more at home with aristocratic notions about the highborn just being superior to the rest of us

What are you talking about man? If person A has worse social skills relative to person B, this does by no means imply that person B is a "better person" than person A nor that person A does not surpass person B in another skill nor that there are a race of highborn beings superior to both.

It has no place in science to say that someone cannot be habilitated to a relatively normal human skill because they currently happen to be bad at it and feel pessimistic about improving

I'm not talking about holding basic conversation with friends and loved ones here. Talking to random strangers in a fascist country about leftist politics in a chaotic environment like a protest is not a "normal human skill". Furthermore the term "habilitated" is doing a lot of work here because some people may need a lot of support.

Talk about having opinions that are downstream from absurd and antisocial ideals

How is it an "absurd and antisocial ideal" to state that people who are larger and/or prettier than average would be more confident in social situations, especially when talking to strangers?

but what you express here is no contradiction

Yes I wasn't clear enough, what I meant in all clarity was:

Furthermore the article's body of admitting that realizing one's potential is ideally accomplished with strong external support from a "community of practice" contradicts its conclusion of how its solely up to the individual to adopt a "growth mindset" and pull themselves up by the bootstraps

Its a contradiction between an individualist solution where you get little to no support and a community-oriented solution where you get support.

Paragraph about playing pianos is also cope because you don't understand how important a supportive environment is in creating the sort of positive reinforcement that would actually help someone get the motivation to try something they find difficult, especially in this case (socializing), where the difficulty probably comes from trauma. Furthermore, this supportive environment is also key to enabling the sort of consistency required for success on the part of the individual even for an outcome where they become "competent".

However this part especially:

rather than bemoaning how hard it is to improve and how some jump is too far or your hands get sore.

Is just blatant shaming. Its an incredibly individualist reaction to someone experiencing difficulty in learning and not a sustainable way to teach people without creating psychic damage.

*>inb4 muh this is the only way to learn something (or similar)

No I disagree. There are ways to teach people a skill that don't involve shaming them for complaining about difficulty and/or "not trying hard enough", especially if you're just talking about becoming "competent" and not "the best".

Also its funny you use the example of a piano because some parents are notorious for forcing their children to undergo harsh piano training in hopes of them becoming "competent", even if the kid has no desire nor talent for playing the piano and therefore causing the child to hate the piano like hell for the rest of their lives.

Outside of disabilities and disorders, humans are not that different from each other in terms of their potential.

Cope, the "Outside of disabilities and disorders" part is doing a lot of work here in this context. Socialization-related disorders are very common nowadays especially among people who use the internet a lot. Having potential is one thing, but realizing it is another, and that can take more than what an individual is capable of on their own.

Using a species that is incapable of a task is using the conceit of metaphor to beg the question.

My point was that due to innate characteristics, it is unrealistic to expect people to accomplish certain things without a massive amount of outside help. Expecting them to accomplish the said thing more or less alone would be like expecting a chicken to fly across the ocean, meaning expecting something impossible that is beyond the capacity of the individual.

Especially so in this context, because remember, we aren't talking about "chatting with loving friends and family", its "talking to random strangers who may or may not want to cause you harm about leftist politics which they have been culturally trained to despise". You can't expect to reliably train people who have great difficulty with the former for whatever reason to accomplish the latter.

This doesn't in any way mean that they are an inferior being in totality, everybody has their own strengths and weaknesses. Everybody has something they can contribute but don't assume it will be the same thing.

The thing to do is investigate why, and the likely solution is just some process of habilitation

Yes, this is something you can't do on your own.

OP said party line about Nothing Happening because of these protests is wrong.

The party line that is being objected to is that we shouldn't participate

I thought the party line was that these protests were ineffective and reaffirming of the status quo. Doesn't mention anything about whether people should participate or not.

the argument is simply that the protests are useful opportunities

Yes that is OP's main point and I agree with it as written above.

My main point is that this does not refute our official glorious party line that Nothing will Happen directly because of these protests, as written above.

Lets hope the shark that chewed on one of those settlers is still hungry for more...

On the article, although it raises some good points earlier, its conclusion is very individualist, that people should develop a growth mindset to become highly capable ubermenschen organizers.

Brother, not everyone can be an organizer as described in the article, and basing an organizational structure around this assumption is not sustainable. Instead of seeing it as a group of individuals who need to do tasks, why not see it as a group of tasks that need individuals to accomplish? Therefore, you can fit individuals to tasks that they are more suited to and let them develop more easily in those directions instead of expecting everyone to be highly capable.

Furthermore the article's body of admitting that realizing one's potential is ideally accomplished with strong external support from a "community of practice" contradicts its conclusion of how its up to the individual to adopt a "growth mindset" and how organizers should have faith in new members who do so. Its like the author read "people can change when given the proper support to do so" and then just used the first part of that statement to justify individualist beliefs about "growth mindset" and "grit" and whatnot. The author even admitted that only "some" people could change to become capable organizers and did not mention a single thing about the type of support an organization should provide to help accomplish this.

but it is in a chicken's nature not to flap its wings and fly across the ocean. It is not in a human's nature to be static and unchanging.

I agree but to imply that everyone has the same "starting point" and "capacity" for "change" is cope. We are animals just like Chickens, not some sort of magical existentialist soul-being that has unlimited capacity for change. Its just not a scientific perspective.

I'd argue that talking to other people is one of the things we're pretty fundamentally geared to do

Cope again. There is a big gap between simply "talking to other people" and "talking to complete strangers about sensitive topics in a volatile social environment such that you successfully and clearly articulate your position while managing potential bad-faith responses and ideally avoiding conflict". Normal social skills don't cut it here, you need to be very proficient. And its not realistic to expect everyone to reach this level of proficiency just as its unrealistic to expect everyone to have the capacity to understand advanced rocket science.

This is also a demonstration of the empathy gap phenomenon: you are someone who is good at socializing and therefore cannot understand the realities of someone who isn't.

Nah.

I'll read that article in a moment,

It's far more an American mindset to believe that people are born with a certain capacity and improving it is impossible.

That is wrong. You people go on and on about how poverty is deserved because everyone is born with the capacity to become rich if they just improooooved and worked hard enough. Its a core tenet of neoliberalism. Americans are all "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" who believe that "economic outcomes are linked to personal growth".

Its a scientific fact that due to a combination of environment and genetics, people have limits to the extent that they can radically change aspects of themselves.

And if you want the sort of radical change that you talk about, you need a high level of support since that sort of change isn't possible independently.

The truth is that we, as communists, believe more strongly in the capacity for human growth and improvement than anybody else

Individually? No. Collectively, as a species? Yes.

Dismissing the human potential for self-improvement

That is not what I'm saying. People individually have the capacity to improve and learn new things but this capacity is different for every person.

I'm saying that your ideas are downstream from the delusion that people have near-limitless potential which is then naturally used to shame everyone who isn't successful according to some pre-defined ideal instead of seeking a greater understanding of the situation and what can realistically be done to help.

why should he not be capable of building and expanding those skills into a broader and more applicable capacity for face-to-face political discussion?

Communicating on the internet via posts in a familiar environment where you have the time and energy to think carefully about how you respond by pressing buttons to change a readout on a screen is completely different to actually talking to people face-to-face where you need quick thinking, good social skills, confidence (being sufficiently intimidating/pretty).

Its a completely different skillset and from an organisational standpoint, the time and energy spent to train someone who sucks at socializing to do so would be better spent improving their pre-existing skills for necessary support duties. Its like if an army expected all of its infantry to be highly skilled special forces units and then got surprised when nobody was around to cook the meals and inventory the ammunition and all.

EDIT: *However whether the user can do the task or not is up to him to decide at the end of the day and you and I have to respect this decision.

I think it's completely possible that I would do more harm than good if I took the mantle of 'doing the thing' onto myself.

Its alright man you are still an asset to an organisation for doing the things in the background that are required for its sustained existence. You are also intelligent so you can help write/edit agitprop.

This is cope bro not everyone needs to be a people-person who goes and confronts the public. He can go play to his existing strengths and do stuff in the background that is required to sustain an org, like writing agitprop, administrative duties, painting banners, etc.

Everyone has their own part to play in something like this using their own personal talents, you can't make a chicken to flap its wings and fly across the atlantic. You are infected with the same american brainworms that make people think everyone can improooov themselves into becoming a millionaire. You better address this otherwise your org won't be benefiting from the strengths of its members.