> I later learned that a term exists for this phenomenon—the March of Dimes syndrome—and that the tendency affects many other movements, too. Why, last year, did the Human Rights Campaign declare a “national state of emergency” for LGBT people? Why was the election of the first black American president followed by the Black Lives Matter movement? Why have reports of “hate groups” risen during the same decades that racial prejudice has been plummeting? Why, during a long and steep decline in the incidence of sexual violence in America, did academics, federal officials, and the #MeToo movement discover a new “epidemic of sexual assault”?
Because the very cultural change that makes things better, makes the remaining bad stuff less socially acceptable.
By the time gay marriage was a hotly debated political topic in the US, things were already better for gay people than they had been a few decades earlier, so why was it a hot topic when things were better, rather than when things were worse? Because when things were much worse, there was a general consensus that being gay was wrong, and so it wasn't a topic worthy of much debate. Once society became relatively more accepting and there were actually two popular sides, then it became a hot button issue.
Sure, things are better in the US for black people than they were several decades ago, but the threshold for what's an acceptable level of discrimination has also changed. Right after the Civil War, just "well they're not slaves anymore" was a huge improvement over the prior status quo, but that hardly meant that things were actually good.
Your theory doesn't explain this part, though (emphasis mine):
> It is no longer enough for conservative Christians to tolerate same-sex marriage—now they must be legally required to bake cakes and design web pages for the weddings. It is no longer enough to protect gay students from harassment—now these students must have access in elementary school libraries to how-to manuals for anal sex. Public schools must encourage prepubescent students to explore the many possible gender identities without their parents’ knowledge. Biological males self-identifying as females must be allowed to compete against females in sports. These new causes have been wildly unpopular, arousing opposition from homosexuals as well as heterosexuals, and have led to a decline in public support for the gay rights movement. But however much the backlash has hurt the original cause, the controversies keep activists in business.
That entire paragraph is mostly a strawman, or, if you're feeling charitable, coming from an extremely surface-level awareness of the actual issues they're talking about.
> It is no longer enough for conservative Christians to tolerate same-sex marriage—now they must be legally required to bake cakes and design web pages for the weddings.
This is a bit of a gray area because of religious freedom, but generally businesses open to the general public aren't allowed to discriminate against protected classes, because that used to go rather poorly for society.
If a business refuses to bake a cake for black people's weddings, is that okay?
> It is no longer enough to protect gay students from harassment—now these students must have access in elementary school libraries to how-to manuals for anal sex.
This sounds like a bit of an exaggeration of what's going on, but I think normalizing talking about sex would be a huge boon for education. Treating it like this taboo mysterious thing is worse than being matter of fact about how it works. Sex is a fact of life, just like many other things taught at school.
> Public schools must encourage prepubescent students to explore the many possible gender identities without their parents’ knowledge.
And? Is it bad to teach things to kids now? Those other gender identities are out there, why would it be wrong to teach about?
> Biological males self-identifying as females must be allowed to compete against females in sports.
This one's iffier, I think it should come down to whatever the science says about what's a substantial advantage or not, ideally per-sport (and I'm sure some sports will have women with an advantage over men).
> These new causes have been wildly unpopular, arousing opposition from homosexuals as well as heterosexuals, and have led to a decline in public support for the gay rights movement.
[Citation needed] here for most of this. You really think requiring businesses to serve gay people is unpopular with...gay people?
I still think the cake thing was weird. I mean, why would you want someone who doesn't like you or hates your lifestyle to make you a cake? You really think they're going to do their best work?
Hey, Person-Who-Doesn't-Like-Me, commit to this creative project celebrating what you don't like about me. I can't wait to see it.
The explanation is simple, conservative outrage over non-issues.
To the first example, it's the same as whining about restaurants being forced to serve black patrons. If you are business open to the public you should serve the public. The slippery slope is beyond obvious. Can a doctor refuse to treat gay patients? A lawyer refuse to represent gay clients? A professor refuse to teach gay students? Regardless, conservatives won this one. Business owners can discriminate based on sexuality. Hurray? Yet why is this activist bringing up a case they already won?
The next examples of "how-to" manuals in elementary schools simply isn't something that exists. Further, it's frankly cover for the real agenda, pulling out any book making even the most glancing reference to homosexuality (billy has 2 dads) or past racism (MLK existed). It's a lot of hot air and fire over books not shelved in elementary schools. Perhaps in highschool or junior high, which is age groups where more explicit texts are acceptable.
> and have led to a decline in public support for the gay rights movement.
Completely the author, a conservative that likely does not support gay rights, opinion.
> the controversies keep activists in business.
I actually agree with the author here. Yes, the controversies keep the activists in business, but WHO are the activists? The answer isn't who the author identifies.
Consider how many rightwing outlets repeated the lie "Now schools are letting kids identify as cats and poop in litter-boxes!". Which activist do you suppose started that?
The author of this article evidently is ignorant to the current state of the world. Simply having the existence of a group become no longer illegal doesn't mean that rights are guaranteed at all. Groups advocating for women's and LGBTQI rights have continued to exist despite advances because groups working to undo everything they have achieved also continue to exist. There is obvious evidence of this - women's and LGBTQIA rights have gone backwards definitively both in the US and UK and are unambiguously in a much worse state than they were 10 years ago.
This is quasi-intellectual bullshit written by a contrarian who fails to identify that social systems are dynamic, and evidently has a bias informing this (cough cough, certain pejorative terms throughout). This is spun as some sort of centrist triumph, but this is really the true voice of regression - if we stop advocating for the rights of groups who actively have their rights under attack by others, they will simply lose whatever has been achieved.
It is a somewhat interesting point w.r.t. the Dimes syndrome itself in whatever limited cases it might actually apply, however I would argue that this article is working overtime to misappropriate the term to advocate for silencing progress (while not ever implying that anti-rights groups should be seen the same).
This is one of a large number of carefully crafted policy pieces disguised as a wide range of things all brought to the US public eye by The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.
The whole thing is ridiculous and cartoonish. The main thrust behind the author's litany of complaints seems to be: (and I'm guessing the author hasn't been the subject of a whole lot of discrimination)
Are you gay? Black? Woman trying to prevent sexual violence? Interested in preventing smoking or reducing birth defects? Stop and look around, things are better now! Don't worry or complain any more, those problems were already taken care of!
The thesis more or less works for any institution. It doesn't work outside of those bounds, like for MeToo and BLM. It's interesting how it's somehow a progressive issue. "Why have reports of “hate groups” risen during the same decades that racial prejudice has been plummeting?" Perhaps because expectations have risen, and perhaps because there was no one to report to earlier that would listen. Anyone who thinks racism isn't still widespread hasn't listened to raw thinking of many Americans, and didn't watch Charlottesville in 2017.
I mean its a conservative one too - look at the moving goalposts to the right on Abortion, the right keeps demanding more and more stringent controls, gun rights too.
Even for religion. In one of the yeshivas in the upper west side of Manhattan, they painted longer sleeves on a photograph of the founding rabbi’s wife because it doesn’t comply with current modesty rules.
It's not the same problem, or any problem. The OP is a reactionary grasping at straws.
Anti racism activists want to end racism, not reduce it.
Anti abortion people want to end abortion, not reduce it.
It's different from March of Dimes people stuck looking for something new to do when no one has polio anymore.
The complaint that progressives move one to a new issue once they solve (or obsolete) one issue isn't some sort of weird disorder, it's reflecting the reality that one person can't solve every problem at the same time.
Also, "March of Dimes Syndrome" was invented by the Federalist, a zero credibility rag.
It does seem like there's a qualitative difference between that framing and its parent comment: there are always problems facing society, but once activists have organized around a specific category of problem, they seem to react to success by intensifying within that category rather than diversifying their efforts to address whatever's next-most-pressing on the overall list of issues.
I strongly disagree. Problems always exist, and new ones pop up app the time. And organizing people to advocate for fixing the problems they face is a job that's worth doing in any society.
You would never accept this logic for programmers. Should they just give up their salaries once the product is good enough?
It seems like you (and the author of this pretty blatant propaganda) are assuming the very strange and unfounded premise that most activists believe that there is exactly one problem with the world worth solving.
Of course activists move onto the next problem once the problem they’ve been focusing on is solved. Similarly, I brush my teeth once I get out of the shower. I haven’t “moved the goalposts”; I’m just attending to the next priority.
I don't classify groups like the United Way as activist organization - they are an organization that are broadly focused on making things better, rather than single focus organization, which have to pivot (or move goal posts) once they reach the ends of their goals.
> It seems like you (and the author of this pretty blatant propaganda) are assuming the very strange and unfounded premise that most activists believe that there is exactly one problem with the world worth solving.
But this is exactly how it works. Very few activists are activists "for good causes in general", most of them identify themselves with a very narrow set of issues and build their identity around that.
This is like saying, "Isn't it curious that after the Emancipation Proclamation, those same abolitionists then argued for granting citizenship to former slaves, and then after winning that, they switched to demanding they also be allowed to vote?"
That's not a "syndrome"; it's three righteous and related causes advocated for in series because social progress happens one step at a time and activitism is often most effective if performed this way.
Is this not a renaming or specialized case of the Iron Law of Institutions? Any non-profit, government, or commercial organization foremost concern is preserving the institution. If solving a problem (like GE creating a lightbulb that never burns out) would reduce the important/power of the people in the organization, then that path is avoided at all costs.
Shirky principle states that stakeholders will prefer solutions that keep them relevant, over solutions that would solve the problem conclusively, but in a manner that makes their existence no longer relevant.
This seems to suggest instead a tendency to solve the problem in a way that is conclusive, and thus indeed making them less relevant, but then trying to impose continued relevance by trying to overstate the importance of any remaining and ultimately trivial aspects of the problem. Which is an equally intetesting angle to consider.
I have to say though, even in the latter case, the name chosen is unfortunate, since the organisation it refers to seems to have actually done the right thing after polio was eradicated: they went after other problems (as opposed to keep campaigning about polio).
It can be a flawed analysis without being propaganda and ignoring societal decline (as the definition of decline and progress itself is debatable).
I do think the fact that humans build up careers and aren't just going to roll over and stop working or switch careers when it would be prudent for society is a good thing to note. Just as career activists move from one cause to another, so too do programmers
This specific article is a propaganda piece, commissioned, paid for, and disseminated by The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.
I won't argue with their right to spread their message, policies, and to engage in marketing exercises, but this is very much their work. As a matter of cold fact, not opinion.
Reading it for me it is clearly propaganda. I didn’t even know it’s link to politics until I read HN comments. The targeted social causes and logic hoop-jumping alone in the article is a pretty obvious sign IMO.
It is true that I don’t this publication. I also don’t know the author or what The Manhattan Institute is. In general unless a piece of text is asking me to take something on faith or I am unable to reason with it I don’t care in the slightest who wrote it, where it was published or what their affiliations are.
Readit News
Because the very cultural change that makes things better, makes the remaining bad stuff less socially acceptable.
By the time gay marriage was a hotly debated political topic in the US, things were already better for gay people than they had been a few decades earlier, so why was it a hot topic when things were better, rather than when things were worse? Because when things were much worse, there was a general consensus that being gay was wrong, and so it wasn't a topic worthy of much debate. Once society became relatively more accepting and there were actually two popular sides, then it became a hot button issue.
Sure, things are better in the US for black people than they were several decades ago, but the threshold for what's an acceptable level of discrimination has also changed. Right after the Civil War, just "well they're not slaves anymore" was a huge improvement over the prior status quo, but that hardly meant that things were actually good.
> It is no longer enough for conservative Christians to tolerate same-sex marriage—now they must be legally required to bake cakes and design web pages for the weddings. It is no longer enough to protect gay students from harassment—now these students must have access in elementary school libraries to how-to manuals for anal sex. Public schools must encourage prepubescent students to explore the many possible gender identities without their parents’ knowledge. Biological males self-identifying as females must be allowed to compete against females in sports. These new causes have been wildly unpopular, arousing opposition from homosexuals as well as heterosexuals, and have led to a decline in public support for the gay rights movement. But however much the backlash has hurt the original cause, the controversies keep activists in business.
This is a bit of a gray area because of religious freedom, but generally businesses open to the general public aren't allowed to discriminate against protected classes, because that used to go rather poorly for society.
If a business refuses to bake a cake for black people's weddings, is that okay?
> It is no longer enough to protect gay students from harassment—now these students must have access in elementary school libraries to how-to manuals for anal sex.
This sounds like a bit of an exaggeration of what's going on, but I think normalizing talking about sex would be a huge boon for education. Treating it like this taboo mysterious thing is worse than being matter of fact about how it works. Sex is a fact of life, just like many other things taught at school.
> Public schools must encourage prepubescent students to explore the many possible gender identities without their parents’ knowledge.
And? Is it bad to teach things to kids now? Those other gender identities are out there, why would it be wrong to teach about?
> Biological males self-identifying as females must be allowed to compete against females in sports.
This one's iffier, I think it should come down to whatever the science says about what's a substantial advantage or not, ideally per-sport (and I'm sure some sports will have women with an advantage over men).
> These new causes have been wildly unpopular, arousing opposition from homosexuals as well as heterosexuals, and have led to a decline in public support for the gay rights movement.
[Citation needed] here for most of this. You really think requiring businesses to serve gay people is unpopular with...gay people?
Hey, Person-Who-Doesn't-Like-Me, commit to this creative project celebrating what you don't like about me. I can't wait to see it.
To the first example, it's the same as whining about restaurants being forced to serve black patrons. If you are business open to the public you should serve the public. The slippery slope is beyond obvious. Can a doctor refuse to treat gay patients? A lawyer refuse to represent gay clients? A professor refuse to teach gay students? Regardless, conservatives won this one. Business owners can discriminate based on sexuality. Hurray? Yet why is this activist bringing up a case they already won?
The next examples of "how-to" manuals in elementary schools simply isn't something that exists. Further, it's frankly cover for the real agenda, pulling out any book making even the most glancing reference to homosexuality (billy has 2 dads) or past racism (MLK existed). It's a lot of hot air and fire over books not shelved in elementary schools. Perhaps in highschool or junior high, which is age groups where more explicit texts are acceptable.
> and have led to a decline in public support for the gay rights movement.
Completely the author, a conservative that likely does not support gay rights, opinion.
> the controversies keep activists in business.
I actually agree with the author here. Yes, the controversies keep the activists in business, but WHO are the activists? The answer isn't who the author identifies.
Consider how many rightwing outlets repeated the lie "Now schools are letting kids identify as cats and poop in litter-boxes!". Which activist do you suppose started that?
This is quasi-intellectual bullshit written by a contrarian who fails to identify that social systems are dynamic, and evidently has a bias informing this (cough cough, certain pejorative terms throughout). This is spun as some sort of centrist triumph, but this is really the true voice of regression - if we stop advocating for the rights of groups who actively have their rights under attack by others, they will simply lose whatever has been achieved.
It is a somewhat interesting point w.r.t. the Dimes syndrome itself in whatever limited cases it might actually apply, however I would argue that this article is working overtime to misappropriate the term to advocate for silencing progress (while not ever implying that anti-rights groups should be seen the same).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy...
Are you gay? Black? Woman trying to prevent sexual violence? Interested in preventing smoking or reducing birth defects? Stop and look around, things are better now! Don't worry or complain any more, those problems were already taken care of!
The timeless "get a job" argument.
There's also backlash, especially as the formerly-oppressed become much more visible.
Its an activist problem more than anything else.
Anti racism activists want to end racism, not reduce it.
Anti abortion people want to end abortion, not reduce it.
It's different from March of Dimes people stuck looking for something new to do when no one has polio anymore.
The complaint that progressives move one to a new issue once they solve (or obsolete) one issue isn't some sort of weird disorder, it's reflecting the reality that one person can't solve every problem at the same time.
Also, "March of Dimes Syndrome" was invented by the Federalist, a zero credibility rag.
https://thefederalist.com/2016/09/21/social-justice-warriors...
This OP is reactionary regressive grossness, trying to smear people who are trying to solve problems.
Also witness the alt-right edgelords who made a name for themselves in the mid 20-teens Pepe the frog era try to stay relevant.
The answer is very rarely "ride off into the sunset" - often its moving goalposts.
You would never accept this logic for programmers. Should they just give up their salaries once the product is good enough?
Of course activists move onto the next problem once the problem they’ve been focusing on is solved. Similarly, I brush my teeth once I get out of the shower. I haven’t “moved the goalposts”; I’m just attending to the next priority.
But this is exactly how it works. Very few activists are activists "for good causes in general", most of them identify themselves with a very narrow set of issues and build their identity around that.
That's not a "syndrome"; it's three righteous and related causes advocated for in series because social progress happens one step at a time and activitism is often most effective if performed this way.
Shirky principle states that stakeholders will prefer solutions that keep them relevant, over solutions that would solve the problem conclusively, but in a manner that makes their existence no longer relevant.
This seems to suggest instead a tendency to solve the problem in a way that is conclusive, and thus indeed making them less relevant, but then trying to impose continued relevance by trying to overstate the importance of any remaining and ultimately trivial aspects of the problem. Which is an equally intetesting angle to consider.
I have to say though, even in the latter case, the name chosen is unfortunate, since the organisation it refers to seems to have actually done the right thing after polio was eradicated: they went after other problems (as opposed to keep campaigning about polio).
I do think the fact that humans build up careers and aren't just going to roll over and stop working or switch careers when it would be prudent for society is a good thing to note. Just as career activists move from one cause to another, so too do programmers
This specific article is a propaganda piece, commissioned, paid for, and disseminated by The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.
I won't argue with their right to spread their message, policies, and to engage in marketing exercises, but this is very much their work. As a matter of cold fact, not opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy...
ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Journal
ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Casey#Return_to_pri...