In terms of beating Jim Crow in the US and getting the black vote, can we assign shapley points to armed and unarmed factions of the movement? My rough sense is that historians are ideologically or aesthetically divided here, people on both sides (armed wing gets more shapley points vs. unarmed wing gets more shapley points) seem to have an axe to grind. Iām especially interested in how activists reasoned about coalitioning with people they disagreed with on this key point.
Actionable insights I would expect: if we hone our reasoning about social change and diversity of tactics, we can make much more intentional decisions about what ought to be in the community overton window and who to coalition with.
More broadly, I think the black civil rights movement is great to study because they had goals that were more unpopular than EA goals, so they probably learned stuff that we could use if we ever became way more unpopular than we are now.
In terms of beating Jim Crow in the US and getting the black vote, can we assign shapley points to armed and unarmed factions of the movement? My rough sense is that historians are ideologically or aesthetically divided here, people on both sides (armed wing gets more shapley points vs. unarmed wing gets more shapley points) seem to have an axe to grind. Iām especially interested in how activists reasoned about coalitioning with people they disagreed with on this key point.
Actionable insights I would expect: if we hone our reasoning about social change and diversity of tactics, we can make much more intentional decisions about what ought to be in the community overton window and who to coalition with.
More broadly, I think the black civil rights movement is great to study because they had goals that were more unpopular than EA goals, so they probably learned stuff that we could use if we ever became way more unpopular than we are now.