Divide and conquer.

Distract with inconsequential ideas while the highly impacting decisions get made without resistance.

Not a shower thought, this is fact.

This is especially true in the UK, where we have this massive class divide between the 'worthy poor' and the 'unworthy poor', where our political discourse is a tug of war between them - whereas the reality is both groups are poor and getting screwed over by the elite classes.

That is the whole point. Create or exacerbate friction between members of a society or different societies and focus their attention on each other. The more we fight each other, the more we direct our manufactured hatred toward some random stranger pointed out to us on a TV screen the better. Keep the cattle distracted and occupied.

Too general and, more importantly, true, to be posted just in this sub

Corbett's latest segment on the Canadian election summed it up well, "voting for freedom, how's that working out for you?"

BLM is a great example, and exactly as you say. There was a moment there when it looked as if the American people, as a whole, were going to get angry about cops killing citizens. Then BLM came along and everyone who's hostile to or even just suspicious of the ever-growing, ever-profitable and ever-incompetent black advocacy industry backed off. What could've been a unified front was immediately fractured.

My favorite example though is two fundamentally similar movements that were both, and not accidentally, co-opted and warped by partisans and not coincidentally condemned and ridiculed by the opposing partisans - the Tea Party movement and Occupy Wall Street.

Both of them were originally protests against the exact same thing - the increasing, and increasingly overt, cronyism between Washington and Wall Street. They weren't even just similar in that regard - they were identical. But the Tea Party movement was quickly turned into a painfully stereotypical brainless righty thing, earning the condemnation of the left, while OWS was just as quickly turned into a painfully stereotypical brainless lefty thing, earning the condemnation of the right. So even though we had people on both sides of the aisle justifiably protesting the same thing, we also had people on both sides of the aisle condemning the other side's protest, which not coincidentally meant that both of them ultimately failed.

And I'm not going to be in the least surprised if somebody responds here to rail about how <the protest aligned with their party of choice> was certainly worthwhile, but that <the protest aligned with the opposing party> was <predictable string of shallow characterizations>.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/960/986/d28.gif

that's cool much respect

the only place i've seen reference to this idea of "third-wave feminism" is on places like Voat, where people harp on about its evils. why does the opposition keep bringing it up? perhaps the "opposition" is really just the elites trying to create false divisions among people, as you say.

So you're saying the opposition to feminism is being duped by the elites into thinking it's important to oppose it?

Give the Wheel a Spin

Exactly why SJWs only focus on the petty shit and never offer real solutions to real problems.

It's the old Divide and Conquer game

That's because keeping people divided against themselves is the name of the game. God forbid they realize who the real enemy is.

why would anyone be opposed to feminism?

Even in the case of gay marriage as you say, they opposed it bitterly until the end. Then, they used it as a political tool. "Look at me! I support this. Ignore the rest of my corrupt platform, I want gays to wed!"

Ooh, this is too eerily true.